VeeshanVault

Posted: **May 16, 2007, 6:25 pm**

Zamtuk wrote:land of the potatoe? (nice one dan quayle)

thats idaho dumbass.

Those states are all the same to me. May as well just combine them together and call the new state Cornholio.

Posted: **May 16, 2007, 6:35 pm**

Syl wrote:You say that it's unfair to enforce the rule in this situation, and from what I see of your explanation, it sounds like it's because the Spurs have been playing rougher than teams usually do? I don't feel that warrants a pass and makes the Suns' suspensions unfair. If you want to say that more Spurs should be punished in addition to Horry, I won't disagree with that. Bruce Bowen should be playing in a roller derby somewhere, not the NBA.

My argument is: The Spurs are in the wrong far moreso than the Suns. Thus, a fair punishment would punish the Spurs more than the Suns.

This could be accomplished in various ways. One way is for the NBA to decline to enforce the leaving-the-bench rule in this case (perhaps by accepting Stoudemire's excuse that he was going to check into the game). Another way would be to check on the accusation that Tim Duncan left the bench at another point and suspend him (I don't really like this option, because TD hasn't done anything wrong). Another option would be to look at Bruce Bowen's play and suspend him for two games alongside Horry, in keeping with the NBA's right to exercise discretion in suspending players for flagrant fouls.

The point is that the NBA had a lot of different enforcement options, and they chose one which punishes the team in the right more than the team in the wrong. That is what is unfair about it.

I don't want to say any more about it because that's all that's important about the argument. I'm not arguing about the merits of the rules, or whether any individual suspension ought to have been imposed, or anything of the sort-- I'm simply saying that if the NBA can choose, via an exercise of it's rule-enforcing discretion, which team to punish more harshly, it ought to more harshly punish the team which is in the wrong.

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me on that, but make sure that you're actually disagreeing with what I'm saying.

Zam wrote:you can't see my avatar anyways. we've had this discussion before.

Wait really? Lame

Posted: **May 16, 2007, 6:41 pm**

Sueven wrote:
Zam wrote:you can't see my avatar anyways. we've had this discussion before.
Wait really? Lame

Broken avatars suck but VeeshanVault's broken VV transfer system has cost me millions in potential VV's from bets off people. My last windfall came way back during the presidential elections when I won the electoral vote challenge.

A title change will work for Zamtuk but Leonaerd should be able to change his avatar to a Phoenix Suns logo with no trouble.

Posted: **May 16, 2007, 7:05 pm**

Suns coach Mike D'Antoni had a good take on this:

"We have the most powerful microscopes and telescopes in the world in Arizona, (and) you could use those instruments and not find a shred of fairness or common sense in that decision," D'Antoni said after the Suns' morning shooting session. "That's kind of how it feels. It really benefits no one. It doesn't benefit us, obviously. It doesn't benefit the Spurs. It doesn't benefit the fans. It doesn't benefit the NBA.

"I kind of use that as a guideline. It if doesn't benefit no one, maybe you got to look into the decision."

Posted: **May 16, 2007, 8:21 pm**

To demonstrate how inflexible the "bench" rule is, when that Francisco guy fell on James Jones early in the game and Duncan stepped onto the court, all James Jones needed to do was stop and confront him and Duncan would have been ejected for being on the court.

Now you'll have people eying the sidelines and if someone's foot is on the court, they'll grab an opposing player and "confront" them to automatically get a player suspended for having their feet on the court.

So gay. So gay.

Posted: **May 16, 2007, 8:33 pm**

CNNSI Front Page:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/w ... index.html

Suspended disbelief

NBA in the wrong disciplining Suns based on rigid rule

Posted: Wednesday May 16, 2007 11:21AM; Updated: Wednesday May 16, 2007 1:44PM

When Phoenix's Boris Diaw leaped off the bench after teammate Steve Nash was hip-checked to the floor in the waning seconds of Game 4 on Monday night, he was more likely to be delivering croissants than seeking retribution against San Antonio's Robert Horry, the player who committed the foul on Nash.

