Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

This sounds very familiar...

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    This sounds very familiar...

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/preview_070403.html

    O'Neal Wants To Go With Flow By Conrad Brunner | Updated April 3, 2007
    There are two Pacers teams these days, the one with Jermaine O'Neal and the one without.

    The latter group played one of the team's best games in months in a 100-99 victory over San Antonio Sunday night in Conseco Fieldhouse. Though O'Neal is expected to be back in the lineup Tuesday night against Detroit, he doesn't want his teammates to change their approach.


    "Everybody went out and played well and was very, very aggressive," O'Neal said. "That's what we need. We don't need a situation where we're coming down and throwing me the ball every time. That's not real good basketball. Troy (Murphy), Mike (Dunleavy), Jamaal (Tinsley), (Danny) Granger, everybody who was in there just turned it up another notch and it should be that way. That's good basketball.


    "We shouldn't defer to anybody. Obviously, in late-game situations we're going to draw up plays for certain people. But the way our team is built, in order to win, we need to have everybody contribute. Hopefully we can continue with that same effort regardless of whether I play or not."


    Though the Pacers played well in O'Neal's absence Sunday, it was an exception; in fact, it was their first victory without O'Neal since Dec. 26 against Houston. Bothered by ongoing pain in his left knee and a recently sprained left ankle, O'Neal has missed five of the last 13 games, including two of the last three. He's listed as questionable for tonight's game with Detroit, as is Tinsley, whose right elbow was injured on the final play of the San Antonio game when he was hit while deflecting a pass out of bounds. Jeff Foster, who left after the first quarter Sunday, will miss the game with back spasms.


    O'Neal has had some brilliant performances even with the injuries, totaling 71 points in consecutive games against Chicago and Cleveland. But he also has struggled mightily. Aside from those two big games, O'Neal has shot 33.7 percent from the field in his other six appearances since March 7, when he aggravated the knee injury in Utah.


    It would behoove the Pacers, then, to heed O'Neal's suggestion to maintain the kind of offensive flow that was successful against the Spurs rather than leaning too heavily on their primary low-post presence.


    "The circumstances dictate that this is going to be a day-to-day situation till the end of the year, whenever that is," said Coach Rick Carlisle. "We're going to have to just roll with it. Any time we get a chance to get him out there, great. If he can't, the other guys have got to go out there and battle without him.


    "We've always had as one of our main goals to have a certain balance. We're trying to spread it around. … A lot of times our guys just come down and look for him. In terms of their decision-making, that's going to have to be part of it. Balance is something we desperately need and we're going to have to keep working toward."


    O'Neal said he won't consider shutting down for the rest of the season as long as the Pacers are in the playoff hunt.


    "I always feel I can go out and do something," he said. "I may not be able to play at the level I'm used to playing at, but … it's a difficult decision you've got to make, especially when your team's in the position we're in, trying to fight for a playoff spot and every game is really important. It's difficult. It's very difficult.


    "I don't know how to quit."


    Two games back of seventh-place New Jersey and 1½ behind eighth-place Orlando, the Pacers (32-41) play five of their next seven on the road after facing the Pistons.
    KEY MATCHUPS
    The addition of Chris Webber causes big decision-making challenges because all five starters are scoring threats, which discourages double-teaming or trapping. Chauncey Billups (23.8 points in the last four) and Rasheed Wallace (19.3 in the last four) both have been on a roll, as has sixth man Antonio McDyess (16.0 points and 9.0 rebounds on 62.5 percent shooting in the last six) as the Pistons continue to evolve into a more potent offensive team.
    TRENDS
    Jamaal Tinsley has averaged 18.0 points, 8.0 assists, 6.0 rebounds and 2.0 steals in the last four games. … Troy Murphy has averaged 15.0 points and 5.5 rebounds while shooting 48.9 percent in the last four. … In his last four starts, Murphy has averaged 18.0 points, 7.0 rebounds and 55.8 percent shooting. … Danny Granger has averaged 12.9 points, 3.1 rebounds and 1.8 assists in the last eight. … Jeff Foster has averaged 2.5 points and 6.3 rebounds in starting the last eight. … Mike Dunleavy has averaged 15.3 points, 5.5 rebounds, 2.7 assists and 1.5 steals in the last six. … Ike Diogu's 18-point, 13-rebound performance against the Spurs followed a five-game stretch in which he totaled seven points and one DNP-CD. … Darrell Armstrong has shot 6-of-19 (31.6 percent) in the last five.
    SERIES
    On the strength of two early-season victories, the Pacers will be looking to clinch the series. Indiana won 101-90 on Dec. 13 in Conseco Fieldhouse as O'Neal and Tinsley combined for 47 points. The Pacers won 93-92 on Dec. 29 in Detroit – prior to Sunday's 100-99 victory over San Antonio, their most recent one-point win of the year – on Darrell Armstrong's free throw with nine-tenths of a second remaining. The Pistons won 95-87 on Jan. 28 at Detroit as the Pacers wiped out a 16-point third-quarter deficit to tie it up in the fourth before fading down the stretch.
    INJURIES
    Pacers - F Jermaine O'Neal (sore left knee, sprained left ankle) and G Jamaal Tinsley (sore right knee, sore right elbow) are questionable; C Jeff Foster (back spasms) and G Marquis Daniels (sore left knee) are out.
    Pistons - None reported.
    I swear, every time we win a game with JO out, he makes this statement upon his return.

