Lakers Bynum Done

[Nors]

Lakers' Bynum to undergo knee surgery Wednesday
5/18/2008, 6:11 p.m. EDT
By JOHN NADEL
The Associated Press

EL SEGUNDO, Calif. (AP) — More than four months after Andrew Bynum injured his left knee, it's been decided the Los Angeles Lakers center will undergo arthroscopic surgery.

The Lakers made the announcement Sunday, saying Dr. David Altchek will perform the procedure in New York on Wednesday — the same day Bynum's team entertains San Antonio or New Orleans to begin the Western Conference finals.

An estimated timetable for Bynum's return will be provided following the surgery.

 

[irvin88]

Like we didn't know this ?

Dude hasn't played since January, but are still the best team in the NBA.

 

[Nors]

your opinion on best team

lets see what Lakers can do with New Orleans....

 

[irvin88]

your opinion on best team

lets see what Lakers can do with New Orleans....

I already know...beat them.

Kobe vs. Morris Peterson is a fantastic matchup !!

 

[gazmc_06]

Already knew he wasn't playing again this year anyway so it's not a problem, still good enough without him to win it.

Lakers have a very strong team, Bynum would help but they have done it without him most of the year.

 

[Mavs Man]

This isn't exactly a breaking news item since the initial timeframe for his recovery was 8-10 weeks (he was hurt in January).

As it is, the Lakers are doing just fine without him.

 

[Hostile]

This is how disgusted I am with the NBA in recent years. I am a Lakers fan and have been since Magic Johnson was drafted by them. I saw him play in the NCAA Finals against Indiana State and Larry Bird, and was mesmerized. I went to several Lakers games during the Showtime years and never saw them lose when I was there live.

I have not watched an NBA game this year even though I knew my Lakers were playing well. I even know that since they acquired Gasol they've been far and away the best team in the NBA.

Doesn't change a thing. Last year when Horry sent Nash in the scorer's table and critical members of the Suns got suspended for the crucial game 7, I felt the NBA pretty much fixed that series. Please note, I do not like either team so I had no dog in that fight. It just turned my stomach that the series was decided by the league.

It would take a miracle to get me to watch at this point. Not even if my Lakers are in the Finals am I likely to watch. I still love them. I want them to win it all. I always will. I'm just too disgusted by what the NBA did to watch. Maybe that will change some day.

 

[big dog cowboy]

If it's the Lakers vs. Celtics in the finals you should watch.

You know the NBA is ray: for that to happen.

 

[Yeagermeister]

If it's the Lakers vs. Celtics in the finals you should watch.

You know the NBA is ray: for that to happen.

You mean how Stern wants it. *stirs that pot some more*

 

[Hostile]

If it's the Lakers vs. Celtics in the finals you should watch.

You know the NBA is ray: for that to happen.

I don't know if even that could bring me back. I used to love the NBA. I will never say never because I swore when the Baseball owners cancelled the 1994 World Series I wouldn't be back and I am. It took 2 steroid popping home run hitters to do it though. If I had known then what i know now about McGwire and Sosa I might not have gotten hooked again.

I love sports, but I hate when a league ruins something for the fans. That just really irks me to no end. I wrote to Rod Thorn of the NBA about my disgust. They claim no responsibility for the rule. How stupid is that?

I am not a Suns or Spurs fan, and if I had to choose one over the other I would probably choose the Spurs, so my disgust has nothing to do with rooting for the Suns.

 

[MC KAos]

This is how disgusted I am with the NBA in recent years. I am a Lakers fan and have been since Magic Johnson was drafted by them. I saw him play in the NCAA Finals against Indiana State and Larry Bird, and was mesmerized. I went to several Lakers games during the Showtime years and never saw them lose when I was there live.

I have not watched an NBA game this year even though I knew my Lakers were playing well. I even know that since they acquired Gasol they've been far and away the best team in the NBA.

Doesn't change a thing. Last year when Horry sent Nash in the scorer's table and critical members of the Suns got suspended for the crucial game 7, I felt the NBA pretty much fixed that series. Please note, I do not like either team so I had no dog in that fight. It just turned my stomach that the series was decided by the league.