That's why the suspensions of Diaw and teammate Amaré Stoudemire for Game 5 on Wednesday night are, in a word, wrong.

NBA rules state that in the event of an on-court incident, "all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined $35,000." The rule was instituted after a bench-clearing brawl between the New York Knicks and the Chicago Bulls in the 1994 playoffs and cemented during the NBA's darkest hour, the 2004 brawl in the Palace of Auburn Hills in which Indiana Pacers players went into the stands. Its intention is to prevent an already bad situation from escalating.

This situation in San Antonio, however, wasn't even close to that one. Nor was it close to what happened even in the Denver Nuggets-New York Knicks game at Madison Square Garden last December, when a few players came off the bench after a small fracas started under the basket. Every rule must be enforced with common sense, and this is one that called for a dose of that from the league office.

Here's the sequence of events: Horry hip-checks Nash almost directly in front of the Phoenix bench. Nash could've been seriously hurt. Stoudemire and Diaw rise in protest. They don't come near Horry. They don't cock a fist. Diaw, a confirmed pacifist, takes a few steps and then seems to think, "Ah, hell with it," and retreats. There was no threat of escalation, no exchange of physicality at all, except for the Suns' Raja Bell shoving Horry, an act that drew a technical foul. A careful review of the tape -- and I have no doubt that the NBA reviewed it countless times -- reveals that there was no threat of this thing turning into a donnybrook.

The NBA deserves much credit for going to great lengths to reduce the violence in its game. But rules with no wriggle room, rules with no gray area at all, do not serve the game.

The net result of this incident is that Horry commits a dirty play and the Suns are the team most severely penalized, having to play Game 5 without their leading scorer in Stoudemire and a top reserve in Diaw.

It isn't fair.

"It's not a matter of fairness," said Stu Jackson, the league's enforcement czar. "It's a matter of correctness."

Now, there's a statement that will go down in jurisprudence history.

Posted: **May 16, 2007, 8:42 pm**

Maybe Sylvus will listen to his belived Bill Simmon's comments:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ortCat=nba

1. Let's say you're one of the best seven players on the Phoenix Suns. You love Nash -- he's your emotional leader, your meal ticket to the Finals, the ideal teammate and someone who makes you happy to play basketball every day for a living. He's killing himself to win a championship. His nose was split open in Game 1. His back bothers him to the point that he has to lie down on the sidelines during breaks. He's battling a real cheap-shot artist (Bruce Bowen) who's trying to shove and trip him on every play. But he keeps coming and coming, and eventually everyone follows suit. Just as things were falling apart in Game 4 and you were staring at the end of your season, he willed you back into the game and saved the day.

Suddenly, he gets body-checked into a press table for no real reason on an especially cheap play. You're standing 20 feet away. Instinctively, you run a few steps toward the guy who did it -- after all, your meal ticket is lying on the court in a crumpled heap -- before remembering that you can't leave your bench. So you go back and watch everything else unfold from there. Twenty-four hours later, you get suspended for Game 5 because your instincts as a teammate kicked in for 1.7 seconds.

Think about how dumb this is. What kind of league penalizes someone for reacting like a good teammate after his franchise player just got decked? Imagine you're playing pickup at a park, you're leading a game 10-3, your buddy is driving for the winning layup, and some stranger clotheslines your buddy from behind and knocks him into the metal pole. Do you react? Do you take a couple of steps toward him? I bet you do. For the NBA to pretend it can create a fairy-tale league in which these reactions can be removed from somebody's DNA -- almost like a chemical castration -- I mean, how stupid is that?

2. One of the running debates of these playoffs: Is Bruce Bowen a cheap player? I love the fact that anyone's actually debating this -- if your answer is "no" or your answer is "I'm not sure," then you've obviously never played basketball in your life. Bruce Bowen is a cheap player. There's no debate. He's not some clumsy power forward who can't stay out of his own way (like Mark Madsen), or even some uncoordinated center who can't remember to keep his elbows near his body (like Shawn Bradley). He's a world-class athlete who has complete control over every inch of his body at all times.