    Btw, it looks like Foster is definitely out tonight, and Tins may follow suit. Ugh.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: This sounds very familiar...

    JO says the same thing every year

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: This sounds very familiar...

      Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
      it looks like Foster is definitely out tonight, and Tins may follow suit. Ugh.

      Foster ailing with back spasms
      April 3, 2007

      INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Pacers center Jeff Foster was not expected to play against the Detroit Pistons on Tuesday night because of back spasms.
      Foster injured his back March 13 at Minnesota and missed two games after that. He started the next eight games but played only nine minutes before leaving in the first quarter Sunday in a 100-99 win over San Antonio. Foster is averaging 4.1 points and 8.1 rebounds. Jermaine O'Neal, who missed the game Sunday with a sore left knee, and Jamaal Tinsley, who bumped his right elbow on the final play of the game, were listed as questionable for the Pistons game Tuesday night.




      http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns
      This is the darkest timeline.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: This sounds very familiar...

        Well, either RC, JO, the other Pacers, or all of the above somehow never do what's necessary to keep the flow of these sans JO wins going. All I know is that against the Spurs everyone was looking for their O, they were all pretty involved, and the offense as a whole just looked more fluid both in the half court and in transition. Would be nice if this ever happened on any consistent basis.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: This sounds very familiar...

          A center with back spasms?

          O'Neal hopes to fit in?

          Tinsley may be out?

          All we need is an ironic motto, an arrest and one of the Detroit fans to throw a cup.

          3 Seasons in One Night: the Ultimate Edition.
          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: This sounds very familiar...

            Am I the only one who's glad Foster's out now that JO's back? It's not that I don't like Jeff, but at this point it's far more exciting to see Ike and David play. It would be awful to reward Ike for his game against the Spurs by saying "Now that JO and Jeff are back, we don't really need you. Have fun on the bench."
            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

            - Salman Rushdie

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: This sounds very familiar...

              What I want to know is, why do people believe in their theory that JO threw a fit 8 games in to have everyone throw him the ball every time, when there are no quotes that 100% confirm their conclusion, but they will undoubtedly ignore this one that's right here in the open?

              "Everybody went out and played well and was very, very aggressive," O'Neal said. "That's what we need. We don't need a situation where we're coming down and throwing me the ball every time. That's not real good basketball.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: This sounds very familiar...

                Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                It would be awful to reward Ike for his game against the Spurs by saying "Now that JO and Jeff are back, we don't really need you. Have fun on the bench."
                Would you really be surprised if Ike only received garbage minutes tonight?

                I wouldn't be....even with Foster out.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: This sounds very familiar...

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  Would you really be surprised if Ike only received garbage minutes tonight?

                  I wouldn't be....even with Foster out.
                  No, I wouldn't be surprised. That's why I'm glad Foster's out. It might just force Carlisle into doing the right thing.
                  "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                  - Salman Rushdie

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: This sounds very familiar...

                    Originally posted by Mal View Post
                    What I want to know is, why do people believe in their theory that JO threw a fit 8 games in to have everyone throw him the ball every time, when there are no quotes that 100% confirm their conclusion, but they will undoubtedly ignore this one that's right here in the open?
                    Which means either:

                    a) JO is full of crap, or
                    b) Rick is a hardhead of epic proportions

                    I'd put the odds at 50-50 either way.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: This sounds very familiar...

