Posted by MS:

If I am the knicks gm my main focus has to be getting rid of redundant talent, and the player that can be moved is Jamal Crawford.

He is a bench player that can really score and is valuable to a team that is close to winning in the league, not to the knicks because we need someone that is calming influence and can actually run an offense.

Nate has shown he is an effective long range shooter and he has more defensive potential than jamal. His contract is only going to esculate and reaches 10million a year very soon, for a player that has consistently performed horrible for half the season and great the other half that price tag is to much.

Mo Taylor, Malik Rose, Jerome James, Jared Jefferies, Steve Francis were all moves that were met with questions, and his ability to give away draft choices and then talk about the importance of building through the draft is a big contridiction.....

Zach Randolf or Eddy Curry that is a big question I think the Knicks should move one at seasons end to get good value while they can they are to similiar to succeed long term, although that remains to be seen till the season starts.......

Also their is no use for Dickau or Fred Jones I would also look to package Randolf Morris because with Lee he is expendable.

Posted by misterearl:

codeunknown - you are indeed Jedi. As you know I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on tee vee, but I have serious concerns about Q returning to play a deathmarch 82 game schedule along with a few pre-season cameos and a playoff series or two.

[Edited by - misterearl on 08-13-2007 9:33 PM]

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by codeunknown:

1. There does not have to be a "traumatic" injury for him to suffer a similar episode - he's at increased risk for fibrosis, inflammation and injury at the same/another spinal level. The hole in the disk space won't close because the veretbral disk doesn't have a blood supply. And the annulus (outer part of the disc) can't be surgically repaired - so a rupture would not be necessary for a second herniation. People involved with physical labor are at higher risk for recurrence.

2. I don't have access to Q's MRIs or CT images. Recurrence of symptoms depends on the extent of disk protrusion.

3. It shouldn't be difficult for you to understand that a 9% re-operation rate is the worst case scenario - many live through mild pain. Q delayed his surgery and his progosis potentially suffers because of that. There has not been a prospective study of this kind on athletes - but an amplification of the recurrence statistic (up to several fold) may be expected. The risks of chronic inflammation or recurrent herniation are significant but the fact is we have very little information to predict what will happen. So you, Nixluva, shouldn't go spouting off as to what we SHOULD expect because you'll end up making a fool of yourself.

4. Your analogy and point were wrong. So I corrected both.

1st of all, I would say that you need to relax on all that smug attitude you're spouting because you DON'T KNOW ANYTHING more than we do about his specific case. Just because you have a medical background doesn't make your point any more valid. You don't know the degree of herniation or anything about his pathology. What specific procedures where used etc.

Your mentioning increased risk still doesn't mean HIGH RISK. My point again is that there's nothing you've said, which would indicate we should "expect" Q to have a recurrance of pain or rupture the disk again or any other disk. Being at risk is vague unless you give a % of the degree of risk.

After the surgery all that was said is that this wasn't career threatening and that Dr. Green said he should be able to "resume a normal NBA Career."

Nixluva, either you're illiterate or you're a liar. Or you have a sore vagina. When did I suggest that a legitimate prediction could be made about Q's health this year? I didn't. In fact, if anything, I suggested that you were making too bold a prediction about him playing more games etc. Re-read my post. I talked generally about the surgery and took the time to present peer-reviewed facts that are not easy to find. I clarified a misconception that YOU had about there needing to be a traumatic event to precipitate a recurrence. And you replied as usual with your defensive garbage. You'll keep looking like an idiot if you argue against statements no one made.

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by codeunknown:

1. There does not have to be a "traumatic" injury for him to suffer a similar episode - he's at increased risk for fibrosis, inflammation and injury at the same/another spinal level. The hole in the disk space won't close because the veretbral disk doesn't have a blood supply. And the annulus (outer part of the disc) can't be surgically repaired - so a rupture would not be necessary for a second herniation. People involved with physical labor are at higher risk for recurrence.

2. I don't have access to Q's MRIs or CT images. Recurrence of symptoms depends on the extent of disk protrusion.

3. It shouldn't be difficult for you to understand that a 9% re-operation rate is the worst case scenario - many live through mild pain. Q delayed his surgery and his progosis potentially suffers because of that. There has not been a prospective study of this kind on athletes - but an amplification of the recurrence statistic (up to several fold) may be expected. The risks of chronic inflammation or recurrent herniation are significant but the fact is we have very little information to predict what will happen. So you, Nixluva, shouldn't go spouting off as to what we SHOULD expect because you'll end up making a fool of yourself.