As anyone who's ever played basketball knows, with the exception of clumsy people who probably shouldn't be playing in the first place, there are no accidents on a basketball court. Your feet just don't coincidentally land under someone else's feet as he's shooting a jump shot, and you don't just coincidentally kick someone in the calf as he's going up for a layup or dunk. These things don't just happen. They don't. The only room for error happens when someone's trying to block a fast-break layup or dunk, takes a roundhouse swipe and inadvertently ends up hitting his opponent's head instead of the ball (like we saw with Matt Barnes when he clocked Matt Harpring Tuesday night). When Jason Richardson nails Memo Okur at the end of Game 4 because he's pissed that Okur was driving at the tail end of a guaranteed win, or Baron Davis elbows Derek Fisher in the same game because he's ticked that the Warriors blew a winnable game ... those aren't accidents.

Anyway, for a world-class athlete with exceptional coordination, Bruce Bowen sure seems to have a lot of "accidents." They happen because of his style -- best described as "organized, physical chaos" -- and because he deliberately bends the rules for a competitive advantage. When he was breaking into the league, Bowen played for the Celtics from 1997-99, back when I was living in Boston and attending nearly every game. He was just as good defensively back then -- quicker, even -- but couldn't shoot to save his life (41 percent his first season, 28 percent his second season), and more importantly, he was a soft player. Opponents pushed him around, refs didn't give him any respect, even his own coach (Rick Pitino) screamed at him constantly. Since Bowen seemed like such a nice guy, and he tried so freaking hard, everyone who attended those games found themselves feeling sorry for him. As gifted as he was defensively, I never imagined him making it because of his dreadful shooting and beaten-down, little-kid-getting-picked-on-in-class demeanor. He just needed one person to believe in him ... and Rick Pitino wasn't it.

When he finally made it in San Antonio a few years later, I wasn't shocked because there's always a place in the NBA for someone with a specific skill (whether it's long-range shooting, rebounding, defense or whatever), but I was shocked by his much-improved 3-point shooting (44 percent in 2003?????) and newfound intensity. Watching him hound offensive players was like watching Beecher torment Schillinger after he finally snapped in "Oz." Where did this come from??? Suddenly, Bowen was willing to bend the rules, trip guys as they landed after jump shots, bump them when they weren't looking and basically do anything to get into their heads, all while doing the whole "Wait, I'm in trouble??? What????" routine and pretending to be shocked anytime anyone threatened to kick his ass. Which happens every couple of months. There's no doubt in my mind -- absolutely none -- that at some point between Boston and San Antonio, Bruce Bowen decided to do whatever it took to remain in the NBA. Even if it meant becoming a dirty player.

Now here's where the NBA failed: For a league that professes to be concerned about dirty play and any situation that could lead to a brawl, the league has curiously looked the other way with the single dirtiest player in the league. If he pulled this crap on a pickup court, or even in college intramurals, somebody would have punched Bowen in the face and broken his jaw. In the NBA? He gets to keep doing his thing and putting other players in danger. In the Phoenix series alone, he tripped Stoudemire from behind on a dunk in Game 2, kneed Nash in the groin in Game 3 and tried to knock Nash off balance in Game 5 as they were running back upcourt (causing a frustrated Nash to elbow him in the chops). The league penalizes two Phoenix stars for instinctively running toward an injured teammate, but they don't penalize a perpetually dirty player who's eventually going to trigger an ugly brawl before the end of his career?

How the hell does that make sense?

