2007 NBA Playoffs Thread

[Brian Swartz]

LeBron already is locked up. Next year his salary will nearly double, giving him less than half-million more than Hughes .

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

LeBron already is locked up. Next year his salary will nearly double, giving him less than half-million more than Hughes .

Seriously?

Wow.

[Brian Swartz]

Seriously. LeBron is in the last year of the initial mandated rookie contract(Cleveland having exercised the rookie option). He makes $5.8M or thereabouts, whereas Hughes has a fairly flat contract about $12M per year. LeBron goes up to $12.5M next year, then $13+, $15+, $16+ in the next few years or something around that, basically your standard max contract. .

Sorta puts that Hughes contract in perspective -- and not a particularly good one.

Edit: Numbers were wrong. James makes LESS than I thought.

[bulletsponge]

i remember when the Cavs signed Hughes. i thought "what idiots, that guy only scores because he jacks up so many shots, ie no efficency" be wary of signing scorers from bad teams, they score because someone has to, not because they are good ( see Steve Francis)

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Seriously. LeBron is in the last year of the initial mandated rookie contract(Cleveland having exercised the rookie option). He makes $5.8M or thereabouts, whereas Hughes has a fairly flat contract about $12M per year. LeBron goes up to $12.5M next year, then $13+, $15+, $16+ in the next few years or something around that, basically your standard max contract. .

Sorta puts that Hughes contract in perspective -- and not a particularly good one.

Edit: Numbers were wrong. James makes LESS than I thought.

Lebron only signed a 3 year extention with an option for a 4th year. He signed the shorter deal to see what direction the Cavs were headed in and to take advantage of any changes in the next collective bargaining agreement.

[Groundhog]

Well hey, it may have been a dreadful amount of money to throw at a guy like Hughes, but it's led to us getting this far in the playoffs, and as a result being able to lock up James for at least a couple more years.

I'm not defending it though, just desperately trying to make myself feel better about it.

[Atocep]

the NBA collective bargaining agreement stated that a player with less than seven years experience can earn only 25% of the salary cap. So his contract will end by 2010 and he's a 7-year pro then, making him eligible to negotiate a maximum contract worth 30% of the salary cap

Also, if there's no pay increases in the next CBA he'll be able to take advantage of this clause.

[Arles]

The NBA made no official announcement, but a league official confirmed Thursday that after a video review, NBA Senior Vice President Stu Jackson charged James with a flagrant foul-penalty 2 on a play with 1:20 left in the third quarter Monday night. Had it been called at the time, James would have been ejected.

There was no fine announced, but the usual for flagrant-2 is $5,000. Jackson could've suspended James for Game 2, but decided against it.

As James was following through on a jump shot, he elbowed Detroit Pistons center Chris Webber in the head with his right arm. Webber crashed to the floor. There was no foul called by the three game officials.

The maneuver was almost exactly the same as the two elbows Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant was suspended for during the season. As Bryant was falling after releasing jump shots on both occasions, he swiped at Manu Ginobili of the San Antonio Spurs and Marko Jaric of the Minnesota Timberwolves. He was suspended after each, with the NBA calling it ``an unnatural basketball act.''

Though there was some chatter about the play on Internet sites and a clip was posted on YouTube, there was almost no media scrutiny of the play. Instead, all were reviewing James' decision to pass to Donyell Marshall with five seconds left.

Had the clip been replayed as often as Bryant's elbows, especially the one against Jaric after his first suspension, the NBA might have felt pressure to issue the same penalty.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/17276170.htm

OK, so when the precedent involves suspending Amare Stoudemire - Stu's all for it. But when it's Lebron - well, they just don't think a suspension is warranted (even though it's the same play Kobe got suspended on).

Glad David Stern is sticking to adament precedents for postseason suspensions and reiterating his point on the Dan Patrick show that the "star" status of the player doesn't matter.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Arles

OK, so when the precedent involves suspending Amare Stoudemire - Stu's all for it. But when it's Lebron - well, they just don't think a suspension is warranted (even though it's the same play Kobe got suspended on).

Glad David Stern is sticking to adament precedents for postseason suspensions and reiterating his point on the Dan Patrick show that the "star" status of the player doesn't matter.

