Spurs were interested in trading for Scola.

[TheWriter]

361204313848156161

[cd021]

361204313848156161

If it involved Diaw and 1st rounder it wouldn't be worth it. For Bonner and a future 1st...

[Bruno]

I would have done a Bonner for Scola trade.
Bonner and a 1st for Scola? Hell no.

Scola = empty stats.

[Spur-Addict]

Oh man, HERE WE GO.

[BatManu20]

Yea bummer.

[DesignatedT]

Being intrigued doesn't mean they ever offered anything.

[T Park]

Bonner and De Colo? Sure. Bonner plus a first? No thanks.

[palangi]

I would have done a Bonner for Scola trade.
Bonner and a 1st for Scola? Hell no.

Scola = empty stats.
agree here.

i might have added de colo with bonner to entice them.

[elemento]

I would do Bonner + 2014 1st in a heart-beat. Too bad the FO wouldn't

[JingleJangleJingle]

lol 10 years and we still can't get over it lol.

[benefactor]

Pretty obvious the Suns wanted a first. Scola isn't worth that.

[mudyez]

At least 5 years to late.

Bonner straight up would be the only trade I'd agree with.

Diaw straight up? NO, as Diaw's versatility is a big thing for us!
Any of our guards doesn't make sense balance wise!
Picks? Hell NO!

[DPG21920]

Spurs first rounder next year won't be worth a ton. It will be in the last part of the first round. Not a ton to give up IMO for a guy you believe can put you over the top. Think of it like Bonner + Livio Charles for Scola. No one would have a major issue with that.

[rayray2k8]

He's with the Pacers now. Time to move on. No point in making a thread for Scola now. Dude will have little value left when he's available again.

[DPG21920]

Not that I would have done it, but for the right player I don't think giving up a late first next year is a major deal.

Also, again, this makes no sense. Why forgo cap space & give a guy like Pendergrapgh money if you still want another big

[TD 21]

This is the only contender I've ever seen that almost never get's what they want. For one reason or another, they almost always lose out and have to settle.

Scola is absolutely worth a 27-30 pick, if you see him as the piece that puts them over the top . . . I'm not sure if he would be, but I'd have done it in a second, because he can effectively eat up a lot of regular season minutes and he at least makes the Thunder/Heat limit the amount of time they play Durant/James at PF. As we saw in the Pacers series, even with a flawed roster, if you can limit the Heat in particular from doing that (since it's so central to their identity), they all of a sudden don't look so unbeatable. The Spurs need an answer to those two going small at will against them.

This is an outstanding trade for the Pacers. Now, between Hibbert, West and Scola, the Heat don't get to rest or play their preferred lineups without their being a tradeoff/consequences.

[jon123spurs]

Cue the WHY DID WE GET RID OF SCOLA discussion all over again.

[chrhawk]

Don't understand what the Spurs are doing. I thought they signed Pendergraph because they thought he'd be the back-up center. Now they are still waiting on a word from Oden, now they were interested in Scola. I wonder if the Spurs have a plan at all.

[slick'81]

Damn pacers doin thangs

[Chinook]

Not that I would have done it, but for the right player I don't think giving up a late first next year is a major deal.

Also, again, this makes no sense. Why forgo cap space & give a guy like Pendergrapgh money if you still want another big

Actually, the Pacers also gave up Plumlee. So in essence, they traded Green and two firsts for Scola. That's a pretty high price to pay, and I'm glad the Spurs didn't pay it.

I agree about the second part, though. I have no idea what the Spurs are doing.

[ducks]

scola is not worth it now
undersized and oden is coming monday

[xmas1997]

Oden is going to Miami, watch.

[Budkin]

Return of Scola thread!!!

[td4mvp2k]

Not that I would have done it, but for the right player I don't think giving up a late first next year is a major deal.+1

[iManu]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168216&p=4819608#post4819608

[TD 21]

Actually, the Pacers also gave up Plumlee. So in essence, they traded Green and two firsts for Scola. That's a pretty high price to pay, and I'm glad the Spurs didn't pay it.

I agree about the second part, though. I have no idea what the Spurs are doing.

Technically, that's true. But in reality, Plumlee was one of the most surprising 1st round picks in recent memory. No one had him not only not going in the 1st, but not even as a long shot candidate. He was completely off the board (and they just did it again, with the Hill pick). So really, in terms of value, it's a late 1st and a 2nd round caliber talent, plus a bad contract, for a useful player, on a good contract, who might be the final piece to a Finals team.

DPG is right; some are vastly overrating the value of a late 1st. When you think you're close to a championship and have a chance to add a piece you think might be the final one needed for that, you don't let something that minimal stand in the way. Too many have been brainwashed into thinking the Spurs ultra conservative approach is always the best way to go.

[Chinook]

Technically, that's true. But in reality, Plumlee was one of the most surprising 1st round picks in recent memory. No one had him not only not going in the 1st, but not even as a long shot candidate. He was completely off the board (and they just did it again, with the Hill pick). So really, in terms of value, it's a late 1st and a 2nd round caliber talent, plus a bad contract, for a useful player, on a good contract, who might be the final piece to a Finals team.

DPG is right; some are vastly overrating the value of a late 1st. When you think you're close to a championship and have a chance to add a piece you think might be the final one needed for that, you don't let something that minimal stand in the way. Too many have been brainwashed into thinking the Spurs ultra conservative approach is always the best way to go.

