Posted by tkf:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by martin:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by martin:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Does anyone else find it comical that Stu Jackson openly admitted Duncan shouldn't have been on the court, but dished out no disciplinary action to the findings?

perhaps you should put out the whole quote so it is not taken out of context. I read something entire different from the same words.

BTW. David Stern has been the worst commish ever, if I read your words right.

From Gilligan's own mouth

This was different, NBA vice president Stu Jackson said. Duncan “should not have been on the court,” he said. But, “There was no altercation.”

What does that mean? Like he shouldn't be on the court but if he was oh well?



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 05-16-2007 11:11 AM]

so how is Stern the worst commish ever? Made the NBA a spotlight sport, brought it back from a drug filled 70/80's, highlighted Jordan, made oodles of $$ for everyone.

He's been the beneficiary of Greatest Ever Talents entering in the league on his watch. The players brought the league back not that NITWIT and when those players left so has a major part of the game. There are very few 1 star team career players left because he's created a greedy financial environment. With this he's created the opportunities for scrubs to kill franhcises by FA off-season signings. We've seen stars more than ever try and hold franchises hostage because of this environment. We've seen more blockbuster deals involving 75% scrub players. We've seen expansion teams water down this league. We've seen franchises tank. We've seen less fundamentals and more playground because of the high school love fest kill the game. It's been modified/tweaked a little but the damage has been done. We've seen stars stats pad to get that new contract and then tank once they get them. Where do I stop I could go on and on and on

hell why did you stop? keep going, you are 100% correct and I could not agree more. Another thing is how the league has caved into the players to the detriment of the NBA. this is the only pro league where you can sign a player to a huge deal and have his deal kill a franchise. In football you can cut a player and all you are on the hook is for the signing bonus, in baseball you can trade a big money player for a smaller money player as long as you can afford it, but the key is, in foot ball and baseball, teams can move players and are not held hostage by max contracts. Tell me, is it going to benefit the league when the bucks will be hamstrung by redds contract? just look at our knicks? If jerry west wanted to come take over this job he couldn't do a damn thing because of the idiotic moves of his predecessors.....

he's created a greedy financial environment

.

yup, and there is no better example of that than sprewell who refuses to come back and play for a measly vets min of 1 mil per year, because obviously that is not enough money to feed his kids!!!!! wht bull ****!

Posted by Masterplan:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Nash or whoever was involved wasn't intentionally trying to inflict harm on someone why should he/they be suspended?

well, it doesn't seem to make much sense to dole out the most serious punishment in a given incident on someone who merely stepped onto the court. for instance, robert horry got twice the suspension of the other punishees (?). if nothing was happening on court, then at worst duncan should have gotten a T. if any manner of altercation was happening, then there should be worse suspensions than timmy's and the logical place to start is the initiator - nash or whoever undercut elson.

if you start suspending people for stepping off the bench when they shouldn't outside of extreme circumstances, then no NBA coach would last a game and teams would have trouble getting 5 guys on the floor for most games. to suspend duncan without going back over tape of every ongoing playoff series and dropping the hammer on each infraction would be wildly inconsistent. just like favoring amare over ewing would be.

i'm just trying to play devil's advocate a bit here. seriously, though, what would i do? i'd keep the suspensions as given. i'd consider assessing duncan an after-the-fact T for stepping onto the court - basically fine him whatever the cost is. and in the offseason i'd rewrite the rule that ****ed over the knicks in 97 and possibly the suns this year.

[Edited by - Masterplan on 05-16-2007 1:30 PM]

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by martin:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by martin:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Does anyone else find it comical that Stu Jackson openly admitted Duncan shouldn't have been on the court, but dished out no disciplinary action to the findings?

perhaps you should put out the whole quote so it is not taken out of context. I read something entire different from the same words.

BTW. David Stern has been the worst commish ever, if I read your words right.

From Gilligan's own mouth

This was different, NBA vice president Stu Jackson said. Duncan “should not have been on the court,” he said. But, “There was no altercation.”

What does that mean? Like he shouldn't be on the court but if he was oh well?



