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

ESPN “THE LAST DANCE” TONIGHT AT 9pm

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Not sure about how the documentary makes the bulls owner look like some innocent guy, I mean he was part of all that s*** and had the last word most of the time.
    Yeah he let Krause get away with too much and Pippen just got screwed. Yeah I get that Pippen signed the deal, but when that deal was signed no one - including Reinsdorf - had any idea just how much the NBA would explode in popularity and revenue in the coming years. They could have done something to make it more right with Pippen instead of letting it become a situation where Pippen grew to pretty much hate the organization at the end.

    The Bulls organization comes across as very cold in this documentary, which is no surprise. That’s why they’ve mostly been total crap since 1998, aside from getting incredibly lucky to win the Rose lottery.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

      Yeah he let Krause get away with too much and Pippen just got screwed. Yeah I get that Pippen signed the deal, but when that deal was signed no one - including Reinsdorf - had any idea just how much the NBA would explode in popularity and revenue in the coming years. They could have done something to make it more right with Pippen instead of letting it become a situation where Pippen grew to pretty much hate the organization at the end.

      The Bulls organization comes across as very cold in this documentary, which is no surprise. That’s why they’ve mostly been total crap since 1998, aside from getting incredibly lucky to win the Rose lottery.
      Yeah he is the guy watching the house burn down and looks the other way.

      My guess is he makes more money now than when MJ was winning titles that’s the biggest motivation for a lot of this cheap owners
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #18
        Draymond Green: Warriors had 'elephant in room' in Kevin Durant

        https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...m-kevin-durant

        Green noted how interested he was when the documentary revealed that Jordan played golf with Boston Celtics guard Danny Ainge between Games 1 and 2 of the first round of the 1986 Eastern Conference playoffs, given how many former NBA players criticize this era's players for being too friendly with one another.

        "The crazy thing about that is ... I've heard so many of the older guys talk about, 'Oh, this guy's working out with that guy' or 'Why are they friends?'" Green said. "I've always thought the s--- was ridiculous when they speak like that or even think that way; I think it's f---ing pathetic. But to see that, and MJ, [whom] they all got the utmost respect for, who bust all of their *** every single night, was golfing with Danny Ainge in the playoffs. This isn't even a regular-season game. This is in the playoffs after losing Game 1. [Jordan] is arguably the most competitive player to ever play the game of basketball. He's golfing with the opponent. I don't know, man, that [story] caught me off guard for sure. I had to rewind it in that moment and made sure I f---ing heard it correctly."

        Comment


        • #19
          Reggie Miller was on Dan Patrick's show yesterday to discuss this documentary. The entire segment is on YouTube so everyone should check it out. Interesting stuff. Reggie just doesn't like Jordan very much lol. You can tell that the 1998 series still genuinely haunts Reggie and that he's dreading the episodes which touch on it. Reggie said he was pretty much only watching the documentary Sunday night because he was obligated to discuss it with DP. He said he didn't have to revist everything because he lived it.

          If the Pacers win that Game 7, then Jordan would have walked off his homecourt in defeat. It would have been a shocking scene. The famous last shot in Utah would have never happened. The Pacers were this close to dramatically changing one of the most famous moments in NBA history and it still just kills Reggie that they let that Game 7 get away.

          Peyton Manning was also on Dan Patrick's show yesterday (also on YouTube). In one day, Patrick had the two most famous athletes in Indy history on his show (Reggie is a regular contributor). Patrick's show is the best.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-21-2020, 07:57 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by idioteque View Post
            I loved the first two episodes of the documentary, the footage, music, and interviews were all just fantastic. I'm a 90's kid though so it wasn't hard to hit the nostalgia sweet spot for me.

            Interesting to see footage of MSA during the middle of the pre-Reggie, 1980's doldrums Pacers. I'm sure it was partially 1980's camera quality, but wow that placed looked desolate. A little surprising it was that bad since I believe both teams were fighting for the final playoff spot in the East, but I guess it just shows how little Indiana cared about the Pacers during the time.

            As Sollozzo said, the Bulls have been a very boom or bust franchise, they've been irrelevant since Rose got injured and were irrelevant for around a decade even before that. As a Pacers fan, I'd probably take that boom and bust cycle over our perpetual place in the NBA's upper-middle class, though.
            I'm not sure their histories have all been that different lately. Since the 2000-2001 season:

            Bulls: 11 playoff appearances, 4 second round appearances, 1 conference Finals appearance
            Pacers: 14 playoff appearances, 5 second round appearances, 3 conference Finals appearances.