Stoudemire broke a rule that is written in plain and clear language - not one where you have people reviewing it and making a judgement call. Have there been any players that have left the bench during an altercation that were not suspended? If so, then there's a legitimate beef. I don't understand why Suns fans are harping on this. It might be a bad rule and obviously you feel that the series was lost because of it but it's a rule - one that every player and coach knows, one that has been enforced every time over the past decade. Amare screwed up by leaving the bench - nobody dragged him onto the court and everyone else on the Spurs and Suns (other than Diaw) managed to stay on the bench. Amare's suspension (if that cost the Suns the series) is his own fault. Had Stern made him the ONE TIME a player didn't get suspended for leaving the bench during a fight that really would have opened up the floodgates both in terms of future altercations as well as the conspiracy theorists who would have nailed Stern on going against something that was enforced all other times just on the theory that he would rather have the Suns in the Finals because more people would watch them.

This is obviously a subjective situation and there's no "postseason suspension precendent" either - Kobe was suspended during the regular season and was suspended after getting away with hitting or kicking guys after shooting in the past. What about when Raja Bell came down and whacked Ginobili in the face? (game 1 or game 2 - can't remember which) He was going to foul him because he left his feet on a pump fake but some people felt he gave Manu a shot in the face on the foul. There was no suspension there even though a foul was called - James wasn't even called for a foul on the play. I don't think James should be suspended and I'm a Pistons fan. These are two very different situations and as far as I know this is James' first incident of this nature. I don't think you suspend a player in the playoffs unless what he did was a) extremely blatant like Horry's hip check or b) a clear cut scenario like the Suns players leaving the bench.

[Logan]

^ Exactly. Players leaving the bench and getting suspended is an objective rule, with no gray area. It's the only rule in the book that says so.

All other rules are subjective when it comes to punishment. Stop whining already.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Stoudemire broke a rule that is written in plain and clear language - not one where you have people reviewing it and making a judgement call. Have there been any players that have left the bench during an altercation that were not suspended?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...pensions_x.htm

No other players were suspended even though the entire Kings bench left the court when the fracas between Fox and Christie resumed in the tunnel leading to the dressing room. Lakers center Shaquille O'Neal, in street clothes because of a toe injury, also raced to the tunnel.

"Our judgment was that the players who left the bench were attempting to break up the fight and did not escalate the altercation," Stu Jackson said.

Here's Stern on the Suns suspension:

So they only walked away from the bench. They didn't move at a certain pace, so I'll check their pace and decide whether their pace was high enough to cause me to think that their intent, what was going on in their mind, was such, et cetera, et cetera. How are we supposed to know their intentions?

Seems pretty consistent to me

If so, then there's a legitimate beef. I don't understand why Suns fans are harping on this. It might be a bad rule and obviously you feel that the series was lost because of it but it's a rule - one that every player and coach knows, one that has been enforced every time over the past decade.

If you look at nearly every application of this rule, it involves one of two things:

1. A fight (which didn't happen here) - No one on the Suns was suspended for the altercation.
2. People being on the court for more than 3 seconds (the total time that Diaw and Amare were on the court) and trying to get involved in the altercation.

Given the 2002 precedent and the fact Amare was on the court for 3 seconds and never made it past the coaching box, there is good reason for Stern to simply fine Amare. It was just as much of a judgement call as the Lebron elbow.

This is obviously a subjective situation and there's no "postseason suspension precendent" either - Kobe was suspended during the regular season and was suspended after getting away with hitting or kicking guys after shooting in the past.

Here's what Stern thinks of this argument

David Stern: And don't start with this stuff about, well, if it's a good player, you shouldn't enforce it. If it's a good series, you shouldn't enforce it. Think about what you just said. The postseason shouldn't matter

Stern has been talking through his ass all postseason. They have not been consistent with the bench rule and nor has he been consistent with other suspensions. One one hand, he says the playoffs don't matter when applying suspensions. On the other, he doesn't suspend Bowen or Lebron for the exact acts that earned suspensions for Kobe and Raja Bell earlier this season.

On one hand he says we can't make exceptions for the bench rule with Amare and Diaw because we don't know their intentions, yet he doesn't suspend Shaq for leaving the bench because ""Our judgment was that the players who left the bench were attempting to break up the fight and did not escalate the altercation." How, then, did Amare or Diaw escalate the altercation when they were only on the floor for a few seconds and didn't even make it past the coaching box?