I actually think it's the opposite. Too many people underrate the value of a first on this site. For a team that knows how to draft (Spurs and Bulls are two primary examples), even late firsts end up being useful players who have productive careers in the league. It's hard to justify giving up two of those for Scola, especially since the Spurs don't have a bad contract like Gerald Green to give.

I don't think the Spurs' conservative approach is fool-proof. Indeed, I've said on numerous occasions that I think Buford and Pop misplayed this off-season and ended up wasting assets that I don't even think they intended to waste. I think Belinelli and Pendergraph were good additions, but I don't necessarily think they were the best the Spurs could have gotten.

But people need to realize that the Spurs got to the Finals in large part because they have one of the best rosters in the league. It's not just Pop's system turning trash into treasure like some people think. It's not easy to significantly upgrade the Spurs' 15, and while I think it was certainly possible this off-season, not every free agent the Spurs could have gotten would have been able to do that. In fact, almost none of them would have been able to.

[TrainOfThought5]

Just when i thought ScolaTalk.com was dead.

[kobexxx]

yes

[TD 21]

I actually think it's the opposite. Too many people underrate the value of a first on this site. For a team that knows how to draft (Spurs and Bulls are two primary examples), even late firsts end up being useful players who have productive careers in the league. It's hard to justify giving up two of those for Scola, especially since the Spurs don't have a bad contract like Gerald Green to give.

I don't think the Spurs' conservative approach is fool-proof. Indeed, I've said on numerous occasions that I think Buford and Pop misplayed this off-season and ended up wasting assets that I don't even think they intended to waste. I think Belinelli and Pendergraph were good additions, but I don't necessarily think they were the best the Spurs could have gotten.

But people need to realize that the Spurs got to the Finals in large part because they have one of the best rosters in the league. It's not just Pop's system turning trash into treasure like some people think. It's not easy to significantly upgrade the Spurs' 15, and while I think it was certainly possible this off-season, not every free agent the Spurs could have gotten would have been able to do that. In fact, almost none of them would have been able to.

I mean specifically with regards to the Spurs and certain pieces that could help them get over the hump. I agree, in general, there's always value to be found late 1st/early 2nd, but the reality is, the odds are never good and even if they were, who cares? It is so difficult to have ever a sliver of a chance to win a championship in this league, especially when you don't have a James, Durant, prime Duncan, etc., so when you've got one, you don't let a late 1st stand in the way of a possible final piece.

The Spurs equivalent of that package would have been Bonner, Baynes and a 1st. Whichever you think is better, it's close enough that, with one final relatively minor asset, the Spurs should have been able to close the deal.

[TheGreatYacht]

I actually think it's the opposite. Too many people underrate the value of a first on this site. For a team that knows how to draft (Spurs and Bulls are two primary examples), even late firsts end up being useful players who have productive careers in the league. It's hard to justify giving up two of those for Scola, especially since the Spurs don't have a bad contract like Gerald Green to give.

I don't think the Spurs' conservative approach is fool-proof. Indeed, I've said on numerous occasions that I think Buford and Pop misplayed this off-season and ended up wasting assets that I don't even think they intended to waste. I think Belinelli and Pendergraph were good additions, but I don't necessarily think they were the best the Spurs could have gotten.

But people need to realize that the Spurs got to the Finals in large part because they have one of the best rosters in the league. It's not just Pop's system turning trash into treasure like some people think. It's not easy to significantly upgrade the Spurs' 15, and while I think it was certainly possible this off-season, not every free agent the Spurs could have gotten would have been able to do that. In fact, almost none of them would have been able to.Good post tbh. Bottom line is that they jumped the gun with their decisions, especially when it came to using the MLE.

[elemento]

Late 1st round picks do have value, but to say that a player like Luis Scola is not worth a late 1st round pick is flat out a lie. He is easily worth a 1st. SA spent a 1st to get a washed up Kurt Thomas a few years ago.

Indy had to use Plumlee because PHX had to get Green's bad contract. Plumlee is essentially a 3rd string Center that won't make any difference for Indy. He is essentially what James Anderson was for us after Danny Green exploded, a non-issue.

SA has two seasons left as a contender and Scola's contract situation (2 years in a very friendly contract), plus the great connection he has with Splitter and Manu, turns it an easy decision.

Sorry but I don't see how Bonner + 1st would be a bad deal for SA.

[dallasmaverickslose]

Don't need him. We're crowded with bigs as it already is.

[Chinook]

I mean specifically with regards to the Spurs and certain pieces that could help them get over the hump. I agree, in general, there's always value to be found late 1st/early 2nd, but the reality is, the odds are never good and even if they were, who cares? It is so difficult to have ever a sliver of a chance to win a championship in this league, especially when you don't have a James, Durant, prime Duncan, etc., so when you've got one, you don't let a late 1st stand in the way of a possible final piece.

The Spurs equivalent of that package would have been Bonner, Baynes and a 1st. Whichever you think is better, it's close enough that, with one final relatively minor asset, the Spurs should have been able to close the deal.

The Spurs used to have the mentality you speak of. It led them to trading way their picks constantly for players like Kurt Thomas or at least to signing old vets instead of developing their youth. They missed out on players like Taj Gibson and David Lee as a result, and those vets did little to keep the window open after 2007.