In the current NBA, you can't commit a hard foul, you can't trash-talk another player, you can't pull your shirt up after a roof-raising dunk, you can't protect a teammate who just got knocked into a press table. We have these rules -- I'm guessing -- because any of those actions can lead to an ugly fight. Ever since the Bad Boys Pistons and Riley's Knicks tried to turn the NBA into the WWF in the late '80s and early '90s, nearly every rule change was created to prevent ugly incidents, even if some of those rule changes compromised the competitiveness of the league in the process. Well, if that's the case, how could the league allow Bruce Bowen to keep running amok with no repercussions? Can you think of a better candidate to trigger an ugly fight some day than Bruce Bowen? Why do they allow him to keep doing what he's doing? Seriously, does the NBA have a clue?

Posted: **May 16, 2007, 11:26 pm**

. During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000. The suspensions will commence prior to the start of their next game. A team must have a minimum of eight players dressed and ready to play in every game. If five or more players leave the bench, the players will serve their suspensions alphabetically, according to the first letters of their last name. If seven bench players are suspended (assuming no participants are included), four of them would be suspended for the first game following the altercation. The remaining three would be suspended for the second game following the altercation.

For all the people that are claiming to know what is stated in rule 12, 99% haven't a clue what it says. It is not a clear rule as written and the NBA EASILY could have said they stayed in the immediate vicinity and not had this drama, if San Antonio wins this I am gonna fucking puke.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 4:04 am**

I think the Suns are done. They poured their heart and soul into tonight's game and almost won it. They looked exhausted at the end. They just didn't have enough juice to make it the entire 48...came up about 2 minutes short.

Fuck the Spurs. What a shame.

"I know for a fact that Boris Diaw would never, ever be in a fight," D'Antoni said. "I know that. To suspend him for going to Steve Nash, for looking and curiosity, that's a little harsh."

The Frenchman Diaw said he could not remember being in a fight, even as a kid.

"I've been in the NBA for four years and I haven't got even one technical foul," Diaw said. "I was just looking to see that Steve was all right."

NBA is one fucked up league. Way to take everything into consideration.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 12:58 pm**

Just when I was really getting back into the NBA... I doubt I will be watching much more after this debacle, they had the ability to blow this off and just suspend Horry for a game and they didn't.. the rule alows flexibility and they showed none, Stern proves once again he is not fit to lead.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 1:36 pm**

Winnow wrote:Maybe Sylvus will listen to his belived Bill Simmon's comments:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ortCat=nba

He's not beloved! I think he's a pretty good writer, and I usually read his columns, but I often times think he's a bit of a douchebag.

All I'm trying to say is that enforcing that rule in the case of Amare and Diaw, which is a black and white rule and doesn't leave room for interpretation, is not unfair.

Is it a shitty rule? Quite possibly. Probably, even, in light of this situation, and hopefully it will be re-evaluated and amended in the off-season. But as it is written and has been enforced for the last 10 years, the rule was correctly interpreted.

Should the league take action against Bruce Bowen? Absolutely, they should have years ago. He's been the dirtiest player in the league for at least 3 seasons now. I despise Bruce Bowen. But the fact of the matter is, for whatever reason, the NBA has consistently turned a blind eye toward him and he somehow has their tacit approval.

That leads me to

Sueven wrote:My argument is: The Spurs are in the wrong far moreso than the Suns. Thus, a fair punishment would punish the Spurs more than the Suns.

All suspension punishments that are ever handed out are done based on individual actions. They don't take into account that in yesterday's game, Bruce Bowen elbowed your 4th best shot-blocker in the scrotum. Or that in the game 2 days ago, Tony Parker stuck his finger up someone else's butthole. Or that throughout a series, one team has been pushing the rules and not getting called for it. If you want to say that the refs have not appropriately called enough fouls on the Spurs throughout the series, I will not argue that. Hell, they never have, and evidence can be seen on Tim Duncan's face every time a call doesn't go his way. But history isn't taken into account, and I don't feel it should be, when an incident occurs and multiple people are punished for it.

