Evans suspended one game for incident

[Superman]

I never disputed whether the league had the right or the power to do what they did. Obviously they do. I only pointed out that I don't agree with their policies or actions. I also never said that what he did was no big deal, or that I'd have no objection to it if it had been issued by The Kings. Straw man? You want to know what's a straw man? Stating that I claimed or argued that the NBA "didn't have the right". Ironic that you'd accuse me of using a straw man, with a straw man.

Come on, dude.

You know what else isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things? Going 130 on I 80.

And the only reason you think anything I've said is a straw man is because you've diverted attention away from the original topic to something that really doesn't matter. Even still, these are your words:

My sole point is that legal matters should be handled legally and NBA matters should be handled by the league. What happens on a player's own time shouldn't be an NBA matter. He wasn't on the court, he wasn't on NBA time, so it really isn't an NBA matter.

...

Your duty to your job ends when you're on your own personal time.

It's a matter between the offending player and the law.

As for any "unnecessary risk" and "personal conduct" clauses, I believe those would be in his contract with the Kings and thus should be left up to The Kings organization to hand out any punishment if they see fit. The league has too much power when it can step in and issue suspensions for off court behavior, superceding even the Kings authority.

Perhaps what you're actually saying is that the NBA shouldn't have the right to do this, but it's clear that the NBA does. And since the NBA has this right, and has demonstrated said right several times in the past, there's no sense arguing that. This is what the NBA does when someone violates the personal conduct policy. There's a well-established precedent.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

And the only reason you think anything I've said is a straw man is because you've diverted attention away from the original topic to something that really doesn't matter. Even still, these are your words:

Notice how your cherry picked, taken out of context words differ from my actual words? Responding to someone who says "a one game suspension isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things" with "You know what else isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things? Going 130 on I 80." is hardly tantamount to stating that it isn't a big deal, at all.

Perhaps what you're actually saying is that the NBA shouldn't have the right to do this, but it's clear that the NBA does. And since the NBA has this right, and has demonstrated said right several times in the past, there's no sense arguing that. This is what the NBA does when someone violates the personal conduct policy. There's a well-established precedent.

Of course that's what I was saying. I figured that was self evident. I do not agree however that there is "no sense arguing something" just because something is common place, a well established precedent, etc. I believe that folks can, and should express their opinions when they disagree with a policy, statute, tradition, etc. Not expressing yourself in those regards and just accepting something is the way it is without protest, seems conformist.

 

[Superman]

Notice how your cherry picked, taken out of context words differ from my actual words? Responding to someone who says "a one game suspension isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things" with "You know what else isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things? Going 130 on I 80." is hardly tantamount to stating that it isn't a big deal, at all.

I didn't cherry pick it. I didn't take it out of context. There's no context. You said it's not a big deal. Maybe you regret that now because of how it sounds/looks, but it's what you said.

Of course that's what I was saying. I figured that was self evident. I do not agree however that there is "no sense arguing something" just because something is common place, a well established precedent, etc. I believe that folks can, and should express their opinions when they disagree with a policy, statute, tradition, etc. Not expressing yourself in those regards and just accepting something is the way it is without protest, seems conformist.

Well, I agree there. I argue for changes that I know have no chance of ever being adopted all the time. I want a hard cap. I want the black jerseys back. Etc. I'm not saying that you need to be conformist.

I'm primarily saying that I think the NBA should suspend players who do stupid stuff like driving 130MPH on a busy highway, whether anyone gets hurt or not. And as it pertains to your opinion of Tyreke's suspension, I think you're not being 100% real about this. You dislike it because it's Tyreke, as we all do, but in reality, players get suspended for stuff like this all the time, and we just shrug and say "idiot, shouldn't have been speeding like that."

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I didn't cherry pick it. I didn't take it out of context. There's no context. You said it's not a big deal. Maybe you regret that now because of how it sounds/looks, but it's what you said.

False. What I said was that it wasn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. If you can't discern the difference, that's hardly something I'd regret.

I'm primarily saying that I think the NBA should suspend players who do stupid stuff like driving 130MPH on a busy highway, whether anyone gets hurt or not. And as it pertains to your opinion of Tyreke's suspension, I think you're not being 100% real about this. You dislike it because it's Tyreke, as we all do, but in reality, players get suspended for stuff like this all the time, and we just shrug and say "idiot, shouldn't have been speeding like that."