The NBA is becoming a joke and I am thrilled they are getting crap ratings for the 70-point postseason snoozefest they are showing.

[Arles]

Dola, there was another even in 2004 where players left the bench and were not suspended:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZbFVERS8Kc

Pape Sow and Rafer Alston both left the bench and should have been suspended and were not.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Arles

If you look at nearly every application of this rule, it involves one of two things:

1. A fight (which didn't happen here) - No one on the Suns was suspended for the altercation.
2. People being on the court for more than 3 seconds (the total time that Diaw and Amare were on the court) and trying to get involved in the altercation.

Given the 2002 precedent and the fact Amare was on the court for 3 seconds and never made it past the coaching box, there is good reason for Stern to simply fine Amare.

Well what do you want to count as a fight? Was there a brawl like at the Palace? No. Horry hip checked Nash and he flew into the scorers table. Bell shoved Horry for which he got T'd and those two were then separated after shoving back and forth. Nash got up and went back at Horry too. No punches were thrown but I believe the rule states players cannot leave the bench during an altercation - not specifically a brawl with punches thrown.

Watch the video (hxxp://youtube.com/watch?v=oUbAiclbijA) at the 1:56 mark - when it happens Diaw and Amare jump off the bench and Amare does get past the coaching box where there's a handful of assistant coaches who pull him back. He didn't simply stroll out onto the floor to get a better look - he's getting off the bench to get involved and the only reason he doesn't is because he's grabbed by the coaches. Diaw's out there and it looks like he stops once he's realized that Horry checked him and then started walking away but Amare keeps on walking.

I realize your team got screwed in your opinion and that sucks and its cool that you want to take up for your team just as I would for mine but I notice that while you point out an incident 5 years ago and you want Lebron and Bowen suspended you didn't address the shot to the face that Bell gave Manu in the playoffs or the guy who undercut Parker at the end of the quarter (I forget which game but I think it was Barbosa) nor the fact that Amare and the Suns have nobody to blame for the suspension but Amare. Do you think that Bell and Barbosa should have been suspended for "dirty plays"? I'm fine with the fact that they weren't suspended for that but I don't think you can be on both sides of the fence there. Horry didn't deserve a two game suspension for a hip check either. The only reason he got two was because Amare and Diaw got one but I don't see you saying his suspension was unfair.

I've got no dog in the Spurs v Suns fight. My team's Detroit and to be honest I wish the Suns would have won because I would rather have played them in the Finals than San Antonio. I'm sure the NBA would have much rather had the Suns in the Finals too. I just think its a little ridiculous to say that the commissioner of the league caused a team to lose a 7 game series especially when it would have benefitted that commissioner had Phoenix advanced. If you want to say its a bad rule, fine I'm in agreement. If you want to say they played no role in the altercation and shouldn't be punished I would agree too except for the fact that says if you run out onto the floor you get suspended. All the players know this - they address it specifically in pre-season meetings. Put the blame on the guys who did it and not the guy who has to enforce the rule.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Well what do you want to count as a fight? Was there a brawl like at the Palace? No. Horry hip checked Nash and he flew into the scorers table. Bell shoved Horry for which he got T'd and those two were then separated after shoving back and forth. Nash got up and went back at Horry too. No punches were thrown but I believe the rule states players cannot leave the bench during an altercation - not specifically a brawl with punches thrown.

UNLESS that altercation involves Shaq and the Kings in 2002 or Toronto vs Garnett in 2004. But, it's a "red line rule" with no room for interpretation (according to Stern). Doesn't this just sound silly?

Watch the video (hxxp://youtube.com/watch?v=oUbAiclbijA) at the 1:56 mark - when it happens Diaw and Amare jump off the bench and Amare does get past the coaching box where there's a handful of assistant coaches who pull him back. He didn't simply stroll out onto the floor to get a better look - he's getting off the bench to get involved and the only reason he doesn't is because he's grabbed by the coaches. Diaw's out there and it looks like he stops once he's realized that Horry checked him and then started walking away but Amare keeps on walking.

Again, my point is Stern says there is no interpretation allowed for this rule, but there have been two incidents since the rule came in where suspensions have not been handed out for much more serious acts than what Amare or Diaw did. Look at 1:08 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZbFVERS8Kc

Rafer Alston is in his warmups on the floor between Garnett and the Toronto players. He was on the floor with Pape Sow (also leaving the bench), no suspensions. Half the Sacramento bench leaves in 2002 in the Fox-Christie scrum, no suspensions.

