Third Offense, 5-Game Suspension, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

Now there is a original thought

Suspended for 5 playoff games? Hmmm. That fits.

 

So when Bynum does the exact same move again, what is your proposal? 7 games? How about the next time? Maybe 10 games then? What happens when the next guy gets paralyzed? Is that a 15 game fine? What does the league need to do to make this idiot stop head hunting?

 

Correction:

5th offense = approx 31 games
6th offense = approx 78 games

 

That's the reason I wanted him to be suspended longer? Sure about that?

5 games versus 2 is not a severe enough increase in punishment. Its the sort of play that could end someone's career, and he's exhibiting a pattern which indicates he doesn't really feel much remorse about it. Obviously, I consider such behavior a much more serious issue than you do. There's nothing more to say.

 

I never heard him say he targeted Barea, but if you have a link I'd like to see the quote. Here's what I found:

Sounds like he was pretty frustrated from his team getting his ass kicked all series. Frustration isn't a valid excuse and he should be suspended -- but five games and $700,000 is plenty.

The 150% thing wasn't my logic, just a comment on the increase in suspension from his last incident. You guys say he should be punished more because this is his third time -- well, last time he was only suspended two games. So suspending him five is punishing him more.

In his first incident with Gerald Wallace, he wasn't suspended. He was suspended two games for his second incident. He's been suspended five games this time. Who knows what they'll do next time? It's apparent they are increasing his suspension each time.

You are also completely marginalizing the money Bynum is losing. $700,000 is a significant amount of money. You seem to think it's pennies because he makes much more year in a season. The problem with your logic is it's based on the presumption that the more money you have, the less you care about it. I can't make that assumption.

Ok, your reason was that since Andrew Bynum has had health issues and consistently missed games each year, he doesn't appreciate what missing a game is like. Therefore, you need to suspend him for 3x the amount of games you normally would so that he'll understand the punishment better.

Yikes.

 

Reread and get back to me.

 

A 22 year-old kid made a mistake ONCE of delaying summer surgery, after WINNING back-to-back championships, and now you want to further punish him for that by multiplying a suspension that is in no way related to that mistake?

I've read it several times, it doesn't make it any less of a terrible idea.

 

Durvasa's point is that Bynum has shown that he doesn't mind missing a few games. And if that's the case, can we honestly expect a 5-game suspension to teach him anything?

Why should money play a big role? What if Jordan Hill started throwing forearm shivers? On his third offense, should he be suspended more than 5 games b/c makes less than Bynum?

 

His mistake showed a lack of self-discipline and respect for others and also a disregard for missing games, which is related to his repeated offenses of elbowing players in vulnerable positions.

And a longer suspension is warranted, in my view, irrespective of that particular "mistake". I just think that's further evidence of the kind of person we're dealing with and that should be factored in.

 

I just can't come to that same conclusion. He chose to rest and take a vacation with his family instead of immediately having surgery and having to rehab. The kid just won back-to-back championships, playing through the injury to help his team win the champshionship -- he's earned the right to take a month off in my eyes. You'd think you were Daryl Morey the way you dehumanize these players!

Let's just agree to disagree on this topic; I don't see us getting anywhere.

 

That's a reasonable position. And maybe the Lakers gave him the OK to take some time off, in which case I probably shouldn't beat him up over it.

I still believe that a repeat offense of this nature, especially when the time-elapsed since that last offense was so short, is a very serious issue and should be treated as such. What that means in terms of punishment is fairly subjective, and its hard for me to argue why I think 5 games is insufficient just as its hard for you to convince me that 5 games is enough. Like you said, agree to disagree.

 

The bottom line is that we can't know what punishment is appropriate without seeing the future. If 5 games + $700K is enough to keep Bynum from cheapshotting players, then it is a good punishment. I personally doubt it will be, since just two months ago he did the same thing (literally, the exact same thing), and the 2 game + $300K had no impact (in fact, the lack of a real punishment may have even told him that this kind of thing is OK). Most likely he will do this again and it will probably take a significant injury for the league to do the right thing, which is really pathetic.

 

Why do you still not get the money part? It's NOT a fine. It's a suspension. The money is incidental tied to his salary. Are you suggesting that players who make more money should be suspended less because they lose more money per game? What kind of logic is that?