Spurs were interested in trading for Scola.

[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 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? yes. For Ilyasova? I can understand it. For Gortat? I guess. For Bass? Um, well I wouldn't be a fan. But for Scola? no.

[Sean Cagney]

Pacers moving up in the F*ck Miami coalition

Spurs
Pacers
Thunder
Chicago
Brookyln

Besides 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.

[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 iden y), 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!

[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? yes. For Ilyasova? I can understand it. For Gortat? I guess. For Bass? Um, well I wouldn't be a fan. But for Scola? 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.