I realize your team got screwed in your opinion and that sucks and its cool that you want to take up for your team just as I would for mine but I notice that while you point out an incident 5 years ago and you want Lebron and Bowen suspended you didn't address the shot to the face that Bell gave Manu in the playoffs or the guy who undercut Parker at the end of the quarter (I forget which game but I think it was Barbosa)

Bell landed on Manu after a head fake and Barbosa didn't know where he was on that play. But, you're right, these two plays make it perfectly fine for the NBA to say they have no ability to interpret a "red letter rule" after doing exactly that multiple times in past seasons. You put it best earlier in the thread:

Have there been any players that have left the bench during an altercation that were not suspended? If so, then there's a legitimate beef.

That's all I am saying.

Horry didn't deserve a two game suspension for a hip check either. The only reason he got two was because Amare and Diaw got one but I don't see you saying his suspension was unfair.

He got one game for the hard foul on Nash and one game for the elbow to the face of Bell afterwords. That is somewhat consistent, although I don't really know what a consistent postseason suspension is anymore so you may be right. It could have been unfair to Horry.

I just think its a little ridiculous to say that the commissioner of the league caused a team to lose a 7 game series especially when it would have benefitted that commissioner had Phoenix advanced. If you want to say its a bad rule, fine I'm in agreement.

It's a bad interpretation of a bad rule. And, for the record, I don't think Kobe or Lebron should be suspended for the elbows. But, this is just another instance where the league lacks consistency in its rulings.

If you want to say they played no role in the altercation and shouldn't be punished I would agree too except for the fact that says if you run out onto the floor you get suspended.

Unless it's an altercation in 2002 or 2004. Then it's OK (even though the rule came in during the 1995 season).

All the players know this - they address it specifically in pre-season meetings. Put the blame on the guys who did it and not the guy who has to enforce the rule.

There certainly is some level of blame on Amare - he should have known better. Then again, so should have Duncan in the second quarter when Elson and James Jones tangled up. The somewhat ironic aspect of this is that if Elson would have shoved Jones after they got tangled up and Bell had not got mixed up with Horry, the "law" would have stated that Duncan should have been suspended and not Amare. And, if you believe the NBA would have suspended Duncan (snowball's chance in hell, IMO), we'd all be talking about how the Spurs lost their cool and Stern stole the series from SA.

[st.cronin]

My question is, if there is a rule with "no interpretation" what's the point of having a commissioner? Isn't Stern's decision here sort of like the Supreme Court saying "well this law may be unconstitutional, but what do you want us to do about it?"

[rkmsuf]

Don't get off the bench. Problem solved.

[st.cronin]

My point being that very few folks are arguing that the rule makes any sense, so it therefore is Stern's responsibility to interpret the rule in a way that does make sense, or else disregard it.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My point being that very few folks are arguing that the rule makes any sense, so it therefore is Stern's responsibility to interpret the rule in a way that does make sense, or else disregard it.

so get rid of the rule. there's no interpretation to be made the way it is written. until it's changed don't get off the bench. it's simple.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Don't get off the bench. Problem solved.

In general, I agree here. Amare and Diaw both knew the rule and should have been suspended. I still have a problem with Tim Duncan getting off the bench and walking onto the floor in anticipation of an altercation and getting absolutely no punishment at all because Stu Jackson determined there was no altercation.

It makes no sense to me that you can leave the bench ready for a fight to break out, but if there is no fight its ok, you did nothing wrong.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Atocep

In general, I agree here. Amare and Diaw both knew the rule and should have been suspended. I still have a problem with Tim Duncan getting off the bench and walking onto the floor in anticipation of an altercation and getting absolutely no punishment at all because Stu Jackson determined there was no altercation.

It makes no sense to me that you can leave the bench ready for a fight to break out, but if there is no fight its ok, you did nothing wrong.

It's set up in an idiotic way no doubt. There shouldn't even be a need for any rule at all but unfortunately have a league with several fucknuts in it that can't compete like men.

Back in my day you could tomahawk bill laimbeer, the fans loved it and that's the way it was and we liked it.