4. Your analogy and point were wrong. So I corrected both.

1st of all, I would say that you need to relax on all that smug attitude you're spouting because you DON'T KNOW ANYTHING more than we do about his specific case. Just because you have a medical background doesn't make your point any more valid. You don't know the degree of herniation or anything about his pathology. What specific procedures where used etc.

Your mentioning increased risk still doesn't mean HIGH RISK. My point again is that there's nothing you've said, which would indicate we should "expect" Q to have a recurrance of pain or rupture the disk again or any other disk. Being at risk is vague unless you give a % of the degree of risk.

After the surgery all that was said is that this wasn't career threatening and that Dr. Green said he should be able to "resume a normal NBA Career."

Nixluva, either you're illiterate or you're a liar. Or you have a sore vagina. When did I suggest that a legitimate prediction could be made about Q's health this year? I didn't. In fact, if anything, I suggested that you were making too bold a prediction about him playing more games etc. Re-read my post. I talked generally about the surgery and took the time to present peer-reviewed facts that are not easy to find. I clarified a misconception that YOU had about there needing to be a traumatic event to precipitate a recurrence. And you replied as usual with your defensive garbage. You'll keep looking like an idiot if you argue against statements no one made.

You said that I was wrong, but none of your data proves a significant increased risk. To say that i'm wrong gives the impression that there should be an expectation of recurrance or a "high risk" of him having a recurrance absent of any trauma or as I also said "long term stress" or "wear and tear". You yourself have said that the recurrance rate is only about 9% among all patients not specific to athletes.

So far nothing i've read with reference to athletes would seem to indicate that Q is at a significantly higher risk for his problem to return after surgery. It's not a 100% success rate, but in the range of about 90%. So I fail to see how i'm wrong.

One small test group I read about showed these results:

Conclusions. All patients were satisfied with their surgeries, were greatly improved, and were pain free in activities of daily living. For a single-level microdiscectomy, the success rate in elite athletes is excellent, with 90% of athletes able to return to a high level of competition.

http://www.spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/abstract.00007632-199903150-00014.htm;jsessionid=GBZXYxLBvnlPvRMQ34XRRTLthvx0pYhRyNJnyTv3WFbsFp2XtC0n!-260396143!181195628!8091!-1

This one is older and may not match 100% what Q had done:

Results: Follow-up indicated that all but 7 of the 60 cases had returned to their sport, including one who underwent a second MLD for a herniation at an adjacent level. The average time from surgery to return was 5.2 months for the entire group, with a range of 1 to 15 months. Conclusion: MLD was effective in correcting the problems that forced the athletes to seek help, and the time to return often depends on factors other than their medical condition. Postoperatively, a complete trunk stabilization rehabilitation program was effective in returning these athletes to a high level of competition.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W7P-4873PVH-4&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8170016f56f2f527956920ee581be39d

Nixluva, I'm going to try not to be harsh on you because I know medicine isn't your field. But, pasting "conclusions" to articles you clearly haven't read closely is asinine. Neither article answers the pertinent questions and the second abstract is absolutely irrelevant. The relevant questions are: 1) what is the durabilty and 2) the perfomance differential of the patients pre and post-op.

The first abstract states that 5/14 (>35%) retire prematurely due to recurrent symptoms. That is, within 3 years of the surgery. BOOM - that should have hit in you in the face like a ton of bricks as soon as you read the article. Did you actually read the paper? I'm wondering why you keep putting your foot in your mouth. Its also incredibly annoying for me to waste my time reading papers that you either didn't read or understand. Needless to say, the power of the study is itself quite poor and the inclusion/exclusion criteria are nowhere mentioned in the abridged account you provide. The null hypothesis is poorly conceived and, as a result, they fail miserably to provide appropriate alternative treatment controls. So the study is essentially useless - atleast for our question.

The second abstract is a retrospective literature review where neither the inclusion and exclusion criteria nor a control group are specified. Its a fishing expedition with a poorly defined hypothesis and the average time to return they present doesn't even have an associated variance. Of course, there are no validating statistical comparisons to traditional diskectomy or "conservative" treatment groups. And, again, this article has nothing to do again with durability post-op.

So, you ended up presenting two particularly embarassing examples of research. My point remains that a durability prediction after a lumbar diskectomy in NBA professionals is difficult. My point remains that the necessity of "severe wear and tear" and "trauma" are garbage speculation on your part. Playing basketball may be enough of a stressor to cause problems. And, finally, that you shouldn't pretend like you know how many games Q will play.

Posted by BoBo10:

Allan Houston.