In fact, it all came to a head in the 2009 off-season, when the Spurs missed out on Gibson, drafted Blair and De Colo (the former as a win-now type of player and the latter as a stash player to save roster space). They traded for Jefferson, when apparently all Detroit wanted for Amir Johnson was Oberto's contract. They signed McDyess, who like Thomas tried hard but wasn't the missing piece in addition to Ratliff and Bogans, who were always laughingly bad additions. That led to the two worst post-seasons of the last decade.

They only got back to their winning ways then they stopped doing that and committed to developing and trusting the Medium Three. That gave Duncan the help he needed to get better physically, and it returned the athleticism the defense has been losing since Bowen's prime ended.

I'm not saying that there aren't trades out there where you give up a first without thinking twice. But Scola is not one of those players who's worth it.

[Chinook]

Late 1st round picks do have value, but to say that a player like Luis Scola is not worth a late 1st round pick is flat out a lie. He is easily worth a 1st. SA spent a 1st to get a washed up Kurt Thomas a few years ago.

Indy had to use Plumlee because PHX had to get Green's bad contract. Plumlee is essentially a 3rd string Center that won't make any difference for Indy. He is essentially what James Anderson was for us after Danny Green exploded, a non-issue.

SA has two seasons left as a contender and Scola's contract situation (2 years in a very friendly contract), plus the great connection he has with Splitter and Manu, turns it an easy decision.

Sorry but I don't see how Bonner + 1st would be a bad deal for SA.

That first the Spurs gave for Thomas ended up being the pick before the Bulls took Taj Gibson. Seeing how Thomas didn't really do much during his time on the team, I don't think the Spurs would do that trade over again.

A player like Scola might be worth one first-rounder, but he's not worth two. The Spurs draft way too well to just throw away picks when they're two years away from really needing them. If we were talking about Mahinmi and Anderson, sure. But those are pretty atypical picks for the Spurs. Instead, we'd be talking about Splitter, Hill (Leonard) and Udrih. Those aren't throwaway players.

[elemento]

That first the Spurs gave for Thomas ended up being the pick before the Bulls took Taj Gibson. Seeing how Thomas didn't really do much during his time on the team, I don't think the Spurs would do that trade over again.

A player like Scola might be worth one first-rounder, but he's not worth two. The Spurs draft way too well to just throw away picks when they're two years away from really needing them. If we were talking about Mahinmi and Anderson, sure. But those are pretty atypical picks for the Spurs. Instead, we'd be talking about Splitter, Hill (Leonard) and Udrih. Those aren't throwaway players.

Sure, but It's easy to make decisions having the hindsight now. Knowing what we know now, SA wouldn't have chosen Ian over Lee in 2005 or would not have traded Scola's rights for peanuts just to get rid of Butler's contract.

In Indy's case, Scola is worth Plumlee + late 1st simply because they get rid of Green's contract. SA doesn't have bad contracts now.

We don't know San Antonio's offer, but I find it hard to believe that a move bringing Scola is bad at this point of Duncan's career, especially if the price is a late 1st round pick.

[TD 21]

The Spurs used to have the mentality you speak of. It led them to trading way their picks constantly for players like Kurt Thomas or at least to signing old vets instead of developing their youth. They missed out on players like Taj Gibson and David Lee as a result, and those vets did little to keep the window open after 2007.

In fact, it all came to a head in the 2009 off-season, when the Spurs missed out on Gibson, drafted Blair and De Colo (the former as a win-now type of player and the latter as a stash player to save roster space). They traded for Jefferson, when apparently all Detroit wanted for Amir Johnson was Oberto's contract. They signed McDyess, who like Thomas tried hard but wasn't the missing piece in addition to Ratliff and Bogans, who were always laughingly bad additions. That led to the two worst post-seasons of the last decade.

They only got back to their winning ways then they stopped doing that and committed to developing and trusting the Medium Three. That gave Duncan the help he needed to get better physically, and it returned the athleticism the defense has been losing since Bowen's prime ended.

I'm not saying that there aren't trades out there where you give up a first without thinking twice. But Scola is not one of those players who's worth it.

Those were different times. In reality, as we found out, those team's weren't close. This team indisputably is and unlike then, this time the Duncan era really is drawing to a close. They've got two more shots at this and it's about as wide open as it get's in the NBA. Hoarding a late 1st and relying on a minimal, largely unproven player to shore up one of their two weaknesses, is not only beyond stupid, but a slap in the face to the big three and specifically Duncan.

Ideally, you'd like to do better than Scola, but they're not the Lakers and some miraculous trade isn't falling into their lap that's going to put them over the top.

Easy in hindsight to say they don't do the Thomas trade again, but I think they do. That was an aging roster, on their last legs and they saw an opportunity to finally go back-to-back and eke out one final championship while the league was in transition. The timing was right to go for it and they desperately needed another reliable big.

[cd021]

Pacers moving up in the F*ck Miami coalition

Spurs
Pacers
Thunder
Chicago
Brookyln

[Chinook]

Sure, but It's easy to make decisions having the hindsight now. Knowing what we know now, SA wouldn't have chosen Ian over Lee in 2005 or would not have traded Scola's rights for peanuts just to get rid of Butler's contract.

In Indy's case, Scola is worth Plumlee + late 1st simply because they get rid of Green's contract. SA doesn't have bad contracts now.

We don't know San Antonio's offer, but I find it hard to believe that a move bringing Scola is bad at this point of Duncan's career, especially if the price is a late 1st round pick.