[Arles]

All I am saying is that there is no consistency. The league had numerous precendents to use and only fine Amare not decide the Suns/Spurs series. Yet, they decided not to go that road and it's very unfortunate. It was a "red letter rule with no room for interpretation". That's what Stern and Stu told us. But in 2002 and 2004 (the rule was created in 95), no suspensions where handed out for obvious acts of leaving the bench by Rafer Alston, Shaq and the Kings players. Of course, Stu said this after the Kings incident:

"Our judgment was that the players who left the bench were attempting to break up the fight and did not escalate the altercation," Stu Jackson said.

Yet, Stern says now that he has no way of discerning intent and "MUST" suspend them. It's like st.cronin says - Stern is the commish and has precedents to use, but he doesn't make the fair and proper decision. Instead, he hides behind the Knicks brawl in 1997 and the Rudy T issue 30 years ago when there are two more recent precedents that don't mandate suspensions in 2002 and 2004.

It's also unfair to someone like Kobe that Lebron gets away with same elbow action. And for those who say prior history matters, why does Bruce Bowen continue to get away with actions that other players were suspended for (ie, Raja Bell's leg to the groin vs Toronto).

I think it all comes down to this revelation from Stu Jackson:

"It's not about fairness, it's about correctness."

The NBA process of suspending players in the postseason has no logic to it and has no consistency. So, when they also throw fairness out, it makes the whole process a joke and very frustrating to many NBA fans.

[miami_fan]

I think you have to go back to what the mindset was when the rule was put into place. There was NO legitimate reason for an NBA player to leave the bench area. The ONLY reason a player to leave the bench was to engage and/or escalate the fight. The thing is this is no the first time the players have complained about this rule. All of the complaints that are being discussed now have laid out several times over. The response has always been that the players needed to keep the emotions in check. This is the first time I remember so many people in disagreement with the rule as it is written.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Arles

UNLESS that altercation involves Shaq and the Kings in 2002 or Toronto vs Garnett in 2004. But, it's a "red line rule" with no room for interpretation (according to Stern). Doesn't this just sound silly?

Again, my point is Stern says there is no interpretation allowed for this rule, but there have been two incidents since the rule came in where suspensions have not been handed out for much more serious acts than what Amare or Diaw did. Look at 1:08 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZbFVERS8Kc

Rafer Alston is in his warmups on the floor between Garnett and the Toronto players. He was on the floor with Pape Sow (also leaving the bench), no suspensions. Half the Sacramento bench leaves in 2002 in the Fox-Christie scrum, no suspensions.

Hey if no suspensions were handed out they should have been at least in the Toronto video. I don't remember the Christie/Fox preseason fight five years ago so I don't know what happened on that and I'll go along with you that Stern should not be saying that he has to suspend those guys simply because everyone has been suspended if that is not in fact the case. I will say that in looking at the videos Alston is standing there with his arms out trying to keep people apart - Amare is on his way out to join a fight. Diaw I'll buy that he reacted, stopped himself and went back - Amare didn't stop until he was physically restrained.

Bell landed on Manu after a head fake and Barbosa didn't know where he was on that play. It's a bad interpretation of a bad rule. And, for the record, I don't think Kobe or Lebron should be suspended for the elbows. But, this is just another instance where the league lacks consistency in its rulings.

The only reason I mentioned this is because these types of things - like the Lebron one - are totally up to interpretation. Yeah Bell landed on him after a head fake but did he hit him in the face intentionally too? Why did Barbosa duck down and end up flipping Parker over his back? Dirty plays or accidents? I actually do think Kobe deserved it - it was not the first time he did it and he continued to do it after being suspended. He certainly appeared to be running a track record of "accidentally" hitting people in the face while shooting.

You might not like Stern (at least not now anyways) but he and the NBA are the most consistent of any of the leagues in handing out penalties. The NHL couldn't be any more fly by the seat of their pants, MLB is a complete joke and the NFL is really walking into some interesting territory with their new code of conduct suspensions not that I'm against that in the least bit.

I like the NBA but I'm a basketball fan. Watching the Pistons and Spurs play a 80-79 game could be really exciting. I realize that's not what the average sports fan wants to see - that's what makes me wonder what possible motivation Stern would have to "screw" Phoenix. If there's one team that the casual fan wants to see its them. Its not a bad rule - its the interpretation of the rule because unlike baseball players who have bench clearing staredowns and shoving matches, the NBA players are tougher and will fight and you don't want 24 guys out there throwing punches.

