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

Derek Fisher Waived by his request

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

  • #61
    Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    100% of players want to play for a contender and win a championship, but how many pull a stunt like Fisher did last year with the Rockets? Most of them suck it up. For example, James Posey was a solid role player for Heat and Celtic teams that won NBA championships. He then signed with a Hornets team in 08-09 that had Chris Paul and was a game away from the Conference Finals a year before. Yet when he was traded to Indiana in 2010 (a team that hadn't made the playoffs in 5 years), did you see him go to the Pacers and ask for his release? No way. He sucked it up like a professional and played here, even though I doubt this is where he wanted to play at the end of his career.

    Fisher has an enormous sense of entitlement. Most players want to play for a contender, but Fisher is in a tiny minority in that he was actually bold enough to ask for the Rockets to release him. Sorry, but being a role player on some Laker championship teams doesn't mean he should be forgiven in the court of public opinion for that stunt he pulled on Houston.
    Posey "sucked it up" all right.

    We clearly would have been better off been better off with a buyout.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      100% of players want to play for a contender and win a championship, but how many pull a stunt like Fisher did last year with the Rockets? Most of them suck it up. For example, James Posey was a solid role player for Heat and Celtic teams that won NBA championships. He then signed with a Hornets team in 08-09 that had Chris Paul and was a game away from the Conference Finals a year before. Yet when he was traded to Indiana in 2010 (a team that hadn't made the playoffs in 5 years), did you see him go to the Pacers and ask for his release? No way. He sucked it up like a professional and played here, even though I doubt this is where he wanted to play at the end of his career.

      Fisher has an enormous sense of entitlement. Most players want to play for a contender, but Fisher is in a tiny minority in that he was actually bold enough to ask for the Rockets to release him. Sorry, but being a role player on some Laker championship teams doesn't mean he should be forgiven in the court of public opinion for that stunt he pulled on Houston.
      Mike Bibby did the EXACT same thing in 2011. He was traded to Washington from Atlanta, and took a buyout to join Miami for the minimum. He gave up about $6 million in salary (his entire salary for 2011-12) to join a contender.

      The point you've continuously missed this entire thread is that Fisher gave up a significant amount of money every time he was bought out. As I've already pointed out, it adds up to about $9 to $10 million total. It's partially to be closer to his family and his sick daughter(the horror!!!), and partially to join a contender (even though he probably rejoins the Lakers if that's allowed in the CBA).

      If Posey wanted to give up $13 million when he joined the Pacers to go sign with a contender, and the Pacers were okay with it, then there's nothing wrong with that. My guess is he didn't want to give up the money, so he stayed.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

        Originally posted by shags View Post
        Mike Bibby did the EXACT same thing in 2011. He was traded to Washington from Atlanta, and took a buyout to join Miami for the minimum. He gave up about $6 million in salary (his entire salary for 2011-12) to join a contender.

        The point you've continuously missed this entire thread is that Fisher gave up a significant amount of money every time he was bought out. As I've already pointed out, it adds up to about $9 to $10 million total. It's partially to be closer to his family and his sick daughter(the horror!!!), and partially to join a contender (even though he probably rejoins the Lakers if that's allowed in the CBA).

        If Posey wanted to give up $13 million when he joined the Pacers to go sign with a contender, and the Pacers were okay with it, then there's nothing wrong with that. My guess is he didn't want to give up the money, so he stayed.
        I don't care how much money Fisher left on the table. I care that an NBA team traded for his services only for him to arrogantly snub his nose at playing there. I don't look at this solely through the prism of Derek Fisher. An NBA team made a trade for him under the impression that he would play basketball for them like most players do when they are traded.

        “After much discussion and expressing their desire to welcome Derek to their team this season as well as the 2012-2013 season, the Houston Rockets and Derek have negotiated a buyout.

        “Derek’s desire to win a sixth championship is what drives him and will continue to drive him as he moves forward.

        “We thank the Houston Rockets front office for their interest, time and their absolute professionalism.”


        http://blog.chron.com/ultimaterocket...-he-be-missed/

        That was the statement from Fisher's own publicist. Clearly Houston wanted him to play there, which makes sense considering Lowry missed almost 20 games last year. True, they could have played hardball and told Fisher "tough luck", but what's the point of forcing someone to stay who clearly didn't want to be there? It just doesn't look good when the head of the NBPA does something like that. What is so bad about saying that this guy has an extreme sense of entitlement? I'm not judging him on a personal level, but his professional behavior last year was that of someone with a large ego. "Derek's desire to win a sixth championship", as if he's Jordan or something......