That'd be a false assumption. I thought the full year suspension of Ron Artest for the Palace brawl was overkill and poorly conceived, I thought the Arenas gun incident was blown out of proportion, and on and on. I generally fall on the side of not overreacting to players' behavior. They're paid to play basketball, bottom line. There's no logical reason to blow their mistakes out of proportion just because they're in the public eye. I feel the exact same way about politicians and their behavior too. It isn't rational to expect them to be impervious to stupid mistakes, bad behavior, etc. just because they're high profile.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Perhaps it should have been a half-game suspension allowing Tyreke to suit up but only enter game for final two quarters. Wink-wink! I think NBA wanted to send him a message (and they have the right to do it) at this early part of his hopefully long, very productive career, that they did not want to see any more such embarrasment and dangerous behavior from him. Plus, he already had serious incident back home in PA that resulted in someone getting murdered - although he was merely an "innocent bystander." The 1 game suspension does seem relatively consistent with other NBA players who were busted for speeding with added mark that Evans was clocked at 130mhp and cited for more serious reckless driving.

Update: Just heard Joe Maloof on KHTK say that Tyreke and the Kings organization need to "take it like a man" and move on. They all are disappointed in the suspension but it's over.

 

[fnordius]

They all were related to DUI, or in JR Smith's case, someone died.

Read again:
4/6/06 - Rashard Lewis suspended 1 game for reckless driving.
8/31/07 - James Posey suspended 1 game for reckless driving.

 

[itzcoatl]

I hate the Bee and Voison as much as probably anyone on this board, but I don't think we should blame either for the suspension. True, both may have been beating the drum to get Tyreke suspended, but ultimately his own actions are what led to the suspension.

That said, I don't really see the purpose of this suspension. From all appearances, Tyreke is not going to repeat the same mistake. This suspension is not about preventing future transgressions - I don't think anyone really believes that he will repeat this behavior. The punishment seems to be more about soothing public relations, but I think that there are better ways of accomplishing that goal than a suspension (e.g., community service).

From a purely selfish perspective, I already paid for home opener tickets, so I hope he is available to play that game.

 

[VF21]

Perhaps it should have been a half-game suspension allowing Tyreke to suit up but only enter game for final two quarters. Wink-wink! I think NBA wanted to send him a message (and they have the right to do it) at this early part of his hopefully long, very productive career, that they did not want to see any more such embarrasment and dangerous behavior from him. Plus, he already had serious incident back home in PA that resulted in someone getting murdered - although he was merely an "innocent bystander." The 1 game suspension does seem relatively consistent with other NBA players who were busted for speeding with added mark that Evans was clocked at 130mhp and cited for more serious reckless driving.

Update: Just heard Joe Maloof on KHTK say that Tyreke and the Kings organization need to "take it like a man" and move on. They all are disappointed in the suspension but it's over.

What he said.

 

[kennadog]

A one game suspension is a pretty small price to pay. Tyreke is old enough and smart enough to know what he was doing was wrong, while he was doing it. If a person breaks the law or the conditions of their employment, then they have no grounds for complaint. Any mature adult knows they have to be responsible enough to accept the consequences of their actions. I'm sure Tyreke wasn't thinking of all those possible consequences at the time, even though logically he had to know what those consequences could include. Maybe he'll think a little more about his actions in the future.

BTW, I'm a person who has to keep a decent driving record or it could affect my job status. And I don't drive for a living. As a matter of fact, I only drive several times a month on the job, maybe. There are some job restrictions on what I can do in my personal time, as well.

 

[Jkbiker]

Per Bee Blog


Kings guard Tyreke Evans was suspended for one game without pay

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/sports/kings/archives/2010/08/evans-receives.html#ixzz0xvL67Uqi

So I guess it could cost Tyreke:

Lets see $3.880,920 by 82 games is $47,328

If thats the case doesnt sound like a pretty small price to pay

Sorta makes the court fines look small

Seems when Brad got suspensions for pot he lost a lot of salary for like a 5 or 6 game suspension

Maybe that will be 47,000 more reasons for Tyreke not to drive like a crazy dude

 

[bajaden]

I hate the Bee and Voison as much as probably anyone on this board, but I don't think we should blame either for the suspension. True, both may have been beating the drum to get Tyreke suspended, but ultimately his own actions are what led to the suspension.

That said, I don't really see the purpose of this suspension. From all appearances, Tyreke is not going to repeat the same mistake. This suspension is not about preventing future transgressions - I don't think anyone really believes that he will repeat this behavior. The punishment seems to be more about soothing public relations, but I think that there are better ways of accomplishing that goal than a suspension (e.g., community service).

