Spurs sitting Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili against the Nuggets

I agree and that gets to the heart of the matter. In the final days, yes. And resting Shaq on the second day of back to backs makes sense, he is getting older, he's had injuries, moreoever, it has been announced the Suns will do this. But for no apparent reason (a hip contusion? let's get real, everyone in the NBA has contusions) they rest 3 players in a game? I am not saying there is some conspiracy to "get" Portland, but this is downright weird. And it is not surprising that fans, especially Spurs fans, would want to know what the hell is going on.

 

So did Parker. He could have played but didn't.

 

Sounds like you are the one crying. Poor baby.

 

This seems so stupid to me. Why the F can't they rest their players for a game? Maybe they wanted to get confidence for their bench group. There were times (especially when LA was hardly getting minutes his rookie year) I would have loved to see the backups play a game and get some experience. Wouldn't help us win (but at that point it probably wouldn't hurt much either.)

Maybe they all had mild tendinitis (which many, many players have) and just felt like a day off was needed. Maybe there was a big team squable and they needed a day to chill out. Maybe Pop just felt like he wanted to make a statement to his guys that, hey, we're really good, I believe in you, and we can take a night off if I say we can.

Whatever the reason, he can do whatever the F he feels like will win his team the championship. If he feels like this accomplishes that goal, then why the hell shouldn't he be allowed to.

And those touchy feelings toward the mods are just funny. They were both spot on. A couple of people getting worked up over nothing.

Quit giving us regular posters a bad name...

 

This sucked last night. I felt that the Spurs would come into Denver, despite playing the night before, and beat the Nuggs.

I hope things change, and they quite possibly could, but it's sure starting to look like we're closer to being the 5th seed than the 4th or 3rd.

Sounds like Chris Paul won't play against the Bulls tonight, so I'm hoping the Hornets drop that one. That would really help.

 

I don't see the problem with posters questioning why the Spurs did something that is so out of the norm against a playoff team. As crandc pointed out, Spurs fans should be the most curious, and since the Blazers were 1 game behind Denver in the standings, Portland fans should also be curious about this anomaly. As for "touchy feelings" toward the mods, I'll again point out that Blazer posters were being ridiculed and insulted by trolls, er mods, from other boards. That you decide to then attack fellow Blazer fans makes me question your motives.

Also, as Chris pointed out, the Lakers were fined for doing this before. Did you read JE's comments early in this thread? Were those the posts of a mod or of a troll?

 

Read it again.

 

Really? How could that have possibly happened with such brilliant posts as this one on the first page?

I think it had much more to do with how you presented your view than it did you disagreeing with a Blazer fan. A Blazer fan who was merely wondering about the Spurs sitting their top 3 players against a team one game ahead of the Blazers in the standings.

 

So, if it's up to the teams to decides who sits, it should be OK for the Thunders, Wiz and Griz teams of the league to sit their stars for the last half the season to ensure a high lotto pick. That's just dumb, and sitting the stars for no reason rips of the ticket buyers.

I'm in the same boat as a poster above. I buy tickets to go see stars that I haven't seen play before. When those stars don't play, for no reason, I am ripped off. I paid to watch a good game, and instead get to watch a bunch of scrubs. Call it crying if you want, but if that's the direction of the L, I'll just watch from the comfort of my LazyBoy. Screw paying to watch scrubs play in person.

The comparison to the Suns sitting Shaq is apples to oranges. If the Spurs sat one of their big three, nobody would have said boo about it. I've never seen the Suns sit Nash, Amare AND Shaq for a game. THAT would be apples to apples.

 

i lol'd at blazer fans complaining about this. lol, dmiles.

pop can do w/e the fuck he wants. it's his team, and its the regular season.

 

Posts: 1

Let's hope this is your last.

 

I "lol'd" that you signed up here just to post this. Too bad we can't see your IP address.

 

I REALLY don't get why Spurs fans and mods/trolls are making this a Portland issue. From my perspective it has to do with the quality of the product I pay to see.

In this instance, there is little/no harm to Portland. We were going to move up on a team ahead of us in the standings, regardless of who won.

Interesting that nobody that is calling Portland fans crybabies has addressed the issue that the Lakers were fined for this before. Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of "Pop can do whatever the fork he wants?"

 

Shouldn't it work both ways, then? If Pop can do whatever he wants with his players, why shouldn't Portland be allowed to resign Miles and to whatever they want with him?

 

Someone explain to me how these two situations are similar.

 

The rationale (or lack of) is this: a player is an employee of the team, and works at the pleasure of the management. The ticket-paying fans wanting to see a particular Superstar player play is irrelevent.

It's kinda like if you invented a way for cars to run on tap water, and then an oil company hired you and paid you millions of dollars to sit at home and do nothing for the rest of your life to ensure that your invention never got used.

The person who compared the situation to a team that benches it's best players for half the year in order to secure a higher lottery seed (Boston a few years ago, anyone?) is right on the money. The games played against that team became carny sideshows, and impacted the integrity of the season.

 

I posted that earlier in this thread. Surprisingly, nobody had a response other than some general insults.

 

The similarity to me is that, if the league doen't care what the teams do with their players, i.e. whether they play them or not, what is the basis for them saying the Blazers couldn't re-sign Miles?

If I understood correctly, the L was saying that we couldn't re-sign Miles because we would just sit him on the bench. IF the coach can do whatever he wants with regard to sitting players, why would the L care what the Blazers intentions were with Miles?