Green's contract is potentially bad for Indiana, but it's not bad for Phoenix. Seeing as they'll have to worry about making the salary floor next season, they'd almost certainly be okay with eating $3.5 Million for an extra prospect. So the Spurs would probably have to give up Jean-Charles, or at least De Colo or Baynes plus the first. I don't think Scola's really worth much of anything at this stage of his career. I'd rather ride with Diaw and Pendergraph at this point.

[benefactor]

There could very well be a good player fall in next years stacked draft. No way in hell I'm giving it up for an almost done Scola.

[Chinook]

Those were different times. In reality, as we found out, those team's weren't close. This team indisputably is and unlike then, this time the Duncan era really is drawing to a close. They've got two more shots at this and it's about as wide open as it get's in the NBA. Hoarding a late 1st and relying on a minimal, largely unproven player to shore up one of their two weaknesses, is not only beyond stupid, but a slap in the face to the big three and specifically Duncan.

Ideally, you'd like to do better than Scola, but they're not the Lakers and some miraculous trade isn't falling into their lap that's going to put them over the top.

Easy in hindsight to say they don't do the Thomas trade again, but I think they do. That was an aging roster, on their last legs and they saw an opportunity to finally go back-to-back and eke out one final championship while the league was in transition. The timing was right to go for it and they desperately needed another reliable big.

But Thomas wasn't the reliable big they needed. And by wasting a pick on him, they missed out on the opportunity to actually get a reliable big in the draft. The team sacrificed their future in an effort to win, and they ended up wasting three or four years of Duncan's career. The team was on its last legs because it didn't take the time to develop good players rather than bringing in a bunch of retreads. Unproven players reopened the window. To go away from that would not only be a slap in Duncan's face, but also to the city of San Antonio.

Especially for Scola. Come on, now. Two firsts for Aldridge? Hell yes. For Ilyasova? I can understand it. For Gortat? I guess. For Bass? Um, well I wouldn't be a fan. But for Scola? Hell no.

[Sean Cagney]

Pacers moving up in the F*ck Miami coalition

Spurs
Pacers
Thunder
Chicago
BrookylnBesides the Spurs they play them the best in the entire NBA.

[palangi]

Good post tbh. Bottom line is that they jumped the gun with their decisions, especially when it came to using the MLE.
http://wcuk.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/1195455133059.jpg

[therealtruth]

This is the only contender I've ever seen that almost never get's what they want. For one reason or another, they almost always lose out and have to settle.

Scola is absolutely worth a 27-30 pick, if you see him as the piece that puts them over the top . . . I'm not sure if he would be, but I'd have done it in a second, because he can effectively eat up a lot of regular season minutes and he at least makes the Thunder/Heat limit the amount of time they play Durant/James at PF. As we saw in the Pacers series, even with a flawed roster, if you can limit the Heat in particular from doing that (since it's so central to their identity), they all of a sudden don't look so unbeatable. The Spurs need an answer to those two going small at will against them.

This is an outstanding trade for the Pacers. Now, between Hibbert, West and Scola, the Heat don't get to rest or play their preferred lineups without their being a tradeoff/consequences.

Good points. I'll add Scola fits best next to a good defensive center.

[xmas1997]

How is it the Spurs seem connected with almost every free agent out there, but get absolutely nothing, and not even for our own FAs like Neal and Blair? I'm beginning to wonder about those sarcastic implications of RC being drunk!:drunk:jekka

[TD 21]

But Thomas wasn't the reliable big they needed. And by wasting a pick on him, they missed out on the opportunity to actually get a reliable big in the draft. The team sacrificed their future in an effort to win, and they ended up wasting three or four years of Duncan's career. The team was on its last legs because it didn't take the time to develop good players rather than bringing in a bunch of retreads. Unproven players reopened the window. To go away from that would not only be a slap in Duncan's face, but also to the city of San Antonio.

Especially for Scola. Come on, now. Two firsts for Aldridge? Hell yes. For Ilyasova? I can understand it. For Gortat? I guess. For Bass? Um, well I wouldn't be a fan. But for Scola? Hell no.

Yeah, but he was as close as they could come and they owed it to the big three and especially Duncan, to try one last time to go back to back and eke out one more while the league was in transition because chances were, they were never winning another one after that anyway. Sure, it didn't work out, but that doesn't make it wrong. It was a calculated risk. That's what sports are about.

I already explained that it's not really two 1sts. It's one (a late one, at that), a 2nd round caliber talent and the opportunity to dump a terrible contract. It was a no brainer.

[jimo2305]

it's k.. we can always get scola when he's like 36+ and nobody else wants him

[elemento]

Green's contract is potentially bad for Indiana, but it's not bad for Phoenix. Seeing as they'll have to worry about making the salary floor next season, they'd almost certainly be okay with eating $3.5 Million for an extra prospect. So the Spurs would probably have to give up Jean-Charles, or at least De Colo or Baynes plus the first. I don't think Scola's really worth much of anything at this stage of his career. I'd rather ride with Diaw and Pendergraph at this point.

A bad contract is a bad contract Chino. Green is a bad contract in Indiana or Phoenix. The Suns situation doesn't change it. Otherwise, we could assume that Richard Jefferson and Andris Biedrins are decent contracts in Utah, when in fact they're not. That's why Utah got 2 1st round picks to get them and that's why PHX got Plumlee and a 1st in order to take Green's contract.