            If you took that down to the last 15 seasons:

            Bulls: 10 playoff appearances, 4 second round appearances, 1 conference Finals appearance
            Pacers: 10 playoff appearances, 3 second round appearances, 2 conference Finals appearances.

            While there have certainly been differences between the two and certainly the Pacers have never been worst in the league bad as Chicago has been a few times, I think that difference is probably overstated. Of course, part of what may color that opinion is the thought that the Bulls still appear to be a mess with no real shot to return to relevance anytime soon, so these numbers in 3-4 seasons might be more dramatically different.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Reggie Miller was on Dan Patrick's show yesterday to discuss this documentary. The entire segment is on YouTube so everyone should check it out. Interesting stuff. Reggie just doesn't like Jordan very much lol. You can tell that the 1998 series still genuinely haunts Reggie and that he's dreading the episodes which touch on it. Reggie said he was pretty much only watching the documentary Sunday night because he was obligated to discuss it with DP. He said he didn't have to revist everything because he lived it.

              If the Pacers win that Game 7, then Jordan would have walked off his homecourt in defeat. It would have been a shocking scene. The famous last shot in Utah would have never happened. The Pacers were this close to dramatically changing one of the most famous moments in NBA history and it still just kills Reggie that they let that Game 7 get away.

              Peyton Manning was also on Dan Patrick's show yesterday (also on YouTube). In one day, Patrick had the two most famous athletes in Indy history on his show (Reggie is a regular contributor). Patrick's show is the best.
              Thanks, I'll have to check that out. Interested to hear what specifically Reggie says about Jordan - in Reggie's book (published before Jordan came back, during the Rockets championships) he has a lot of love for Jordan, says the league isn't the same without him, and I believe even expresses some hope that he'll come back. But I think Reggie was saying all of that under the premise that he wanted a crack at Jordan and believed he could take him down, so I could see him being a little less sanguine all these years later. Pacers had big opportunities to win Game 7 and also could have at least made the 2000 NBA Finals a 7 game series if a couple things had gone their way and Kobe wasn't ready at that exact moment to blossom into a superstar - it's rough being a Pacers fan sometimes.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                I'm not sure their histories have all been that different lately. Since the 2000-2001 season:

                Bulls: 11 playoff appearances, 4 second round appearances, 1 conference Finals appearance
                Pacers: 14 playoff appearances, 5 second round appearances, 3 conference Finals appearances.

                If you took that down to the last 15 seasons:

                Bulls: 10 playoff appearances, 4 second round appearances, 1 conference Finals appearance
                Pacers: 10 playoff appearances, 3 second round appearances, 2 conference Finals appearances.

                While there have certainly been differences between the two and certainly the Pacers have never been worst in the league bad as Chicago has been a few times, I think that difference is probably overstated. Of course, part of what may color that opinion is the thought that the Bulls still appear to be a mess with no real shot to return to relevance anytime soon, so these numbers in 3-4 seasons might be more dramatically different.

                Sure, if you start at 00-01, which trims off two Pacers ECF appearances in 99 and 00 after Jordan retired, or if you start at last 15 years which trims off a Pacers ECF appearance in 2004. It's all depends on what the arbitrary starting point is.

                Since Jordan retired - which was the start of a new era for the Bulls franchise - the Pacers have made the ECF's 5 times and the Bulls have made it 1 time.

                There was the Jordan era for Chicago and the Reggie era for the Pacers. The Bulls have made the ECF's 1 time since the MJ era ended. The Pacers have made it 3 times since the prime Reggie era ended (he was of course on the 2004 team, but not anywhere near his prime)

                The Bulls had an absolutely awful stretch from 98-04 (maybe the worst overall team in the league) and then had some decent success with the Heinrich/Gordon/Deng team. They got super super super lucky to win the Rose lottery which led to the 1 ECF appearance, then they were able to hang on a bit with the pieces they put around him after Rose got hurt. They're awful again now that Butler left.

                The point isn't necessarily how the Bulls compare to the Pacers. The point is that the Bulls have never been able to parlay the success of the Jordan era into anything resembling a consistent top-tier NBA team for a long stretch. The Bulls have the Jordan nostalgia, the classic uniforms/logo which were sold worldwide, and a massive media market. In theory, it shouldn't be that hard to use that to your advantage at some point over a 20 year stretch, but they've never been able to really sell it to anyone other than Carlos Boozer and Ron Mercer. Players grew up idolozing Jordan, yet there has never really been a big name star who wanted to go out of their way to play there even though they've had cap space in a couple of years where big FA's were available (2000 & 2010).