You're an intelligent and knowledgable sports guy, Arlie - do you really think that David Stern stole the series from Phoenix? I don't think Stern had any choice but to suspend Amare because if he doesn't then anything Phoenix may have accomplished after that would have been tainted as the Suns being Stern's hand picked team to get into the Finals just so the NBA would get good ratings. I guarantee you Stern didn't wake up and try to figure out a plan to let the boring Spurs win - Amare and Diaw left the bench. The announcers mentioned it and then you had the postgame show with Barkley talking about it - Stern was in a no win situation and he was put there by those guys, especially Amare. Either way he was going to piss a chunk of people off so I think the right decision was to "go by the book". Did Alston and Pape Sow get suspended? Nobody cares if they did or not. Even if it was the playoffs nobody would care. Nobody even cares that Diaw got suspended - look at our conversation and its mostly been about Amare. Yeah that decision sucks for Suns fans but I have to say its better than hearing for the rest of eternity that Stern not only rigs the lottery but also the playoffs too.

[rkmsuf]

Well again if the rule is that nubulous then even more reason to not to get off the bench for any reason. Even Little League players can handle adhering to a simple rule like that one.

I'm not saying it's correct what was done in terms of suspensions; all I'm saying is that the situation is completely in each player's control.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

You're an intelligent and knowledgable sports guy, Arlie - do you really think that David Stern stole the series from Phoenix?

IMO, the Spurs and Suns are very close in terms of ability. By taking away the Suns best scoring player in a pivotal game 5 at home, I think that action decided the series. The Suns had just completed a "franchise defining" win in game 4 at San Antonio and Stern took away all the momentum from that as well as making the Suns play without two top 6 rotation guys. If the Suns win game 5 (which you can certainly make a strong argument to if they have Amare), there's a good chance they also win game 7.

I'll put it this way, had the "altercations" been reversed and the Spurs had lost Duncan for game 5 and Amare played, don't you think Spurs fans would be complaining the NBA "stole" the series if they lost in 7 games to Phoenix?

This was a series defining action and Stern knew that when he made it. He had two recent precedents in 2002 and 2004 to use and not suspend Amare, but he did it anyway. That is poor leadership, IMO, and I have no problem with fans that think Stern cost Phoenix the series. My personal opinion is that the Suns were no lock to win either way, but I would have loved to see a game 7 in Phoenix and feel that would have happened had Stern done the correct AND fair action and not suspended Amare. But, he chickened out and we have yet another inconsistency from Stern on suspensions. That's really all there is to say on this issue. Some will agree, some won't. Life goes on in the NBA. All that said, I certainly don't mind the NBA taking the ratings hit for the snoozefest they have going on.

[Brian Swartz]

had the "altercations" been reversed and the Spurs had lost Duncan for game 5 and Amare played, don't you think Spurs fans would be complaining the NBA "stole" the series if they lost in 7 games to Phoenix?

Some of them would have, and they would have been wrong. The series was decided by the before-mentioned weaknesses of D'Antoni and Stoudemire combined with the return to life of Ginobili at the end of Game 5. There is no rational reason(particularly with Horry back) to think that Game 7 would have different than Game 6. Momentum doesn't mean crap in a series with the amount of time you have between games ... particularly when you are playing against a veteran team. Assuming only Horry was suspended, for reasons I've already mentioned it is far from a lock that you even get to a Game 7 ... many things were in Phoenix's favor in Game 5 that would not have been had Amare played.

[Jas_lov]

Not counting game 6 the Spurs won 3 out of 5 when both teams were at full strength so I don't buy the logic that the Suns lost the series because Stoudemire and Diaw were suspended for 1 game. The Spurs had already won on the Suns home court in game 1 so home court wasn't a big factor. As people have already mentioned, the matchups would have been entirely different in game 5 had Stoudemire been there so you don't know if things would have gone the same way. Maybe Marion doesn't get the same opportunities, Amare struggles, and the Spurs win big so I don't see the strong argument that the Suns would have won game 5. As far as game 7 goes I think there'd be few people that would have picked the Suns to win that game, but I'm with the people that think you just don't know if there would have even been a game 7. You're putting blame on the commissioner when it was Amare and Diaw who broke the rules and left the bench and put their fates in his hands. If they hadn't left the bench none of this would have ever happened and I think you're forgetting that.