        Yeah, Bibby did it once, but this is Fisher's third time. Everyone gets some benefit of the doubt when it happens one time, but three times? Is there another player in NBA history that has asked for three releases? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt with his daughter five years ago, but it's impossible for his daughter to have factored into his decision last year. Moving from Houston to Oklahoma City has nothing to do with your daughter in Los Angeles.








        Last year had zero to do with being closer to his daughter. Oklahoma City is worlds away from Los Angeles, just like Houston.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
          And probably like 99% of players in the NBA. That's silly, who wouldn't want to play for a contender? Seriously, why are people making excuses for him?
          He doesn't need excuses. He didn't do anything wrong.

          Sure 99% of players in the NBA want to join contenders, but the contenders have to want those players. Fisher happens to be a player (because of his experience..not skill..) who contenders tend to want. Thus, he has leverage.

          I just absolutely hate that fans have no consideration for players...and think that a player doing whats best for himself and his family makes them a dbag.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
            He doesn't need excuses. He didn't do anything wrong.

            Sure 99% of players in the NBA want to join contenders, but the contenders have to want those players. Fisher happens to be a player (because of his experience..not skill..) who contenders tend to want. Thus, he has leverage.

            I just absolutely hate that fans have no consideration for players...and think that a player doing whats best for himself and his family makes them a dbag.
            I have stayed mum until now, but that last line irks me.

            I wont use the word hate as I think it is strong, but I dislike how so many think calling a spade a spade is some how insulting a player.

            I have no problem with your opinion, I just 100% disagree with it. I especially disagree with it considering he is the head of the NBAPA and has done it THREE times. Say what you want, but tell me how any other player can be told not to pull this crap when the head of the PA has done it.....and not just once.

            Basically what Sollozzo said:

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            I don't care how much money Fisher left on the table. I care that an NBA team traded for his services only for him to arrogantly snub his nose at playing there. I don't look at this solely through the prism of Derek Fisher. An NBA team made a trade for him under the impression that he would play basketball for them like most players do when they are traded.
            ....
            That was the statement from Fisher's own publicist. Clearly Houston wanted him to play there, which makes sense considering Lowry missed almost 20 games last year. True, they could have played hardball and told Fisher "tough luck", but what's the point of forcing someone to stay who clearly didn't want to be there? It just doesn't look good when the head of the NBPA does something like that. What is so bad about saying that this guy has an extreme sense of entitlement? I'm not judging him on a personal level, but his professional behavior last year was that of someone with a large ego. "Derek's desire to win a sixth championship", as if he's Jordan or something......

            Yeah, Bibby did it once, but this is Fisher's third time. Everyone gets some benefit of the doubt when it happens one time, but three times? Is there another player in NBA history that has asked for three releases? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt with his daughter five years ago, but it's impossible for his daughter to have factored into his decision last year. Moving from Houston to Oklahoma City has nothing to do with your daughter in Los Angeles.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

              Originally posted by Sookie View Post
              He doesn't need excuses. He didn't do anything wrong.

              Sure 99% of players in the NBA want to join contenders, but the contenders have to want those players. Fisher happens to be a player (because of his experience..not skill..) who contenders tend to want. Thus, he has leverage.

              I just absolutely hate that fans have no consideration for players...and think that a player doing whats best for himself and his family makes them a dbag.
              I disagree.

              You view is great is you are an agent, but if you are a GM in the NBA and every time I get traded I say "yeah, not so much. Ill eat some money, but I want to leave and go to a team that may win. I am better then being on a crappy team. To hell with changing the culture year"

              Sorry, as a GM that would **** me off. And to have the NBAPA President do that....THREE times.....yeah, not cool.

              PS. I had no problem with him leaving originally because of his daughter. Go pull up old threads if you dont believe me. But this is diffrent. And its wrong.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                I just absolutely hate that fans have no consideration for players...and think that a player doing whats best for himself and his family makes them a dbag.
                Doing it once was "meh." Doing it twice was eyebrow raising worthy. Doing it three times? Yeah, that's a set pattern.

                Players want loyalty from teams every time they ask for that extra dime. The head of the NBPA changing teams like he changes his underwear, isn't a real good idea.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

                  Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                  I disagree.