                      Originally posted by Mal View Post
                      What I want to know is, why do people believe in their theory that JO threw a fit 8 games in to have everyone throw him the ball every time, when there are no quotes that 100% confirm their conclusion, but they will undoubtedly ignore this one that's right here in the open?
                      I agree. And tonight JO was not offense dominant, passed the ball around well (2 assists right at the rim, where they caught it I mean) and yet still was their best offensive player by far.

                      He gutted it out and put up a solid FG%, mostly jumpers even.

                      Also add to this that Tinsley went too and put up 9 assists in the first quarter.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: This sounds very familiar...

                        Originally posted by Mal View Post
                        What I want to know is, why do people believe in their theory that JO threw a fit 8 games in to have everyone throw him the ball every time, when there are no quotes that 100% confirm their conclusion, but they will undoubtedly ignore this one that's right here in the open?
                        Here is what I think we know from that heated discussion after the Boston game. JO went into the coaches office (either Bird or DW were there also, I forget who) JO was very, very upset about the offense - he wanted the ball more in the low post (up until then the Pacers were running a lot of pick and rolls with JO and a lot, lot less pounding the ball into him in the low post.

                        That is pretty much it. Does that mean he wanted more touches overall - I don't think we can say that. He wanted to get the ball in the low post instead of in face up situations.

                        We also know that from that point the offense did change. His touches in the low post went way up. (did his overall touches go way up? - I don't know) Al got the ball rarely in the low post - he soon was moved to small forward.


                        I never figured that JO demanded getting the ball on every play. But he did IMO question Rick's authority, the players know what happened - JO was upset he went to the coaches and management and he was able to get the offense changed. I think that hurt Rick's credibility with the rest of the players. I know it hurt Al's feelings, ego - what ever you want to call it, - he couldn't go to Rick or TPTB and get the offense changed.


                        So I believe it doesn't matter whether what JO wanted was the best for the team or not - and it doesn't really matter what JO wanted - he got his way. That sort of thing kills team chemistry and it hurts the coaches credibility with the other players.

                        That is why I'm upset about what JO did. And I don't care what he said. He got his way.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: This sounds very familiar...

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          Here is what I think we know from that heated discussion after the Boston game. JO went into the coaches office (either Bird or DW were there also, I forget who) JO was very, very upset about the offense - he wanted the ball more in the low post ................

                          So I believe it doesn't matter whether what JO wanted was the best for the team or not - and it doesn't really matter what JO wanted - he got his way. That sort of thing kills team chemistry and it hurts the coaches credibility with the other players.

                          That is why I'm upset about what JO did. And I don't care what he said. He got his way.
                          Exactly as UB has posted is the answer. Only 8 games into the season he was griping about how the offense was ran for him. Secondly we would have never heard this even happened if JO didn't vent so loudly. And once again partial blame goes to Carlisle, Bird and Walsh for not letting JO know who was in charge.
                          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: This sounds very familiar...

                            Good points.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: This sounds very familiar...

                              BU and BWR said what I believe as well.

                              Whether he demanded MORE touches was not the issue and I never said it was. It was that he demanded his role in the offense change to his liking... with no apparent regard to what might be better for his teammates or the team in general. Let alone what management wanted to establish. JO couldn't sacrifice any of his own game to hopefully improve the team nor was he apparently even willing to give it much of a try (Blowing up after 8 games).

                              Also, let's not forget this team was looking to build chemistry after what had happened last season and was trying to find a way to utilize all their parts when this happened... at only 8 games into the season.

                              After this, Harrington Al made a comment that implied this had been building with JO and things weren't smooth around the team even before game 8.

                              You do not do what JO did. The timing was wrong. The method was wrong. And if he was clearly agitated with his role prior to that and showing it to his teammates then that was just as wrong. This team needed order, he totally destroyed any chance of it and undermined any chance Carlisle had to re-establish his authority after last season.

                              --
                              I'm going to add... TPTB didn't help things (as far as establishing order) by not telling JO to STFU and play. They could've always told him the door is open to ask questions about what they are doing and why so that he can better understand his role and the big picture. BUT he can save his demands for the off season.

                              But instead they gave in. Giving in was just as wrong as what JO did. There only reason I can see for giving in was to keep the peace with JO and allow this season to be a showcase for the first/best trade they can find for him.

                              ...Or else our complete management consortium and coaching structure is totally spineless.

                              -Bball
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X