Nobody can know what would have happened if Scola joined the spurs.. Or you think M.Jordan would have gave us rings if he played for us? You can't really know that. IMO Spurs had a chance for at least 1 ring in those 2 years I mentioned, period.
Again, if you had said, as CWS did, that adding Scola would have made the Spurs a better, more compe ive team, I would have agreed with you. You, however, made the simple assertion that adding Scola would have resulted in a le in 2010 or 2011. All I did was make the opposite assertion. I'm still not sure why that bothered you so much.
Just to be fair and to put an end to this debate, according your post, you were making an definite statement the Spurs would have one at least one of those years. Having a chance and actually thinking they would have won one are two different things. But yes, I and even Mel agree that they could have had a chance to at least win another championship during that drought.
But its water under the bridge. Thank goodness for Hill and his playoff performance against the Mavs. Gave the Spurs the missing element to this team with Bowen's decline to age and departure when trading for Kawhi. At least the FO did rectify themselves. Spurs are the current reigning NBA champions are they not.
Just look to this year, because it looks like the Spurs are poised for another run.
You first said "No. Just no" and then "Sorry but no" instead of "No, I don't agree with you for XXX reasons. When somebody tell you something and you don't agree with him you tell him No just no? You also called me a kid or whatever for using emoticons..
Scola looks like a mutant version of Ben AffleckI was going to make a joke about Tony Parker sleeping with Scola's wife which would have led to the breakup of the lineup.
But then came across this weird pic..
If you made the opposite assertion that would have meant Spurs had NO CHANCE of winning a ring in those 2 years.
For the last time. You provided no rationale or support for your simple assertion. Thus, there was no reason for me to detail why I disagreed with your opinion. I simply stated mine as you had stated yours. You could have replied with the rationale for your opinion, and I would have been more than happy to discuss it with you, but you chose to make childish insults instead. I simply pointed out the ineffectiveness of that sort of response. Go back and read your posts.
Somebody asked "What years Spurs could have won rings if Scola ended up here?, answered him those 2 years. At least I answered his question, you by the other hand just said "No just no". Go read your posts..
Sorry, but no. You definitively stated that signing Scola would have resulted in a le in 2010 or 2011. The opposite of that, in my mind, is that signing Scola could not guarantee an additional le.
Keep in mind that a message board is a less that perfect method of communication and the exact meaning of a post cannot always be discerned, that's why it's worthwhile to attempt to clarify the issue before resorting to personal insults
That was a perfectly sufficient response to your post.
The opposite of what I said, it's NOT "could not guarantee an additional le", it's "Scola wasn't going to give us a ring" <-- and this is what you actually think.
And the post you responded to asked "would have" not "could have". You can look it up.
Scola wasn't going to give us a ring, that's what you think, I get it.
We clearly disagree. Your response, in the context of the post you answered, was that signing Scola would have definitely added an additional le. The opposite of that is that signing Scola did not make an additional le a certainty.
Scola wasn't definitely going to give us a ring, which is the opposite of what you actually wrote.
Yep we disagree, but this time at least you are not saying No, just no. You learn something new everyday..
If you had asked for clarification yesterday, rather than resort to childish insults, you would have these responses yesterday.
I said dumbass only once and you say INSULTS, ok..
Seriously, that's what your going with? You went down the insult road and derailed the conversation. You approached the issue in a civil manner this morning and things went much more smoothly.
If Scola would have been here, I highly doubt we would have picked up Diaw.
Same with Jackson. If they had given him what he wanted in 2003, they may not have been able to afford both of Tony and Manu in 2004.
it wasn't straightforward. Scola had a window to buyout his contract that summer and was going to be lock away if not. The Spurs because of salary cap constraints couldn't offer him enough. Houston got around it through a Chinese shoe contract. The buyout issue and many GMs concern about how his game would translate limited the Spurs trade options. The best they could do was let Houston take on Butlers salary
Per TIMVP
I thought Butler was a very good gamble at the time and I still think so in retrospect. Butler was a 20-year-old center who was about league average by every stat (even stats invented since 2006). Finding centers that young who already produce at league average rates outside of the draft is extremely rare. One that played that well under Larry Brown, who typically hates young players, is even rarer. The Spurs signing him for $5 million over two seasons made it an even better gamble.
As we now know, it didn't work out. Butler basically retired from basketball after he got that contract. He showed up to camp fat and wasn't interested in practicing hard. After his contract expired, he was never heard from again. Like I said, Butler got that contract and retired. That's why it was a gamble in the first place. Not much a team can do if a player has no interest in succeeding.
The real mistake, as others have mentioned, was using Scola to salary dump Butler after the gamble failed. The Spurs should have just held on to Butler. He wasn't making much money and that team didn't face a roster crunch. The Spurs panicked in an attempt to clean their books and made a stupid trade. Give credit to the Rockets, but it should also be noted that they basically cheated the salary cap to get Scola (Yao got Scola a lucrative shoe deal in China that was able to afford him the ability to pay for his buyout in Spain ... the Spurs obviously didn't have such a connection to maneuver around the salary cap like that).
People forget that little detail and only look at the NBA salary Scola got from Houston. That same salary wasn't getting it done with the Spurs.
Also, the Spurs had a plan for 2007 and beyond. That plan failed because cir stances changed. The plan for 2007-08 was to bring back the same bigs that won the le in 2006-07. Remember, at the moment of the Scola decision, the greatest threats to the Spurs were the Suns, Mavs, and Cavs. The Spurs reached the conference finals with that group and were left with the Gasol Lakers and Garnett Celts in their way. Scola would have been useful against those teams, but the odds would have still been against repeating, IMO.
For 2008 and beyond, the plan was Mahinmi and Splitter. They brought Mahinmi over to play in Austin in 2007-08 with an eye to bringing him to San Antonio in 2008-09. He couldn't stay healthy and we all know how that ended. Splitter was drafted in 2007 with every expectation that he would come over in 2008. His sister's leukemia returned in March 2008 and he decided to take a much richer deal to stay in Spain until he was no longer subject to the restrictions of the rookie pay scale.
The plan failed completely, but there was a plan.
Talk about beating a dead horse.
Bonner does. Avila is absolutely wretched defensively.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