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 05-16-2007 11:11 AM]

so how is Stern the worst commish ever? Made the NBA a spotlight sport, brought it back from a drug filled 70/80's, highlighted Jordan, made oodles of $$ for everyone.

He's been the beneficiary of Greatest Ever Talents entering in the league on his watch. The players brought the league back not that NITWIT and when those players left so has a major part of the game. There are very few 1 star team career players left because he's created a greedy financial environment. With this he's created the opportunities for scrubs to kill franhcises by FA off-season signings. We've seen stars more than ever try and hold franchises hostage because of this environment. We've seen more blockbuster deals involving 75% scrub players. We've seen expansion teams water down this league. We've seen franchises tank. We've seen less fundamentals and more playground because of the high school love fest kill the game. It's been modified/tweaked a little but the damage has been done. We've seen stars stats pad to get that new contract and then tank once they get them. Where do I stop I could go on and on and on

hell why did you stop? keep going, you are 100% correct and I could not agree more. Another thing is how the league has caved into the players to the detriment of the NBA. this is the only pro league where you can sign a player to a huge deal and have his deal kill a franchise. In football you can cut a player and all you are on the hook is for the signing bonus, in baseball you can trade a big money player for a smaller money player as long as you can afford it, but the key is, in foot ball and baseball, teams can move players and are not held hostage by max contracts. Tell me, is it going to benefit the league when the bucks will be hamstrung by redds contract? just look at our knicks? If jerry west wanted to come take over this job he couldn't do a damn thing because of the idiotic moves of his predecessors.....

he's created a greedy financial environment

.

yup, and there is no better example of that than sprewell who refuses to come back and play for a measly vets min of 1 mil per year, because obviously that is not enough money to feed his kids!!!!! wht bull ****!

Jerome, Jeffries, and Marbury's deals alone have almost caused this franchise to be contracted.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I didn't seer the play where Duncan left the bench. Maybe he should have been suspended too. But I have no problem with the off the bench suspensions so long as guys are still doing it. When players no longer leave the bench it wont be an issue.

The rule is to prevent brawls and unnecessary violence, like Greg Anthony sucker punching KJ. The implementation may not always be prefect, but the cause is right.

I thought that foul by Horry was relatively mild. Through in the 80's and 90's that was merely a good, hard "playoffs foul". You want to give him a flagrant one or two just to try to clean up the series, fine, But without all these suspensions for leaving the bench a simple flagrant foul runs the risk of turning really ugly with players and fans as possible casualties.

BTW, does the league really prefer SA over Phoenix? Duncan isn't nearly as marketable as Amare and Nash, and Phoenix seems like the darling of the NBA in the eyes of many sportswriters and fans. If there were any bias involved, shouldn't Nash, the white guy, be the beneficiary? Isn't SA the team raising the profile of the "thuggish" antics Sterns is reputedly so much against?

Something doesn't compute.

Yet Bruce Bowen keeps getting off Scott Free.

True, what is your point? You accuse Stern of masterminding everything with an agenda to Europeanize basketball, but the Suns have the most European coach and system in the league. If this is all part of Sterns grand scheme to push things in the direction of the Suns style, and away from American style thuggery, why is it that the Spurs are the ones reaping an "advantage"?

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I didn't seer the play where Duncan left the bench. Maybe he should have been suspended too. But I have no problem with the off the bench suspensions so long as guys are still doing it. When players no longer leave the bench it wont be an issue.

The rule is to prevent brawls and unnecessary violence, like Greg Anthony sucker punching KJ. The implementation may not always be prefect, but the cause is right.

I thought that foul by Horry was relatively mild. Through in the 80's and 90's that was merely a good, hard "playoffs foul". You want to give him a flagrant one or two just to try to clean up the series, fine, But without all these suspensions for leaving the bench a simple flagrant foul runs the risk of turning really ugly with players and fans as possible casualties.

BTW, does the league really prefer SA over Phoenix? Duncan isn't nearly as marketable as Amare and Nash, and Phoenix seems like the darling of the NBA in the eyes of many sportswriters and fans. If there were any bias involved, shouldn't Nash, the white guy, be the beneficiary? Isn't SA the team raising the profile of the "thuggish" antics Sterns is reputedly so much against?

Something doesn't compute.