From a purely selfish perspective, I already paid for home opener tickets, so I hope he is available to play that game.

What separates civilized people from uncivilized people are laws. Rules! Regulations etc. Its our way of regulatiing ourselves. And for the most part by mutual agreement in democratic countries. If you break the law, it has consequences, and there is usually appropiate punishment administered. In some cases there is something called double jeopardy. Example: If your in the military and you commit a crime such as stealing a car. Your first tried in public court, and sentenced when found guilty. However after serving out whatever your sentence is, you'll then be retried in a military court and re-sentenced for the same crime. Now you can ***** and moan about it, but when joining the military this is explained to you before you sign on the dotted line.

The same thing applies to the NBA. When you become a member you agree to abide by the rules, which can include punishment for incidents both on and off the court. Now you and I can agree or disagree about the severity of the punishment, but the NBA certainly has the right to hand out whatever punishment it deems necessary. Of course the player always has the right to appeal through the players union if he thinks the punishment is too harsh. In the case of Tyreke, I doubt appealling even crossed his mind. I don't think 1 game is all that severe for what he did.

But to address your point, that he will probably never do it again. I would bet you that there are people in prision right now that did something stupid and who will never repeat that stupidity again. If punishment is not administered for breaking a law, then you might as well not have the law at all. You can't make exceptions based on reputation or personallity. You can't pick and choose who gets punished or who doesn't, based on one being a real nice guy and the other isn't. As its been said. Justice is blind and everyone is equal under the law. Or at least they should be. I suspect that his suspension will probably be for the first game of the year, which isn't a home game. So I think your safe..

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Read again:
4/6/06 - Rashard Lewis suspended 1 game for reckless driving.
8/31/07 - James Posey suspended 1 game for reckless driving.

Both of these were actually DUIs that were plead down to reckless, very common for first offenses.

IMHO if it were a simple speeding ticket for punching a new fast car on the open road I'd be inclined to say there was a huge difference, but a street race on a crowded highway is a pretty significant distinction and shows the same kind of lack of judgement and willingness to put others at risk that a DUI does.

 

[itzcoatl]

If punishment is not administered for breaking a law, then you might as well not have the law at all.

I think we're getting into a discussion on theories of punishment (apologies for somewhat de-railing this thread). I would not argue that punishment is unwarranted in this situation - but I do believe that there are better alternatives to punishment than a one game suspension. There are conflicting schools of thought on justifications for punishment: (a) retributive, and (b) utlitarian.

Whereas a retributivist might claim that punishment is justified because people deserve it, a utlitarian believes that the useful purpose of the punishment is the justification. Stated differently, retributive theories are often based on the idea that the moral desert of an offender is a sufficient reason for punishment. On the other hand, a utlitiarian would require that there be beneficial consequences to punishment.

If one subscribes to the retributivist school of thought, then simply committing an offense is sufficient justification for punishment. Retributivist theories are often associated with the idea of "eye for an eye."

On the other hand, a subscriber of the utilitarian school of thought would require that the punishment serve some beneficial purpose. Some of the more common beneficial consequences of punishment include (i) general deterrence (deterring the general community from acting in a similar manner) (ii) specific deterrence (deterring the particular person from re-offending) (iii) risk management (temporarily removing a dangerous person from society) (iv) reform (reforming an offender so that the threat of reoffending is reduced).

Of all the beneficial consequences stated above, only general deterrence seems to be served by the one game suspension. That is, other NBA players might be prevented from making similar mistakes when they see that the potential punishment.

Conversely, the one game suspension does not serve the purpose of specific deterrence, risk management, or reform. When we evaluate Tyreke's response to the offense, he has demonstrated remorse, paid a fine, had his license revoked, and appears to have made a serious commitment and promise not to re-offend. It appears that Tyreke has made positive changes in the face of punishment already inflicted.

If we require that the punishment serve some beneficial purpose, then there are better alternatives available than a one-game suspension. Community service may be the best alternative because it requires a time and work commitment. Thus, it may still serve the purpose of general deterrence. Additionally, community service has the added benefit of actively improving the local community through affirmative acts. The one-game suspension merely prevents Tyreke from playing basketball and does not positively improve the community in the same way as community service.