In the incident the other night, 4 people were involved, and 4 people were punished, based on the existing rules that the players knew when they went into that game. Robert Horry committed a dirty, flagrant foul and was suspended for 2 games. Raja Bell pushed him and got a Technical. Amare and Diaw left their bench, violated a (in retrospect, shitty) rule and were punished according to the rules. Would this even be an issue if, rather than Amare and Diaw being the players that left their bench, it had been 2 scrubs at the end of the Suns' bench? No one would have even mentioned it. If you're trying to fairly interpret the rules, you do not take into account how good a player is or how big of a superstar he is.

To sum up what I'm trying to say:

Rule 12-A-VII-c is quite possibly too draconian and deserves to be looked at in the off-season.
Bruce Bowen is consistently as dirty as Bill Laimbeer or Karl Malone and has deserved a multi-game suspension or some kind of wakeup call for a long time, long before this particular series.
Since 1 exists in its current wording and 2 has consistently been overlooked by the NBA to the point where they make it look like they don't care, I don't feel that the punishments handed out were unfair when looking at this incident in isolation.
When it comes to sports, I'm often times less reasonable than when thinking about other things. Let it be known that Winnow's constant Suns fellatio has soured me on the team, and I could be being more unfair than I would be with another team.
I'm writing long-winded rants or whathaveyou because it helps me pass the time, not because I actually care one way or the other. I hate both teams almost equally.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 1:54 pm**

As I said earlier, what happened with the Suns shouldn't take a Suns fan to see the injustice of it.

When you keep mentioning that my enthusiasm for a hard, clean playing, entertaining basketball team impacts your thought process, it lessons the value of your comments as it's clear that you aren't looking at this objectively and are acting as if you were an NBA lawyer paid to defend the decision.

Any sensible person (which seems to be about 90% of the people that have seen this) understand that what happened was ridiculous.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 2:11 pm**

After watching replays last night, Nash should have been on the football pitch. He would fit in very well there.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 2:31 pm**

Boogahz wrote:After watching replays last night, Nash should have been on the football pitch. He would fit in very well there.

He proably did embelish the landing a little bit.. but getting clotheslined by someone 7 inches talle and 60 lbs heavier while running full tilt up the court is probably gonna be a little bit painful.

In the incident the other night, 4 people were involved, and 4 people were punished, based on the existing rules that the players knew when they went into that game.

Amare and Diaw were involved less in the play than the guys on the court.
I think suspending players for standing up and taking 3 steps on the sidelines in reaction to their star player... their leader, getting clotheslined into the announcers tables is absolute horseshit.

The rule is there to discourage physical altrecations between players on the bench and players on the court. The players involved used their own better judgement to prevent that from happening. The league should have used some discretion when they reviewed the incident and handed out the suspensions.

What message are they tying to send here?

Are they trying to say that having a perfectly reasonable and acceptable emotional reaction to an incident on the court is half as bad as physically assaulting a player on an opposing team?

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 2:42 pm**

Boogahz wrote:After watching replays last night, Nash should have been on the football pitch. He would fit in very well there.

Remember that he was protecting the ball so had less of a chance to break his fall. After last year when the Lakers man-raped Nash to get the ball without a call in the final seconds of a game, he had to hold onto the ball tightly while being slammed out of bounds because who knows if the refs would call a foul.

If you can't see Horry digging in and lowering his shoulder, especially in slow motion during replays, you're blind.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 3:07 pm**

Winnow wrote:
Boogahz wrote:After watching replays last night, Nash should have been on the football pitch. He would fit in very well there.
Remember that he was protecting the ball so had less of a chance to break his fall. After last year when the Lakers man-raped Nash to get the ball without a call in the final seconds of a game, he had to hold onto the ball tightly while being slammed out of bounds because who knows if the refs would call a foul.

If you can't see Horry digging in and lowering his shoulder, especially in slow motion during replays, you're blind.

He was commenting that he was originally going to just take the charge until he saw how fast Nash was moving (which would have been reasonable), but then decided to nudge him (his words, not mine). He did not appear to be attempting to body check him as bad as you (and some reporters) attempt to play it off as. This was with multiple replays and angles. He was justly suspended regardless of Nash's flop being up to par with his normal acting abilities.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 3:41 pm**

There was more acting in last night's game then in an hour of the Sopranos. I don't think I saw Nash on his feet longer than 2 minutes straight, and 2 minutes is being generous.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 3:42 pm**

miir wrote:What message are they tying to send here?