It would take a miracle to get me to watch at this point. Not even if my Lakers are in the Finals am I likely to watch. I still love them. I want them to win it all. I always will. I'm just too disgusted by what the NBA did to watch. Maybe that will change some day.

how was it fixed? its so ridiculous that people keep saying the series was fixed last year to help the spurs. please explain to me for what reason would the league want the spurs over the suns in the finals? and since you dont watch basketball anymore you might not now this but its a rule, and an automatic suspension, if you leave the bench during an altercation, which they clearly did, it would be fixing the series if they wouldnt have gotten suspended, i dont see how it was unfair, its not the spurs fault that amare and diaw are retards

 

[Hostile]

how was it fixed? its so ridiculous that people keep saying the series was fixed last year to help the spurs. please explain to me for what reason would the league want the spurs over the suns in the finals? and since you dont watch basketball anymore you might not now this but its a rule, and an automatic suspension, if you leave the bench during an altercation, which they clearly did, it would be fixing the series if they wouldnt have gotten suspended, i dont see how it was unfair, its not the spurs fault that amare and diaw are retards

I do know the rule. I know where it had its genesis with Van Gundy and Zo Mourning. Never asusme that I am dumb. I was obviously watching the games last year and would know the rule.

I know Diaw and Amare were stupid to even take one step onto the court given the Draconian interpretation of the rule. (Draconian unless your name is Duncan in the same game.) He took a step onto the court earlier in the game on a hard foul and it was overlooked.

I think the interpretation of the rule is stupid. Had they caused an issue for the referees or the Spurs I would support those suspensions 100%. They didn't. The strict interpretation of the rule is not what is best for the NBA, for the fans of the NBA, or for the teams who play. In my opinion it encourages a bench player to take a chance at being a goon late in a game. I can't support that.

 

[zrinkill]

Duncan was at the scorers table and their was not a fight going on ...... the rule states off the bench during an altercation.

Duncan was checking on a injured teamate ...... The Suns players were going in the direction of Horry ...... not Nash.

 

[Hostile]

Duncan was at the scorers table and their was not a fight going on ...... the rule states off the bench during an altercation.

Duncan was checking on a injured teamate ...... The Suns players were going in the direction of Horry ...... not Nash.

Whatever it takes to justify it. Duncan "left the bench area" and that was the NBA's interpretation of the rule. As I said, I probably like the Spurs more than I do the Suns. I feel that series ended up being fixed. The outcome was determined by a suit in an office, not the players on the court.

That rubs me the wrong way.

 

[zrinkill]

Whatever it takes to justify it. Duncan "left the bench area" and that was the NBA's interpretation of the rule. As I said, I probably like the Spurs more than I do the Suns. I feel that series ended up being fixed. The outcome was determined by a suit in an office, not the players on the court.

That rubs me the wrong way.

Hey buddy ..... you know me ..... I am not trying to justify anything.

They were going to attack horry ..... and they were justified in doing it.

If I had been a Suns player ...... I would have been thrown out as well.

But we both also know that Duncan was not doing that. So if you want to go by the Intent of the rule ..... the right call was made.

Personally I would only have suspended Horry.

 

[Hostile]

Hey buddy ..... you know me ..... I am not trying to justify anything.

They were going to attack horry ..... and they were justified in doing it.

If I had been a Suns player ...... I would have been thrown out as well.

But we both also know that Duncan was not doing that. So if you want to go by the Intent of the rule ..... the right call was made.

Personally I would only have suspended Horry.

Like I said, the interpretations of that rule decided that series. That bothers me and soured me on a sport I really used to love. I don't know what it will take to bring me back, but I can tell you not even my Lakers beating the Celtics would at this point. Maybe that changes. I honestly don't know.

I had no dog in the Spurs vs. Suns stuff. Horry played the goon, the Suns paid the price. The fans got screwed out of a great game 7. I quit watching as soon as the suspensions were handed down. I haven't watched more than a couple of trips up and down the court since then. I've watched the standings and the news headlines, not the game.

 

[MC KAos]

I do know the rule. I know where it had its genesis with Van Gundy and Zo Mourning. Never asusme that I am dumb. I was obviously watching the games last year and would know the rule.

I know Diaw and Amare were stupid to even take one step onto the court given the Draconian interpretation of the rule. (Draconian unless your name is Duncan in the same game.) He took a step onto the court earlier in the game on a hard foul and it was overlooked.

I think the interpretation of the rule is stupid. Had they caused an issue for the referees or the Spurs I would support those suspensions 100%. They didn't. The strict interpretation of the rule is not what is best for the NBA, for the fans of the NBA, or for the teams who play. In my opinion it encourages a bench player to take a chance at being a goon late in a game. I can't support that.

Whatever it takes to justify it. Duncan "left the bench area" and that was the NBA's interpretation of the rule. As I said, I probably like the Spurs more than I do the Suns. I feel that series ended up being fixed. The outcome was determined by a suit in an office, not the players on the court.

That rubs me the wrong way.

Like I said, the interpretations of that rule decided that series. That bothers me and soured me on a sport I really used to love. I don't know what it will take to bring me back, but I can tell you not even my Lakers beating the Celtics would at this point. Maybe that changes. I honestly don't know.

