Can we finally end this nonsense notion
by mikey p
on Apr 30, 2008 6:29 PM PDT
that the Suns were robbed vs. the Spurs last year?
It is hard to find anyone who will agree that David Stern and Stu Jackson did the right thing last year when they suspended Diaw and Stoudamire for walking towards the court during a scuffle. The rule was enforced way too literally. Stern and Jackson run this league like dictators. Paul Pierce was fined for a "menacing gesture", except nobody knows what that means.
All that said...the Spurs just gave Phoenix another whipping this year, as they do every year, and will likely continue to do as long as those same teams with those core rosters meet. A few of the games this series could have gone either way, but the Spurs just have a knack for hitting the big shot, making the big stop, and getting a little luck along the way.
I never believed for one minute last year that Phoenix was going to beat SA in that series, suspensions or not. We will never know, of course, but I have heard way too many people suggest that the O'Brien trophy was practically taken from the Suns. Hogwash. They still would have had to get thru Utah, and then find a way to stop LeBron.
The Suns made a trade mid-season for one reason - to beat the Spurs. They lasted five games. Nash is old and plays defense as if his man were a leper, As long as he is running a team, that team has no chance. Amare is gutless. So much talent, but he lets himself get pushed around. , and Diaw and Barbosa are space cadets. Frankly I'm sick of them. Time to rebuild.
I think the Suns would be wise to fire D'Antoni and hire Avery. (Likewise, I think the Mavs would be wise to then hire D'Antoni).
So there it is. The "Suns were robbed vs. the Spurs" theory - debunked by the Suns vs. the Spurs.
0 recs |
6
comments
| Add your comment
EmailComments
I have to disagree
First of all, it’s clear the Spurs are better than the Suns this season. How that proves anything about last season is beyond me. If anything, if indeed there were a crime last season, the fact that Steve Nash is now too old to dominate on offense, the fact that the Suns panicked and made a bad trade… it all makes last season’s incident all the more tragic.
Obviously the Suns would have still had to defeat the Jazz and the Cavs. Do you honestly believe that they would not have? It was clearly, painfully obvious that the Suns and Spurs were the best two teams in the NBA last season. By suspending Stoudemire and Diaw for game 5 of a 2-2 series, the NBA pretty clearly impacted the outcome. The fact that the short-handed Suns lost Game 5 at home, and then the Spurs closed out the series in Texas (which was of course the most likely outcome when the suspensions were handed down), just make matters worse.
It’s fine, stuff happens. I honestly don’t think the NBA had an agenda on this. But the screwed it up royally, and to your question “Can we finally end this nonsense notion” the answer is quite obviously no. The Spurs 2007 championship will always be tainted by that decision. Always. And it deserves to be.
The Clippers! The (second) Best NBA Team in LA!
by ClipperSteve on
May 1, 2008 10:06 AM PDT
reply
0 recs
Well, the Suns got their rematch this year
having made the change they thought would get them past their nemesis. They are done in 5. Have the Spurs gotten any younger? I’m just saying.
I agree that the suspensions may have affected the outcome of that series. I am merely commenting on those who believe that the Suns were conclusively robbed of a title. They were not. They were only robbed of an opportunity.
So whether or not they would have defeated the Jazz, who they lost to three times that year, or the Cavs, I still don’t think they would have beat the Spurs any way.
That is how I see it. We will never know if they could have won that series or not.
by mikey p on
May 1, 2008 1:07 PM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
the suns
also gained a major anchor in shaq and lost a key player in Marion.
I don’t see the two years as equal.
Utah wouldn’t have been an issue because they didn’t belong. They got where they were because golden state beat dallas and golden state didn’t really belong. The suns or the spurs would have easily crushed Utah.
As for the cavs… you’re talking east coast vs west coast and a one man army going against two TEAMS. Cavs would have lost no matter what.
Defense trumps offense, and so I agree the spurs likely would have won, but you really don’t know and that’s why we play the games. I think it was cheap of Stern to do what he did and WORSE that he wasn’t consistent in the Boston game with players running onto the court. It was not worse than what the suns did.
"No way. I love this town. We're gonna bring back the glory years. These boys are my boys. This is my team and my town." - Greg Oden when asked about leaving.
by ratbastird on
May 2, 2008 11:24 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
Suns would not have "crushed" Utah
look at the head-to-head from last year. Utah won 3 of the 4 meetings. Same team.
Of course the suspensions impacted the series. I am only arguing with the notion that the Suns would have definitely been wearing rings had it not happened. Because I still doubt that they would have beaten San Antonio.
The Suns fans should point their blame at Mr. Robert Sarver. He is not much better than our own DTS.
by mikey p on
May 3, 2008 9:40 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
ratbastird
ratbastird, being a Blazers fan, has no problem with Sarver, since Paul Allen is using his millions to buy Sarver’s players and picks. The Blazers year in and year out have two sets of draft picks and young players to choose from – their own, and the Suns’.
The Clippers! The (second) Best NBA Team in LA!
by ClipperSteve on
May 3, 2008 9:52 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
Yes
How many prospects have the Blazers stockpiled in exchange for cash with the Suns? I’m sure ratbastird loves Sarver as much as the Lakers love the Grizzlies “GM”.
by mikey p on
May 3, 2008 5:21 PM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
New FanPost