I think it's quite clear that the message they are trying to send is "Don't get up off the bench during an altercation. For any reason."

After reading the linked article by Bill Simmons, I agree that the rule needs to be changed. He is right when he says that it takes away from the game when you discourage people from showing emotion. I encourage celebration (and other shows of emotion) in all sports. It makes it much more entertaining to me. I can't say that I would have done anything differently if I'd been sitting on that bench and saw that happen to one of my friends and temmates.

But that doesn't change the fact that it currently is a rule. The rule doesn't include anything about you having to join a fracas, what your intention was, whether you were provoked by your star player being assualted or anything other than "don't get up and leave the bench".

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 3:46 pm**

I don't know if I see that rule being amended due to the Pacers/Piston brawl and more recently that Knick/Nugget brawl.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 3:53 pm**

Virtually every rule in professional sports is open to interpretation.

I understand the why this rule was implemented but in the heat of the moment, during the playoffs, when emotions are running high... why not just cut the players some slack?

No harm, no foul.
Right?

When they stuck to the letter-of-the-law for that specific rule in that specific incident, they should be obligated to view the tapes for that game and call every single similar infraction commited by both teams.

Duncan wasn't suspended for taking his ass off the bench and standing up earlier in the game... why not?

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 3:56 pm**

Winnow wrote:Leonaerd: yet to be seen. So far, he's not in compliance for Chicago/Detroit series going more than 5!

Goddamnit. Pick your avatar.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 3:57 pm**

Why don't you double-or-nothing him that the Pistons win Game 6 in Chicago tonight?

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 3:58 pm**

Sylvus wrote:Why don't you double-or-nothing him that the Pistons win Game 6 in Chicago tonight?

Winnow? Yes? My title will be "<3 Zen Vision M" for an additional two weeks if The Pistons lose. If they win, however, you sport the Pistons logo.

Deal?

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 4:06 pm**

Leonaerd wrote:
Sylvus wrote:Why don't you double-or-nothing him that the Pistons win Game 6 in Chicago tonight?
Winnow? Yes? My title will be "<3 Zen Vision M" for an additional two weeks if The Pistons lose. If they win, however, you sport the Pistons logo.

Deal?

Let me think on it. It's hard to bet on the NBA atm with all the dirty play and scam rules needing to be factored in. In the meantime, here you go:

Resized to fit as an avatar just for you!

Two week ending date: 5/31/07

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 4:09 pm**

Boogahz wrote: He was commenting that he was originally going to just take the charge until he saw how fast Nash was moving (which would have been reasonable), but then decided to nudge him (his words, not mine). He did not appear to be attempting to body check him as bad as you (and some reporters) attempt to play it off as. This was with multiple replays and angles. He was justly suspended regardless of Nash's flop being up to par with his normal acting abilities.

Dude, all he needed to do was stick his arm out. He body checked him instead.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 4:20 pm**

Afterwards I'm going to put up a video of Nash getting decked by Horry as my avatar.

Winnow, do you see any parallels between the suspensions doled out and Cartalas' banning? Rules / regulations that sound better on paper than when they're actually enforced comes to mind...

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 4:25 pm**

Leonaerd wrote:Afterwards I'm going to put up a video of Nash getting decked by Horry as my avatar.

Winnow, do you see any parallels between the suspensions doled out and Cartalas' banning? Rules / regulations that sound better on paper than when they're actually enforced comes to mind...

I was going to say that we need the opinion of a bystander in this matter. Who better than a Dallas fan to give a take on this? Where's Cart?

Avatar looks good Leonaerd! I'll give you a chance to get back at me soon.

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 4:51 pm**

Winnow wrote:I was going to say that we need the opinion of a bystander in this matter. Who better than a Dallas fan to give a take on this? Where's Cart?