We don't know what SA would have to give up here. SA could offer expirings + 1st round pick, which is better than Green + 1st. That's why the deal-breaker was Plumlee.

Scola is not worth much, but he is definitely worth a late 1st, especially considering SAS situation with Timmy and Manu at the very end of their careers.

[Chinook]

A bad contract is a bad contract Chino. Green is a bad contract in Indiana or Phoenix. The Suns situation doesn't change it. Otherwise, we could assume that Richard Jefferson and Andris Biedrins are decent contracts in Utah, when in fact they're not. That's why Utah got 2 1st round picks to get them and that's why PHX got Plumlee and a 1st in order to take Green's contract.

We don't know what SA would have to give up here. SA could offer expirings + 1st round pick, which is better than Green + 1st. That's why the deal-breaker was Plumlee.

Scola is not worth much, but he is definitely worth a late 1st, especially considering SAS situation with Timmy and Manu at the very end of their careers.

There's a difference between a team like Indiana keeping a bad contract and a team like Phoenix taking on one. Green for $3 Million next season doesn't make sense for the Pacers, but the Suns won't have any other small-forwards on the roster then unless one of the Morris twins makes the transition. Even if he's second string. Green's contract is not bad for them. It IS bad for the Pacers, who have four wings ahead of him.

And the idea of a salary floor is very real. The Suns will need somebody to make up the money. So it was Green or someone else. If the Suns had a chance to get another first-rounder out of it, then it doesn't make sense to give it up. You just said yourself that Utah took on $24 Million for two firsts and two seconds. So you think Phoenix was inclined to give up the chance to get a first for only $3 Million? So no, I don't think Bonner and a first is a more-appealing offer than Green and two firsts. Worst-case scenario, Green's a fine trade chip next off-season when they could actually use it.

We disagree on Scola's value, and that's perfectly fine. I don't think he'd help the Spurs in the playoffs, because he's too bad on defense to get minutes over Duncan, Splitter, Diaw and small-ball. And I'd rather keep Bonner and give Pendergraph regular-season minutes over giving up a first. Duncan got plenty of rest last season. Scola doesn't raise the Spurs' ceiling on centimeter, in my opinion.

[Chinook]

Yeah, but he was as close as they could come and they owed it to the big three and especially Duncan, to try one last time to go back to back and eke out one more while the league was in transition because chances were, they were never winning another one after that anyway. Sure, it didn't work out, but that doesn't make it wrong. It was a calculated risk. That's what sports are about.

I already explained that it's not really two 1sts. It's one (a late one, at that), a 2nd round caliber talent and the opportunity to dump a terrible contract. It was a no brainer.

You saying Plumlee wasn't worth a first doesn't make it so, even if you cite what draft experts thought. No one thought Hill was worth a first, but if the Spurs had traded him for Carter in 2009, then the team's window would be officially shut now. Plumlee is locked into a cheap long-term deal with only about $2 Million guaranteed. He was a good asset.

Essentially the trade is the same as moving Splitter and Hill (the pick) in 2007 for a player like McDyess. It may have seemed like it what the front office owed to the Big Three so they could repeat, but it would have been the most-damaging trade of the Duncan era had they done so. Maybe Dice helps them past the Lakers in 2008, or maybe he doesn't. But either way, Tim would probably be retired now and Parker would probably be on another team.

So yes, the Thomas trade was dumb. The front office partially learned its lesson when it refused to trade Hill. But it took another couple of years for them to realize that getting young is as much about the present as it is about the future.

[Chinook]

And seriously, in today's NBA, Gerald Green does not have a terrible contract. He didn't deserve it, and the Pacers shouldn't have given it to him. But it's not a terrible contract at all.

[elemento]

There's a difference between a team like Indiana keeping a bad contract and a team like Phoenix taking on one. Green for $3 Million next season doesn't make sense for the Pacers, but the Suns won't have any other small-forwards on the roster then unless one of the Morris twins makes the transition. Even if he's second string. Green's contract is not bad for them. It IS bad for the Pacers, who have four wings ahead of him.

And the idea of a salary floor is very real. The Suns will need somebody to make up the money. So it was Green or someone else. If the Suns had a chance to get another first-rounder out of it, then it doesn't make sense to give it up. You just said yourself that Utah took on $24 Million for two firsts and two seconds. So you think Phoenix was inclined to give up the chance to get a first for only $3 Million? So no, I don't think Bonner and a first is a more-appealing offer than Green and two firsts. Worst-case scenario, Green's a fine trade chip next off-season when they could actually use it.

We disagree on Scola's value, and that's perfectly fine. I don't think he'd help the Spurs in the playoffs, because he's too bad on defense to get minutes over Duncan, Splitter, Diaw and small-ball. And I'd rather keep Bonner and give Pendergraph regular-season minutes over giving up a first. Duncan got plenty of rest last season. Scola doesn't raise the Spurs' ceiling on centimeter, in my opinion.

Of course there's a difference. That's why it's a good deal for Indy to give PHX Plumlee + 1 late 1st while they get Scola and unload Green. Green is a minimum guy (at best) getting almost 4 times what he is worth. Green's contract is bad, no matter where he is. Bonner not only is a better player, but he is also a better contract.

There's a huge difference between the 1st picks Utah got from GS and what PHX got here. Utah got 2 2nds and got unprotected picks. The difference is massive here.

