Spurs were interested in trading for Scola.

[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 le, 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]

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 le, 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.

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 compe ion, 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.

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 compe ion, 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.