Avatar looks good Leonaerd! I'll give you a chance to get back at me soon.

I'm a bystander... or am I disqualified because I'm Canadian?

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 4:58 pm**

miir wrote: I'm a bystander... or am I disqualified because I'm Canadian?

Canada's sports personality of the year for two years running being involved disqualifies you! That, and one of the Collangelo brothers managing the Raptors. Too many Suns connections!

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 6:18 pm**

Leonaerd wrote:
Afterwards I'm going to put up a video of Nash getting decked by Horry as my avatar.

Winnow, do you see any parallels between the suspensions doled out and Cartalas' banning? Rules / regulations that sound better on paper than when they're actually enforced comes to mind...

I was going to say that we need the opinion of a bystander in this matter. Who better than a Dallas fan to give a take on this? Where's Cart?

I was on board with the suspensions. It's been a chippy series so all the players have microscopes on them and need to watch themselves.

Go Utah!

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 6:39 pm**

Winnow wrote:
miir wrote: I'm a bystander... or am I disqualified because I'm Canadian?
Canada's sports personality of the year for two years running being involved disqualifies you! That, and one of the Collangelo brothers managing the Raptors. Too many Suns connections!

Well the fact that I'm actually agreeing with you on something for once has to count for something!

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 7:56 pm**

miir wrote:
Winnow wrote:
miir wrote: I'm a bystander... or am I disqualified because I'm Canadian?
Canada's sports personality of the year for two years running being involved disqualifies you! That, and one of the Collangelo brothers managing the Raptors. Too many Suns connections!
Well the fact that I'm actually agreeing with you on something for once has to count for something!

...but Nash IS Canadian!

Posted: **May 17, 2007, 11:47 pm**

Boogahz wrote:
miir wrote:
Winnow wrote:
miir wrote: I'm a bystander... or am I disqualified because I'm Canadian?
Canada's sports personality of the year for two years running being involved disqualifies you! That, and one of the Collangelo brothers managing the Raptors. Too many Suns connections!
Well the fact that I'm actually agreeing with you on something for once has to count for something!
...but Nash IS Canadian!

REALLY?????

Posted: **May 18, 2007, 1:38 am**

miir wrote:
Boogahz wrote:
miir wrote:
Winnow wrote:
miir wrote: I'm a bystander... or am I disqualified because I'm Canadian?
Canada's sports personality of the year for two years running being involved disqualifies you! That, and one of the Collangelo brothers managing the Raptors. Too many Suns connections!
Well the fact that I'm actually agreeing with you on something for once has to count for something!
...but Nash IS Canadian!
REALLY?????

no

He's been adopted by Winnow, which makes him American

Posted: **May 18, 2007, 10:57 am**

Boogahz wrote:
miir wrote:
Boogahz wrote:
miir wrote:
Winnow wrote:
Canada's sports personality of the year for two years running being involved disqualifies you! That, and one of the Collangelo brothers managing the Raptors. Too many Suns connections!
Well the fact that I'm actually agreeing with you on something for once has to count for something!
...but Nash IS Canadian!
REALLY?????

no

He's been adopted by Winnow, which makes him American

Posted: **May 18, 2007, 4:21 pm**

Here's your chance to get back at me.

Avatar bet on the Suns/Spurs game tonight.

The Suns win, you use an avatar associated with the Suns of my choosing for 2 weeks. The Spurs win, you choose an avatar associated with an NBA team of your choosing for 2 weeks.

I'll take the first two people that reply. If I lose, I'll use the first posters avatar for 2 weeks then the second posters avatar for 2 weeks.

This is your big chance for lots of advertising on VV considering how many posts I make!

Note: if you're avatar doesn't show, you can't make the bet!

Posted: **May 18, 2007, 6:32 pm**

Wow, no takers? I'd take this bet if I wasn't a Suns Fanboi!