[stevew]

I was actually kind of hoping we'd lose in the first round to washington just so that Mike Brown and hopefully Danny Ferry would get fired. It's laughable how badly the team is constructed, and they did nothing this year to fix it. Z's like the only other player in the starting lineup who is an NBA level Starter, the rest of the guys would be energy bench players. And goddamn, I hate larry hughes. Some dude once ran the statistics of one of Hughes' particularly bad games, and determined that he would actually be a more +EV player if he was shooting at the wrong basket.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think that action decided the series. The Suns had just completed a "franchise defining" win in game 4 at San Antonio and Stern took away all the momentum from that

So the commissioner, by suspending two players, single handledly deflated the Suns from a "franchise defining" win in San Antonio so badly they lost game 6 in San Antonio? If that was a "franchise defining" win wouldn't they have shown an unbreakable spirit in game 6 to force game 7 to spite the commissioner that had wronged them? Maybe the fact they blew game 1 at home and lost home court advantage was a franchise defining loss instead. You can argue Stern decided game 5 all you want but the Suns had a man advantage in game 6 and the motivation that the commissioner just "screwed" them and they couldn't force a game 7. There's just nothing the Suns have done to make me say they would have won 2 out of the last 3 in that series suspensions or not.

This was a series defining action and Stern knew that when he made it.

No the series defining action was Amare and Diaw leaving the bench. That single action brought all this on. Stern had two choices. He could either decide not to suspend the two Suns players and hear nothing but criticisms and allegations that the NBA was doing their best to get the Suns into the Finals or suspend the two players because thats what the rule book says is supposed to happen. I think the more plausable story is the latter. Look at the NBA Draft - now they make sure in the broadcast to tell us that an accounting firm is there pulling the ping pong balls with sequestered representatives of each team in an effort to prove the lottery is not fixed. On top of that you had Boston, Memphis and Milwaukee trying their best to lose games and the season ending incident with Duncan and Joey Crawford and speculation the refs would get even by making bad calls to change the game in the playoffs so given all those questions into the integrity of the league I don't think Stern had a choice in the matter.

You said earlier that had it been Duncan he wouldn't have been suspended and you might actually be right about it but not because he's Tim Duncan but for the reasons I said above. I think if you want to talk precedent you have to compare apples to apples and look at had their been specifically playoff games in which players have not been suspended and the two incidents you mentioned were not playoff games. I know there have been playoff suspensions with the Knicks brawl years back for leaving the bench.

I think the bottom line is that no matter what Stern shouldn't have had to be put into that position because you can argue that no matter what he decided that he was affecting the outcome of the series. Letting Amare and Diaw "slide" on a suspension worthy offense (according to the rules anyway) would be favoring the Suns and suspending the players was favoring the Spurs. Either way someone was going to be the loser of the decision but in the end it's Amare and Diaw who are to blame for it - all they had to do was stay on the bench like the other 12 players on benches did. I'm sure Stern would have liked nothing more than if those players maybe just took a half step onto the court and stopped - nobody probably would have even noticed but it became a story immediately during and after the game. Stern couldn't sweep it under the rug and I think he made the decision that was best for the league as a whole which is what he is supposed to do as commissioner. I highly doubt he's thrilled that the Finals, while being a matchup of two teams that play excellent fundamental, hard nosed basketball - everything a basketball junkie loves to see - will be turned down by the casual fan because they want to see teams score 110 points or else its not entertaining. I'm not sure why you call it a snoozefest - I think the two series going right now are entertaining. You're seeing two very good teams in the West and in the East the Pistons are not playing up to par but the games have been close and decided in the final seconds which makes for good watching.

[miami_fan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...ory?id=2884926

CLEVELAND -- Larry Hughes of the Cleveland Cavaliers will likely miss Game 4 of the Eastern Conference finals after suffering a torn plantar fascia in his left foot during Game 3. Hughes said the likelihood of him playing in Game 4 was "slim."

"I'm not ruling it out. We'll just have to see. If I can go out and help the team, I'll help the team. If not, I'll support them from the sidelines," Hughes said.

Hughes, who had been battling plantar fasciitis for more than a month, tore the heel muscle when he planted his foot to go up for a reverse layup in the first half of Cleveland's 88-82 victory that cut Detroit's lead to 2-1 in the best-of-7 series. He was replaced in the second half by rookie Daniel Gibson, although it was not yet known whether Gibson would replace Hughes as the starting point guard Tuesday night, or whether coach Mike Brown would turn to veteran Eric Snow if Hughes is unable to play.