I had no dog in the Spurs vs. Suns stuff. Horry played the goon, the Suns paid the price. The fans got screwed out of a great game 7. I quit watching as soon as the suspensions were handed down. I haven't watched more than a couple of trips up and down the court since then. I've watched the standings and the news headlines, not the game.

the rule says during an altercation, when duncan walked onto the court (what i think your talking about) was during a hard foul, but the players got up and ran back to defend/try to score on transition, there was no altercation, and thats why there was no suspension. besides you cant say that because of that one thing the suns lost the series, if they were so much better they should have won game 6, which they didnt even come close to doing. They almost beat the spurs in game 5, its not like it was a no contest. I think it was the right call by the letter of the rule, not saying it didnt have an effect on game five, because it did, but the suns still had a chance to win game 6 with a full team and they didnt

 

[Hostile]

the rule says during an altercation, when duncan walked onto the court (what i think your talking about) was during a hard foul, but the players got up and ran back to defend/try to score on transition, there was no altercation, and thats why there was no suspension. besides you cant say that because of that one thing the suns lost the series, if they were so much better they should have won game 6, which they didnt even come close to doing. They almost beat the spurs in game 5, its not like it was a no contest. I think it was the right call by the letter of the rule, not saying it didnt have an effect on game five, because it did, but the suns still had a chance to win game 6 with a full team and they didnt

Okay, let me try one more time in plainer English.

My gripe is with the "letter of the rule." I believe it encourages goon behavior rather than discourages it.

You're a Spurs fan so you're not going to agree with me. I'm not a Suns fan, but I understand why it would piss them off.

I don't care if there was an altercation after the hard foul. Duncan took a step onto the court and he was given benefit of the doubt. You don't know his intent as he took that step any more than you know Diaw's and Stoudamire's. They made no threats to Horry at all.

It is a Draconian (that means extremely harsh) interpretation that is meant to curb fighting. I think it encourages it. In a tight series just send someone inconsequential to be a goon against a star player and roll the dice that someone will over react.

I don't like it. I've now expressed this dislike of the "letter of the rule" in as many ways as I can. You can see it as anti-Spurs sentiment and get all up in arms if you wish. My gripe is with the NBA, not with the Spurs.

 

[joseephuss]

I think it is stupid rule. I do think they are consistent when they use it. That is why I don't think the Suns-Spurs series was fixed in any way. The rule and interpretation of the rule may have determined the outcome of the series last year. I think in most cases that it is called pretty consistent. Even so, it is a bad rule. Even David Stern said as much in an interview with Dan Patrick on ESPN radio after it occurred. He said that the way the rule was written gave him no room to provide an alternative interpretation. He was stuck with a literal, Draconian interpretation. Maybe that is a cop out on his part, but I have seen it ruled in the same fashion every single time it has occurred. He said he would like for it to be changed, but the owners and even the players association told him that they liked the rule as is.

I don't believe the rule applied to the Tim Duncan situation at all. There was no altercation on the court at the time. That is the crux of the rule. There was an altercation when Stoudmire stepped onto the court.

Let me go back to the rule maybe determining the outcome of that series. There is no guarantee that had there been no suspension that the Suns would have won the series. For some reason the Spurs just match up well with the Suns. They had already won at Phoenix before the suspensions.

I definitly think the NBA is lacking in several areas. They have some things they can do better and differently including a re-clarification of this particular rule.

 

[MC KAos]

Okay, let me try one more time in plainer English.

My gripe is with the "letter of the rule." I believe it encourages goon behavior rather than discourages it.

You're a Spurs fan so you're not going to agree with me. I'm not a Suns fan, but I understand why it would piss them off.

I don't care if there was an altercation after the hard foul. Duncan took a step onto the court and he was given benefit of the doubt. You don't know his intent as he took that step any more than you know Diaw's and Stoudamire's. They made no threats to Horry at all.

It is a Draconian (that means extremely harsh) interpretation that is meant to curb fighting. I think it encourages it. In a tight series just send someone inconsequential to be a goon against a star player and roll the dice that someone will over react.

I don't like it. I've now expressed this dislike of the "letter of the rule" in as many ways as I can. You can see it as anti-Spurs sentiment and get all up in arms if you wish. My gripe is with the NBA, not with the Spurs.

thats fine, but you were saying that the league somehow fixed the series to help the spurs, which is ridiculous to claim just based on the fact that the league hates having the spurs in the finals. i agree with you on the rule, but i just cant stand here and let you say that the spurs somehow didnt deserve the championship last year.