I quoted you and replayed about Euroleague. I wasnt watching ACB that time, so I dont know why Vitoria didn`t win.
George Gervin?
Zero les.
Loser.
Stockton/Malone/Sloan?
Zero les, zeru uli.
Big losers.
Scola won Olympic le.
Not with US, but with ARGENTINA (A R G E N T I N A).
Loser, big time loser: he never won the Spanish le with Tau!
WE WANT MORE!!!!!
I quoted you and replayed about Euroleague. I wasnt watching ACB that time, so I dont know why Vitoria didn`t win.
lol @ 1st team spurstalk
lol @ 2005 vbookie champion (like anyone cares)
these are the true hollow awards IMO
coming from the guy who couldn't start threads for a while...![]()
that is true but I am glad Spurs got rid of him for nothing. He didn't win any Spanish les for christ sake!!
This is one of the most entertaining threads I read so far.
Not surprisingly, it's about Scola.
The best part is that people actually try to argue.
wow, let it go..The spurs front office has many more positive moves that negative ones. Yes, they should have kept Scola and No, nobody on this site knows the true reason why Scola was dealt.
whott's ghost must be pulling levers up in here
that is not my point. My point is some ppl in here are claiming they are glad Scola is not in the Spurs because he didn't win any Spanish les![]()
Let me enlighten you.
This was classic Whott.
He is just replicating Whott's arguments.
Less passionate, actually.
Some sort of a cheap lawyer of a lost cause.
He once admitted that it's some sort of Whott's legacy.
Given the cir stances, it is humanly understandable.
That's what I mean by entertaining......
Sorry about that.
Actually, my arguments with Whott were such -he named me the High Priest of the Scola Church- that I am actually wondering whether my pro-Scola stanch is ALSO some sort of tribute to the guy.
Scola IS a very good player and he is made of the same stone as Manu.
Is there really any doubt that the Spurs would be contending with LA if they had Scola? It would be the Lakers and Spurs, then everybody else. Instead, it's just been the Lakers the past 3 years and we've seen nothing to change that so far. What could've been...
It's whottt with 3 "t".
Even Scola could not stop Joey Crawford, so the answer is a round NO.
Spurs have had their share.
This is not a market where smallville can make it.
Nah I don't think Scola would've done it simply because he'd get abused by LA's size and athleticism in the front court. Would've been more compe ive but Scola seems to be a defensive liability although he's a very skilled and versatile offensive player. Basically Blair with actual moves and range. Would've been a great addition nonethless though![]()
it's obvious Spurs would have had a decent chance with Scola vs. LA/DAL/PHO rather than being used as a mop the past 3 years
I mean seriously, Bonner or Scola?![]()
At eating sandwiches?
Bonner, apparently.
Scola game doesn't translate to the NBA![]()
Bonner: 1 NBA championship
Scola: 0
/thread
I'm both surprised and ashamed nobody corrected this post.
It would be therapeutic for Spurs fans to stop denying reality and just except the fact that the SAS FO made a huge mistake (some already have). Every FO makes blunders, some bigger than others.
The only good reasons for not signing Scola are :
1) if he didn't want to sign with us (but he always said he would have been glad to platy with us);
2) if a part of the Butler deal with the rfockets was that they weren't be drafting Spliter in favor of Brooks
All the others are non reasons...he already was a very good and young player, sure the best "second" big we ever had in these last three years.
However, all in all, I think that not signing him has been a mistake, comparable with the one that somebody in our f.o. made about the age of Nocioni.
In these last three years a front line or a bench with both Nocioni and Scola would have been more than decent...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)