The Suns got a late 1st + Plumlee here, not another 1st round pick. And that was mainly because of Green's contract.

And yeah, we disagree on Scola's value. To me he is too good offensively to not get minutes in the playoffs. If Gary Neal can get consistent minutes in the playoffs despite his atrocious defense, Scola can get minutes as well. To me having Scola + giving up a late 1st > Bonner and Pendergraph, but we will have to disagree here. No problem at all.

To me Scola would absolutely improve SAS front-court, especially offensively against elite defensive teams. His mid-range is money and his post game is still one of the best in the NBA.

[jimbo]

I'd take Scola over some Euro that'll probably never see the light of day. Livio Jean who?

[TD 21]

You saying Plumlee wasn't worth a first doesn't make it so, even if you cite what draft experts thought. No one thought Hill was worth a first, but if the Spurs had traded him for Carter in 2009, then the team's window would be officially shut now. Plumlee is locked into a cheap long-term deal with only about $2 Million guaranteed. He was a good asset.

Essentially the trade is the same as moving Splitter and Hill (the pick) in 2007 for a player like McDyess. It may have seemed like it what the front office owed to the Big Three so they could repeat, but it would have been the most-damaging trade of the Duncan era had they done so. Maybe Dice helps them past the Lakers in 2008, or maybe he doesn't. But either way, Tim would probably be retired now and Parker would probably be on another team.

So yes, the Thomas trade was dumb. The front office partially learned its lesson when it refused to trade Hill. But it took another couple of years for them to realize that getting young is as much about the present as it is about the future.

There's plenty of examples of guys who were 1st round picks, who's value was basically nil in short order. The Suns have one now (Marshall); it happens.

It's not at all the same as moving Splitter, who was always a lottery caliber talent. Other teams just didn't want to have to wait at least 2 years for him to come over.

The Thomas trade made sense. If you think you're close, time is running out and a certain player might put you over the top, you absolutely surrender a late 1st. Your argument of going with Joseph hasn't included a single reason as to why he can do the job, other than "he's young".

[Chinook]

There's plenty of examples of guys who were 1st round picks, who's value was basically nil in short order. The Suns have one now (Marshall); it happens.

It's not at all the same as moving Splitter, who was always a lottery caliber talent. Other teams just didn't want to have to wait at least 2 years for him to come over.

The Thomas trade made sense. If you think you're close, time is running out and a certain player might put you over the top, you absolutely surrender a late 1st. Your argument of going with Joseph hasn't included a single reason as to why he can do the job, other than "he's young".

Marshall's value is as poor as it is because the front office gave up on him in a very public way. Also, he was the 10th-overall pick in the draft last year. His contract is not cheap. Plumlee is much more rookie Hill than he is Marshall. It indeed happens that players lose stock quickly. But you're not arguing Plumlee lost stock; you're saying he never had it, which I disagree with.

Splitter was a lottery-caliber talent that had one possible window to come over. The Spurs made sure not to miss that window with him, but they did lose it with Scola. I think he's a great example of a first-rounder gone right from the Spurs. They would never have had the chance to draft him if they had traded away that pick. Essentially, I'm equating Hill to Plumlee and Splitter to the undifferentiated pick. Obviously, the chronology was reversed, but the perceived value (pick and "second-round talent") is pretty similar.

I hated the Thomas trade when it happened. He was never the player they needed. If they thought they needed a big to win another title, they should have made a better trade than that. They gave up what turned out to be a good pick for nothing, because they didn't see the value in developing their talent.

Joseph flashed potential. You don't agree with me on that, and we probably will disagree on that point until time bears one of us out. I feel very comfortable with him backing up Parker. I think he would have been a lot better had Pop not been so undecided between him and De Colo. He did what was needed of him with very little time to prepare. Was he good in the Finals? Not consistently, for sure. But was there anything about how he played that made it seem like that was going to be a trend? Nope. His handles are fine, he has good speed and improving finishing ability, and he was a good spot-up shooter in the d-league. Give him time, and it will work out.

[hater]

:lmao RC and Pop

[TD 21]

Marshall's value is as poor as it is because the front office gave up on him in a very public way. Also, he was the 10th-overall pick in the draft last year. His contract is not cheap. Plumlee is much more rookie Hill than he is Marshall. It indeed happens that players lose stock quickly. But you're not arguing Plumlee lost stock; you're saying he never had it, which I disagree with.

Splitter was a lottery-caliber talent that had one possible window to come over. The Spurs made sure not to miss that window with him, but they did lose it with Scola. I think he's a great example of a first-rounder gone right from the Spurs. They would never have had the chance to draft him if they had traded away that pick. Essentially, I'm equating Hill to Plumlee and Splitter to the undifferentiated pick. Obviously, the chronology was reversed, but the perceived value (pick and "second-round talent") is pretty similar.

I hated the Thomas trade when it happened. He was never the player they needed. If they thought they needed a big to win another title, they should have made a better trade than that. They gave up what turned out to be a good pick for nothing, because they didn't see the value in developing their talent.

Joseph flashed potential. You don't agree with me on that, and we probably will disagree on that point until time bears one of us out. I feel very comfortable with him backing up Parker. I think he would have been a lot better had Pop not been so undecided between him and De Colo. He did what was needed of him with very little time to prepare. Was he good in the Finals? Not consistently, for sure. But was there anything about how he played that made it seem like that was going to be a trend? Nope. His handles are fine, he has good speed and improving finishing ability, and he was a good spot-up shooter in the d-league. Give him time, and it will work out.