"Kind of a freak play, I guess. There wasn't any contact or anything like that, I just probably had it planted and turned the wrong way," Hughes said. "It was hot, and I've never torn a muscle or anything like that before. So I knew when I did it that it wasn't a normal tweak or anything like that. It was something pretty serious."

An MRI exam revealed the tear, which Hughes said should be able to heal without surgery. But the healing time for such injuries is typically several weeks, so it's possible that Hughes will not return during the postseason.

"It's very painful. It's real sore today," said Hughes, who was walking with a pronounced limp in the locker room Monday. "If the game was today, I couldn't play today. I'll see tomorrow how it feels."

As a person who has suffered with plantar fasciitis before, I really don't see how he comes back and helps the team at all this postseason. Based on what they were able to accomplish last year and in Game 3 without him, it might be a blessing in disguise.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

As a person who has suffered with plantar fasciitis before, I really don't see how he comes back and helps the team at all this postseason. Based on what they were able to accomplish last year and in Game 3 without him, it might be a blessing in disguise.

Considering what little production he offers comes almost entirely from his athleticism, I agree. There's no way he should play again this postseason.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

As a person who has suffered with plantar fasciitis before, I really don't see how he comes back and helps the team at all this postseason. Based on what they were able to accomplish last year and in Game 3 without him, it might be a blessing in disguise.

Couldn't agree more. Hopefully Gibson steps in over Snow. Sort of sad that I'm happy to see our 2nd round selection rookie PG (hopefully) making his way in to the starting lineup, but at least Gibson can knock down the odd 3 pointer.

[Groundhog]

Jazz seem to be doing a good job of drawing fouls.

Wish I was actually watching this game rather than just following the boxscore.

[miami_fan]

Boozer has to maintain his composure.

[Brian Swartz]

Jarron Collins just doesn't have the flopping technique down.

[Karlifornia]

Jazz fans throwing things on the court. Do they serve beer at their arena? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess some parking lot drinking was going on.

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

As a person who has suffered with plantar fasciitis before, I really don't see how he comes back and helps the team at all this postseason. Based on what they were able to accomplish last year and in Game 3 without him, it might be a blessing in disguise.

You can say that again; shooting 32% from the field and 60% from the line combined though the NJ and Det series.

Says alot when you'd rather have a rookie starting in the ECF's over your $13 million 'star' even if he wasn't injured

[Groundhog]

Very nice showing by Gibson, and hell, even Gooden is contributing. All they have to do now is NOT stuff up for 3:30.

[Brian Swartz]

Detroit is really playing with fire here ... this is looking a lot like last year's matchup, and they'd better kick it into gear NOW or they could well lose this series. They haven't deserved to win a single game this series.

[Passacaglia]

I figured out why they never call traveling anymore. I guess now they call it 'steps'.

[Groundhog]

So, uhh, maybe next year for Utah.

[Groundhog]

dola

And I mean that, too. I like this Utah squad if they can keep it together. Deron Williams should wind up the best rookie from that crop by a longshot if he keeps it up.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

dola

And I mean that, too. I like this Utah squad if they can keep it together. Deron Williams should wind up the best rookie from that crop by a longshot if he keeps it up.

I have to see Chris Paul with a quality squad around him first before I go that far.

[Brian Swartz]

Agreed, but they should be a very good team as long as Williams + their front line remains intact. They probably need one more serious customer in the backcourt though to be a contender.

[Groundhog]

I need to lay off the acid... It almost seemed like I saw Hughes hit two threes in a row.

[Brian Swartz]

Whiners of the world unite ... someone needs to tell CWebb to pull his head out of his behind and realize that they aren't struggling against Cleveland because of the refs. Crikey.

[Groundhog]

Would've been nice to enter the half with a lead, but not a bad 2nd Q. Just need to stop sending them to the line.

[Groundhog]

Another case of those 3rd Quarter Blues.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Another case of those 3rd Quarter Blues.

Cavs made a nice run at the end of the 3rd to tie it. Shaping up to be another great finish. The Cavs need some more Lebron magic and the Pistons need to go inside to Rasheed more. They just started jacking up threes for a while.