                  You view is great is you are an agent, but if you are a GM in the NBA and every time I get traded I say "yeah, not so much. Ill eat some money, but I want to leave and go to a team that may win. I am better then being on a crappy team. To hell with changing the culture year"

                  Sorry, as a GM that would **** me off. And to have the NBAPA President do that....THREE times.....yeah, not cool.

                  PS. I had no problem with him leaving originally because of his daughter. Go pull up old threads if you dont believe me. But this is diffrent. And its wrong.
                  It's just a contract. There are no moral obligations within a contract, you can break it if you are willing to pay for it. Fisher apparently is.

                  Derek Fisher, after winning 5 championships with his team, was traded to a crappy team in his old playing age. If you want to put moral obligations on Fisher for asking to get out of a contract, than you have to put them on the Lakers GM..for not being loyal to the player. (This situation seems totally different. Dallas is obviously a very good team, this was personal...)

                  and as much as people say "well, two wrongs don't make a right." No one says anything about the Lakers doing what they did. (Some even advocate doing that to Danny. ) It's good business. It's seen to be in their rights to do it. And it is. But it's completely in Fisher's right to do what Fisher did. (As it is for any other player. If they want to give up their money to get out of their contract, that's fine. )

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

                    I have the right to call you dirty names. No matter how much I do it, it's still not morally or ethically upright. Whether or not he has the right to do it, isn't the point. No one is saying he doesn't.

                    Dirty and unethical tactics get justified as "just doing business" every day. This is one example.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I have the right to call you dirty names. No matter how much I do it, it's still not morally or ethically upright. Whether or not he has the right to do it, isn't the point.

                      Dirty and unethical tactics get justified as "just doing business" every day. This is one example.
                      My argument was that he wasn't morally obligated to do it.

                      If a team isn't morally obligated not to trade a player who has been loyal to the team for years, then a player isn't morally obligated to ask out of his contract, especially if he's willing to pay for it.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

                        And my arugment is that it's not the ethical thing to do, even if it's within his rights to do.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

                          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                          It's just a contract. There are no moral obligations within a contract, you can break it if you are willing to pay for it. Fisher apparently is.
                          Sure, I guess if you use the logic of a contract is only as strong as the paper its writen on.

                          Me, personally, I would rather be a man of my word and honor my contract. I expect my employer to do so, so I figure I may as well reciprocate.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

                            Sounds to me like a case of a player thinking he still wants to play, then finding out he would rather be close to his family. I am no Fisher fan, but lets call a spade a spade and not over think the situation.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              Sounds to me like a case of a player thinking he still wants to play, then finding out he would rather be close to his family. I am no Fisher fan, but lets call a spade a spade and not over think the situation.
                              Pretty much what I said....

                              What happens when he joins the Lakers or Mavericks or [insert contender here]. I guess we will just have to revisit this thread if/when that happens.

                              PS. I love the phrase call a spade a spade. I seem to be using that phrase a lot lately.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Derek Fisher Waived by his request

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                And my arugment is that it's not the ethical thing to do, even if it's within his rights to do.
                                This is my view as well. The question is not about legality, its about why some of us have such a low opinion of Fisher's character.


                                "If you are willing to take the consequences then you can do what you want" is not a strong moral argument. A person can be willing to serve his jail time for rape or murder, but it's still wrong. Fisher can choose to make a financial transaction, but his willingness to buy his way out of an obligation (let alone throwing out "family concerns" to help legitimize it) tarnishes his character.


                                Perhaps he has the "Brett Favre Syndrom". He just can't make up his mind what he wants to do.
                                This is actually a great example, but I suspect not for the reasons Tom might have thought. Favre was reported to have wanted to move from the Packers to Minny. The Pack refused to deal him there and sent him to the Jets on the terms that they wouldn't then move him to Minny. Favre then got out of his Jets deal at the end of the year by retiring, and then immediately (well, in his terms) went and joined the Vikings which is what he wanted all along. Favre specifically wanted to screw over the Pacers management and wanted to beat them in the division directly, and by playing his retirement/undecided games he was able to get exactly what he wanted all along.

                                Some of these guys (or the agents) will front with a big cover story, but in the background they have a specific, clear agenda.


                                In Fisher's case part of the problem is that he even brought his child's situation into it. He took actions that suggested that while he might have some concern, he didn't have so much that he was willing to shelve his career for it. There are players out there that might have said "look, its my kid, I can't have distractions in my life right now...let's see where this is at in 6 months, maybe I feel more comfortable about being away from her for weeks at a time, but right now I don't".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X