No, it's as poor as it is because he supposedly struggled mightily in the D-League, despite the fact that he spent three years in college. And he was the 13th pick. Plumlee never had much stock, though in fairness, apparently he played well in the Orlando summer league, which obviously helped some.

Sure, they never would have had the chance, but that's what I meant when I say calculated risk. Sometimes that pick is a Mahinmi and sometimes it's a Splitter. If they win the '08 championship, no one cares that they gave up a pick that could have been Gibson (or whoever), though.

Whether Thomas was the missing piece is a different matter altogether. Obviously, that was up for debate at the time. I'm just saying, in general, you give that pick up for a player you think puts you over the top.

I keep hearing that he "flashed potential", or some variation of that, but what I'm not hearing are any specific examples. "Give him time", you say; but that's just it, they don't have much time. If they did, I'd be fine with going with him.

[Chinook]

No, it's as poor as it is because he supposedly struggled mightily in the D-League, despite the fact that he spent three years in college. And he was the 13th pick. Plumlee never had much stock, though in fairness, apparently he played well in the Orlando summer league, which obviously helped some.

Sure, they never would have had the chance, but that's what I meant when I say calculated risk. Sometimes that pick is a Mahinmi and sometimes it's a Splitter. If they win the '08 championship, no one cares that they gave up a pick that could have been Gibson (or whoever), though.

Whether Thomas was the missing piece is a different matter altogether. Obviously, that was up for debate at the time. I'm just saying, in general, you give that pick up for a player you think puts you over the top.

I keep hearing that he "flashed potential", or some variation of that, but what I'm not hearing are any specific examples. "Give him time", you say; but that's just it, they don't have much time. If they did, I'd be fine with going with him.

I don't think we're very far apart on the trade discussion. I agree that trading a pick for a player who can put the team over the top is a good strategy. But I disagree that Scola is that player, or even close to that player. I didn't think Thomas was that player, either. It's not that every first-rounder is better than any vet. It's that just any vet that was good in the past isn't worth giving up picks when the picks have been historically kind to the team. The Spurs' ability to draft well means that their picks should have greater value (to them) than they would to other teams. I would be okay with giving up a first for a player like Ariza if the pick were highly protected. (I would not be happy with it, however.) That's because Ariza is a good system player with a lot of upside at a position of need. I would think that overpaying, but I certainly would do that over paying a first for Scola when the big rotation is already solid. If Luis were a free agent, that'd be one thing.

Joseph is a good finisher (not quite as good as he thinks he is, but better than a lot of people assume). He's also a smart passer and solid jump-shooter. There's plenty of reason to believe he can be a threat coming off the PnR. He was a good enough shooter in the d-league to play off the ball. We already know his defense was there. He managed to have a PER of 13, which is fine for a backup player. If he can get some good work in with Chip, he should be able to be a contributor. Maybe I'll try to do an in-depth post on Joseph after he plays for Canada.

[TD 21]

I don't think we're very far apart on the trade discussion. I agree that trading a pick for a player who can put the team over the top is a good strategy. But I disagree that Scola is that player, or even close to that player. I didn't think Thomas was that player, either. It's not that every first-rounder is better than any vet. It's that just any vet that was good in the past isn't worth giving up picks when the picks have been historically kind to the team. The Spurs' ability to draft well means that their picks should have greater value (to them) than they would to other teams. I would be okay with giving up a first for a player like Ariza if the pick were highly protected. (I would not be happy with it, however.) That's because Ariza is a good system player with a lot of upside at a position of need. I would think that overpaying, but I certainly would do that over paying a first for Scola when the big rotation is already solid. If Luis were a free agent, that'd be one thing.

He might not be. but the question is, can they do better? Odds are, probably not. The way I see it, the next two 1sts should be highly available, because their sole focus for the next two years should be winning another championship.

The big rotation is solid . . . until they face the Thunder/Heat. Almost all of that can be attributed to Splitter going fetal, but that's just it: Once he does, they don't have another true big who should be playing major minutes at that level, so they end up playing plenty of small ball. That's not how you beat those teams, since their offenses, which are already the two best in the league, become supercharged when James/Durant shift to PF. By pairing Scola with Duncan, they could have done what the Pacers made the Heat do, which was play big more than they're comfortable with.

[Chinook]

He might not be. but the question is, can they do better? Odds are, probably not. The way I see it, the next two 1sts should be highly available, because their sole focus for the next two years should be winning another championship.

The big rotation is solid . . . until they face the Thunder/Heat. Almost all of that can be attributed to Splitter going fetal, but that's just it: Once he does, they don't have another true big who should be playing major minutes at that level, so they end up playing plenty of small ball. That's not how you beat those teams, since their offenses, which are already the two best in the league, become supercharged when James/Durant shift to PF. By pairing Scola with Duncan, they could have done what the Pacers made the Heat do, which was play big more than they're comfortable with.

The Spurs paid Splitter too much money to expect him to shrivel up again. As I said before, that claim itself is somewhat overrated, as Splitter was still very valuable defensively. The Spurs offense became EXTREMELY predictable down the stretch, and that made Splitter look a lot worse offensively than he really was. He didn't help matters at all, though.