Yet Bruce Bowen keeps getting off Scott Free.

True, what is your point? You accuse Stern of masterminding everything with an agenda to Europeanize basketball, but the Suns have the most European coach and system in the league. If this is all part of Sterns grand scheme to push things in the direction of the Suns style, and away from American style thuggery, why is it that the Spurs are the ones reaping an "advantage"?

Well simple

Parker=French
Ginobli=Argentinian
Beno Uldrich=Yugoslavia
Francisco Elson=Netherlands
Frabrito Oberto=Argentinian
Tim Duncan=Virgin Islands


Then the Spurs are 3 time Champions

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I didn't seer the play where Duncan left the bench. Maybe he should have been suspended too. But I have no problem with the off the bench suspensions so long as guys are still doing it. When players no longer leave the bench it wont be an issue.

The rule is to prevent brawls and unnecessary violence, like Greg Anthony sucker punching KJ. The implementation may not always be prefect, but the cause is right.

I thought that foul by Horry was relatively mild. Through in the 80's and 90's that was merely a good, hard "playoffs foul". You want to give him a flagrant one or two just to try to clean up the series, fine, But without all these suspensions for leaving the bench a simple flagrant foul runs the risk of turning really ugly with players and fans as possible casualties.

BTW, does the league really prefer SA over Phoenix? Duncan isn't nearly as marketable as Amare and Nash, and Phoenix seems like the darling of the NBA in the eyes of many sportswriters and fans. If there were any bias involved, shouldn't Nash, the white guy, be the beneficiary? Isn't SA the team raising the profile of the "thuggish" antics Sterns is reputedly so much against?

Something doesn't compute.

Yet Bruce Bowen keeps getting off Scott Free.

True, what is your point? You accuse Stern of masterminding everything with an agenda to Europeanize basketball, but the Suns have the most European coach and system in the league. If this is all part of Sterns grand scheme to push things in the direction of the Suns style, and away from American style thuggery, why is it that the Spurs are the ones reaping an "advantage"?

Well simple

Parker=French
Ginobli=Argentinian
Beno Uldrich=Yugoslavia
Francisco Elson=Netherlands
Frabrito Oberto=Argentinian
Tim Duncan=Virgin Islands


Then the Spurs are 3 time Champions

I saw that coming, but it's bogus. It's a Euro style you accuse him of aiding, not international players themselves, of which the Suns have several too (Nash, Diaw, Barbosa, Bell)

And here it is Bowen, the American, with the American style of play, who gets the slack.

If there is any consistency to your argument it alludes me. Looks like your trying to spin a story of conspiracy and you'll spin it from ever direction possible even if your points contradict each other.

Posted by Masterplan:

Posted by TrueBlue:

I'm not arguing Tim getting suspended. The player who fouled Elson it wasn't intentional Horry's was, you're comparing apples to oranges. I'm arguing why wasn't Tim given a technical or given a fine GEEEZ LOUISE! And what does it mean when an TOP official says a player shouldn't be on the court?

hey, the comparison's not coming out of thin air man. this is a thread about the horry/amare/diaw suspensions. my bad for thinking that your calls for punishment on duncan meant suspension - but is it really worth arguing over whether he should get a T? correct me if i'm wrong here, because i was before, but you're saying that it's hypocritical to suspend amare for being on the floor but not even T tim up for what he did? specieses of fruit aside, do you disagree that players and coaches (especially ones as expressive as d'antoni) regularly stray onto the court? should the nba go over tape to retroactively punish all those infractions? when should or shouldn't they? if the cutoff isn't "altercation" - my interpretation of stu's ruling - where would you put it? should it depend on whether a penalty has recently been levied on the opposing team? if not, then why so adamant in this case?

Posted by islesfan:

Once again the NBA capriciously hands out punishment, while rewarding the aggressors. It's a complete joke.

I hope the Suns have Jalen Rose punch a Spurs scrub in the face, right in front of the Spurs bench, after they pull their starters.

The NBA is the only league where an altercation will be reviewed and the team who took the cheap shot can come out ahead, even though the other team did nothing to provoke or escalate the altercation.

I'm sick of the NBA offices deciding playoff series.