                The documentary shows that the reason for this isn't some big mystery - they're viewed by players as being an incredibly cold organization who forced the MJ era to end.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-21-2020, 08:37 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by idioteque View Post

                  Thanks, I'll have to check that out. Interested to hear what specifically Reggie says about Jordan - in Reggie's book (published before Jordan came back, during the Rockets championships) he has a lot of love for Jordan, says the league isn't the same without him, and I believe even expresses some hope that he'll come back. But I think Reggie was saying all of that under the premise that he wanted a crack at Jordan and believed he could take him down, so I could see him being a little less sanguine all these years later. Pacers had big opportunities to win Game 7 and also could have at least made the 2000 NBA Finals a 7 game series if a couple things had gone their way and Kobe wasn't ready at that exact moment to blossom into a superstar - it's rough being a Pacers fan sometimes.
                  Yeah I still thumb through Reggie's book every once in a while. You're right, he even mentions that he talks to Jordan some. This book was in the same season where Jordan's comeback game was in Indy and it's awesome to read Reggie's recap of that. Every Pacers fan should have this book: "I Love Being the Enemy" - its on Amazon.

                  I think you're right - Reggie wanted a crack at him. He finally got a crack in the playoffs and his team came closer than anyone else did in the Bulls title seasons. It has to be haunting - ESPECIALLY since the Pacers winning that series would have changed such a dramatic moment in NBA history. Imagine if Reggie got to live the rest of his life saying that his team ended the Michael Jordan era in Chicago?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Also - as far is the Pacers/Bulls comparisons are concerned, it deserves mentioning that in recent years, the Pacers faced a prime Lebron James 5 TIMES while the Bulls only played him twice. The Bulls were dusted 4-1 both times: 2011 ECF's with Rose and 2013 semis without him. The Pacers OTOH gave Lebron two Game 7 series in 2013 & 2018, and two 6 game series in 2012 and 2014. The only year they got dusted was 2017 sweep.

                    This is very relevant since Lebron owned the East for 8 years. The Pacers competed hard against the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat. OTOH, the Heat easily disposed that 2011 Bulls club.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                      Yeah he is the guy watching the house burn down and looks the other way.

                      My guess is he makes more money now than when MJ was winning titles that’s the biggest motivation for a lot of this cheap owners

                      Reinsdorf talks about the Bulls as if they were just some run-of-the-mill construction or trucking company that he owned. He didn't really act as if he owned the most famous sports team in the world. Seems like the type of owner who spends most of his time in the office checking balance sheets. Not ever making things right with Pippen after the league exploded in revenue was some cold ****. Freaking Luke Longley and Ron Harper were making more than him in 97-98. Reinsdorf had a "tough luck, you signed the contract when you were a naive younger guy and have to suck it up" attitude as if Scottie Pippen were just some business supplier that he worked a good deal on instead of a top 3-5 NBA player.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Didn't Reinsdorf tell Pippen NOT to sign that contract ??

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                          Didn't Reinsdorf tell Pippen NOT to sign that contract ??
                          Yes he did, but even he would have had no idea just how much the revenues would explode by over the next several years. So it got to a point where it was just laughable how little Pippen made.

                          Sure, Reinsdorf and the organization had every right to stick to their guns because it was a mutually agreed to contract. But that led to Pippen ultimately despising the organization and contributed to the Bulls having a reputation of being a cold uncaring franchise which has haunted them in free agency ever since. Probably would have been a much better business decision to make it right with Pippen.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-21-2020, 11:54 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I know it was a thing for a while in the NFL to 're-negotiate' contracts - but was it ever a thing in the NBA ?? If not - what option did the Bulls have ?? Pippen wanted the security - so he has to deal with the consequences. Yes - it was a crap deal for him in the last few years, but it was his call at the beginning.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                              I know it was a thing for a while in the NFL to 're-negotiate' contracts - but was it ever a thing in the NBA ?? If not - what option did the Bulls have ?? Pippen wanted the security - so he has to deal with the consequences. Yes - it was a crap deal for him in the last few years, but it was his call at the beginning.
                              For starters, they could have extended Pippen for a fair price going into 97-98 as a thank you for everything he did. Instead, they included him in trade talks and essentially said, “thanks for all the dirt cheap years, now you, Phil, and even MJ can get the hell out so Krause can show what a genius he is.”

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The amazing part about this is that Chicago could have won the year after that, imagine a Pippen/Jordan only playing a short amount of games.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X