I think this idea that the Spurs need to take a page out of Indiana's book is sort of faulty for a couple of reasons. One is that West made huge defensive plays in the ECF. That is something no one's expecting from Scola. West is a very gritty player, even if his defense is not usually that solid. Scola is different. He'd more take advantage of the Heat's poor matchup with him rather than punish them. The second and bigger reason is that Hibbert is more mobile than Duncan is at this stage, so the Pacers can get away with playing poor defenders at the four. The Spurs very much need Splitter and Diaw in the lineup next to Duncan to handle the pick-and-roll. Scola/Splitter wouldn't actually be a bad bench duo, but how often is that slated to happen in critical minutes? And how much would the Spurs miss Diaw's girth, passing, mobility and versatility? I don't see the Spurs going Duncan/Splitter/Diaw/small-ball to be a weakness against the Heat at all.

[TD 21]

The Spurs paid Splitter too much money to expect him to shrivel up again. As I said before, that claim itself is somewhat overrated, as Splitter was still very valuable defensively. The Spurs offense became EXTREMELY predictable down the stretch, and that made Splitter look a lot worse offensively than he really was. He didn't help matters at all, though.

I think this idea that the Spurs need to take a page out of Indiana's book is sort of faulty for a couple of reasons. One is that West made huge defensive plays in the ECF. That is something no one's expecting from Scola. West is a very gritty player, even if his defense is not usually that solid. Scola is different. He'd more take advantage of the Heat's poor matchup with him rather than punish them. The second and bigger reason is that Hibbert is more mobile than Duncan is at this stage, so the Pacers can get away with playing poor defenders at the four. The Spurs very much need Splitter and Diaw in the lineup next to Duncan to handle the pick-and-roll. Scola/Splitter wouldn't actually be a bad bench duo, but how often is that slated to happen in critical minutes? And how much would the Spurs miss Diaw's girth, passing, mobility and versatility? I don't see the Spurs going Duncan/Splitter/Diaw/small-ball to be a weakness against the Heat at all.

There's no such thing as that. They paid him that to retain the asset that he is, not because it'll ensure he doesn't go fetal again. They need an answer to those two going small at will against them and he's proven twice now that he's definitely not it.

:lol Making excuses for Splitter. That was as soft a performance as I've ever seen. It's one thing to struggle, but for a player of his caliber to literally not look like he belongs at that level of competition, is beyond pathetic.

Fair enough, but at least they'd have had another viable option to throw at them.

[Chinook]

There's no such thing as that. They paid him that to retain the asset that he is, not because it'll ensure he doesn't go fetal again. They need an answer to those two going small at will against them and he's proven twice now that he's definitely not it.

:lol Making excuses for Splitter. That was as soft a performance as I've ever seen. It's one thing to struggle, but for a player of his caliber to literally not look like he belongs at that level of competition, is beyond pathetic.

Fair enough, but at least they'd have had another viable option to throw at them.

I don't think the Spurs are like the Pacers and Grizzlies. I think they're much more like the Knicks and Heat, in that playing small is something they should be trying to do a lot more often. Leonard is at his best when he can play inside the arch. With his length and post game, he's a matchup problem even for a team like Miami. I honestly think the best way to get Leonard involved in the offense will be by calling a lot of James-like plays against for him. The Spurs were one bounce from beating the Heat at their own game. While I would be interested in seeing what how the team would have fair had they stayed big (Splitter would have probably been better), the team is definitely not weak playing small-ball anymore, especially with Belinelli in the fold. Add in Diaw being able to guard James and Anthony serviceably enough to rotate with Leonard, and I think the Spurs are well equipped to handle Miami.

[TD 21]

I don't think the Spurs are like the Pacers and Grizzlies. I think they're much more like the Knicks and Heat, in that playing small is something they should be trying to do a lot more often. Leonard is at his best when he can play inside the arch. With his length and post game, he's a matchup problem even for a team like Miami. I honestly think the best way to get Leonard involved in the offense will be by calling a lot of James-like plays against for him. The Spurs were one bounce from beating the Heat at their own game. While I would be interested in seeing what how the team would have fair had they stayed big (Splitter would have probably been better), the team is definitely not weak playing small-ball anymore, especially with Belinelli in the fold. Add in Diaw being able to guard James and Anthony serviceably enough to rotate with Leonard, and I think the Spurs are well equipped to handle Miami.

I don't disagree. When I said "an answer to them going small at will against them", I didn't necessarily mean a Millsap, Scola, etc. I also meant, a Kirilenko, Ariza, etc. They need one or the other.

[therealtruth]

I don't think the Spurs are like the Pacers and Grizzlies. I think they're much more like the Knicks and Heat, in that playing small is something they should be trying to do a lot more often. Leonard is at his best when he can play inside the arch. With his length and post game, he's a matchup problem even for a team like Miami. I honestly think the best way to get Leonard involved in the offense will be by calling a lot of James-like plays against for him. The Spurs were one bounce from beating the Heat at their own game. While I would be interested in seeing what how the team would have fair had they stayed big (Splitter would have probably been better), the team is definitely not weak playing small-ball anymore, especially with Belinelli in the fold. Add in Diaw being able to guard James and Anthony serviceably enough to rotate with Leonard, and I think the Spurs are well equipped to handle Miami.

I still think playing small favors the Heat whenever you have Lebron and Wade. The Heat make teams look stupid for trying to play small with them. I don't have the stats but I am sure our defensive rating against them was much better when we played big.