Posted: **May 18, 2007, 6:46 pm**

I would, but I am soooo rooting for the suns from here on out

Posted: **May 19, 2007, 1:30 am**

That fucking sucks.

Posted: **May 19, 2007, 2:02 am**

Duncan had an awesome game. The Spurs won that game. The problem is, this should be coming back to Phoenix for game seven.

Shame that the series wasn't decided by fair play and was directly affected by cheap shots and retarded hardline bench rules rewarding a dirty play that brought out a few seconds of human emotion from players before they caught themselves without a word said or coming within 10 feet of an opposing team player.

Disgusting.

Nothing's going to change the past so I can only hope that the Spurs all die in a plane crash with maybe Duncan surviving but being unable to make that stupid look on his face after he fouls someone anymore. Karma's a bitch!

No grats to the Spurs from me.

Posted: **May 19, 2007, 11:13 am**

Golf anyone?

Posted: **May 19, 2007, 11:17 am**

I've got clubhouse passes to the Memorial at Muirfield in a couple weeks. Soon to be upgraded to press passes!

Posted: **May 19, 2007, 11:47 am**

I might watch the Eastern Conference finals, but the Suns-Spurs series was decided by the NBA not the players on the court.

Posted: **May 19, 2007, 2:05 pm**

Zamtuk wrote:I've got clubhouse passes to the Memorial at Muirfield in a couple weeks. Soon to be upgraded to press passes!

Niiiiice.

Posted: **May 19, 2007, 6:55 pm**

The better team won

.

Posted: **May 21, 2007, 9:41 am**

The Suns lost Game 1 at home. They didn't take care of their business. That said, Nash is am amazing player and so is Amare (although I can't stand him as a person). Oh yeah, and Nash should SO have been T'ed up when he was bitching up a storm heh.

But Duncan is amazing. Simply amazing. To watch his humility after the game and the respect he and Nash showed each other just proves why he is my favorite player. I don't understand how people can claim the Spurs play boring basketball with Duncan, Ginobli and Parker.

Posted: **May 21, 2007, 12:47 pm**

Kelshara wrote:The Suns lost Game 1 at home. They didn't take care of their business. That said, Nash is am amazing player and so is Amare (although I can't stand him as a person). Oh yeah, and Nash should SO have been T'ed up when he was bitching up a storm heh.

The Spurs also didn't take care of business in game four (well I guess they did with Cheapshot Bob)...that's why the series is best of seven...and it should have went seven.

I'm not saying the Suns would have won for sure but this series deserved to go seven and would have most likely if two players in a seven man rotation weren't suspended for a gay hard line rule that ended up benefiting the dirty team.

Anyway, the draft lotto it tomorrow. Here's hoping that Atlanta doesn't get a top three pick.

Posted: **May 21, 2007, 12:50 pm**

Interestingly enough, the Suns lost by more with Amare and Diaw in the lineup for game 6 than they did during the suspension game.

I'm just sayin'.

Posted: **May 21, 2007, 1:40 pm**

Sylvus wrote:Interestingly enough, the Suns lost by more with Amare and Diaw in the lineup for game 6 than they did during the suspension game.

I'm just sayin'.

And they also won two games with Amare and Diaw in the lineup. The difference in talent between the two teams isn't big enough to take away two main players from the Suns roster for a game.

Although the fucked up management of the NBA doesn't think so with their automatron bench rules, emotions and circumstances do play a part in how games go. The Suns had the Spurs on the ropes at the end of game 4 until the mishap. It's an * season for me.

Posted: **May 21, 2007, 2:57 pm**

Not really. They got beat at home by 3. They had a lot of momentum going into that game even with the suspensions. It seemed like the Suns were more willing to use Game 4 more as an excuse than a motivational tool after Game 5. There was absolutely no reason for the Suns to have lost Game 5, none. The Spurs could barely hit rim or backboard that game and the Suns slacked majorly on defense because of it, allowing that comeback. Game 6 purely justifies my point.

VeeshanVault

Greg Oden found to be 48 Years Old