While the one-game suspension is sufficiently justified under a retributivist view of punishment, I believe that the utilitarian method provides a more thorough analytic structure and reveals alternative and more socially beneficial forms of punishment.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If you're going to invoke the utilitarian method I do believe you need to consider that the NBA is not the state in this case, but a private for profit entity that has its own unique set of benefits, not the least of which is curbing the notion held by many that athletes hold themselves above the law while their respective leagues stand by and do nothing. With that in mind it could be argued that the penalty was not stiff enough, but then you weigh that against his apparently genuine remorse and his first time offender status and it appears more just. Factor in the fact that any future offenses will be met with stiffer punishment since this was in effect a slap on the wrist and I think you cover specificity as well.

 

[kennadog]

I know that the fines collected by the league for technical fouls goes to charity. Does anybody know what happens to the salary a player loses through suspension. Is it just kept by the owners or, perhaps, given to charity also?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

That's a good question, they usually say "suspended without pay" and even track it separately so I would assume one thing but according to Larry Coon's salary cap they are treated the same as fines - 1/2 is paid to the league, 1/2 to the NBA Player's Association, both donate the money to charities of their choice.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap99.htm#92

 

[kennadog]

So, there's another beneficial consequnce.

Thanks pdxKingsFan for finding that. That makes me feel a little better about the suspension. (Not that I think its too harsh.) Hopefully, we can win that game without Evans.

 

[itzcoatl]

That's a good question, they usually say "suspended without pay" and even track it separately so I would assume one thing but according to Larry Coon's salary cap they are treated the same as fines - 1/2 is paid to the league, 1/2 to the NBA Player's Association, both donate the money to charities of their choice.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap99.htm#92

The suspension does make more sense to me in light of this fact. You're also right about the general deterrence; I do believe that the suspension may prevent future transgressions from other players.

I still would have liked to see Tyreke do something positive, instead of just sitting out a game and paying money, though. I feel that actively requiring a person to make amends through affirmative acts is a better form of punishment.

 

[kennadog]

The suspension does make more sense to me in light of this fact. You're also right about the general deterrence; I do believe that the suspension may prevent future transgressions from other players.

I still would have liked to see Tyreke do something positive, instead of just sitting out a game and paying money, though. I feel that actively requiring a person to make amends through affirmative acts is a better form of punishment.

Didn't you read what his sentence was? His license was suspended for 30 days. He has to serve a 3-year informal probation. He has to do 80 hours of "alternative sentencing" (read community service) and he has participate in two highway patrol driving programs.

So it wasn't all negative.

 

[itzcoatl]

Didn't you read what his sentence was? His license was suspended for 30 days. He has to serve a 3-year informal probation. He has to do 80 hours of "alternative sentencing" (read community service) and he has participate in two highway patrol driving programs.

So it wasn't all negative.

I did read that. My comment was directed at the NBA's punishment system only (not the punishment he received from the state), sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[kennadog]

I did read that. My comment was directed at the NBA's punishment system only (not the punishment he received from the state), sorry if that wasn't clear.

Thanks for clarifying. Since NBA players already do a lot of charitable work on behalf of the team and the league, maybe they consideresd the 80 hours community service and a big chunk of his salary going to charities enough.

 

[Superman]

Read again:
4/6/06 - Rashard Lewis suspended 1 game for reckless driving.
8/31/07 - James Posey suspended 1 game for reckless driving.

They were both related to DUI. Rashard Lewis blew a .132 and a .122. Legal limit is .08. No numbers on Posey, but the arresting officers said that he stopped in the middle of a double lane road, and "displayed 'bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and an odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath.'"

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2249048
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2830539

 

[Superman]

False. What I said was that it wasn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. If you can't discern the difference, that's hardly something I'd regret.

...

So it's a big deal, but not in the grand scheme of things. And what would "the grand scheme of things" be, exactly? The universe? The multiverse?

That'd be a false assumption. I thought the full year suspension of Ron Artest for the Palace brawl was overkill and poorly conceived, I thought the Arenas gun incident was blown out of proportion, and on and on. I generally fall on the side of not overreacting to players' behavior. They're paid to play basketball, bottom line. There's no logical reason to blow their mistakes out of proportion just because they're in the public eye. I feel the exact same way about politicians and their behavior too. It isn't rational to expect them to be impervious to stupid mistakes, bad behavior, etc. just because they're high profile.

I don't think that suspending Tyreke for one game because he showed a blatant disregard for the law is blowing his mistakes out of proportion or overratecing to his behavior. I think it's a measured and proportionate response, and in "the grand scheme of things," I think it's appropriate.