Chicago tribune/Scola speculation

[Bruno]

Now, you haven't the right to make typos ?
Please read :
Scola has maybe even more value than Vujicic.

[waly.mg]

I´m From Argentina and i know Scola more than the "americans"

If i´m the Coach, i make that moves and i place this team in the Field in the Clutch

Parker-Manu-Bowen-Scola-Duncan

With TD and Scola in the Field at the same time the defense can´t guard TD, because if let TD with only one Defender, TD is going to score every ball, if the Defense doubles TD, TD move the ball to Scola who´s with a small defender

In the Spurs we haven´t a Scorer Big Man like Scola, so the defense can make a Double without problems, and for Example with Dallas, Irk can plays only in Offense and is guarding BB, with Scola in the game Irk must to make defensive moves

[TDMVPDPOY]

You still continue thinking that basket is playing solely in the United States?

Facts:

NBA is better than The Euroleague but Euroleague is better than NCAA

The best players of Europe are better than the Top 6-9 Picks of the Draft, probably better than the 4-5 too and for Example better than Andrew Bogut, #1 of the 2005 Draft

The NBA rookie Scale is 7.5 Millions 3 years for the #5

Oberto signed that 7.5 years 3 millions contract and Scola in Europe was better player than Oberto when Both played in Europe, so it´s imposible to pay less than 7.5 M - 3 Yr contract

The Marker Value in years past of the Best Eurpean Players was 10-12 M - 3 Yrs Contract, Like Nocioni, Jasikevicius and a few Others

Scola and Nocioni in Europe played at the same level and the same team, and Nocioni was the SF and Scola the PF of the TAU

If Nocioni who was SF in Europe is playing as PF in the NBA, Scola can too



He was a 57th Pick Like Manu Ginobili, if we Lost Manu so : The Spurs did not lose anything?

Give me a Break, Scola is a Great Player in Europe, in The Euroleague, in The World Championship and in the Olympics, and if he is going to play in the NBA too

if you look at nacionis contract, how much of it went to tax?

scola should only be gettin around less than what nacioni got, thats if the spurs doesnt trade him durin the principal of the contract, and its tax free in texas. how much does he really need to live on anyway.

[venitian navigator]

I don't think anyone's saying that the Euroleague isn't any good. But the things that make a player great in the NBA are often different than those in Euroleague.

Some Euroleague stars like Manu excel in the NBA, while others like Jasikevicius or Oberto are minor role players. Even for players that don't end up doing well in the NBA, that doesn't mean they're bad players, it just means that they don't fit well in this style of basketball.


The pick isn't the issue.

If the Spurs spend too much money on Scola and he doesn't help us, that means we wasted money we could have spent on a player that would help win championships.

Both Jasikevicius and Oberto didn' have a fair chance proportional to their level of talent and experience...(it was just their first year and they needed time to "understand" the differences there are between the legues).
They also found a difficult situation in the role they had to play.
This year we had too many men at center with NBA experience and Mohammed was in his contract year...so you had to play him!
Anyway, Fabri didn't played that bad, when He played...
Jasi is, obviously, a play, not a shooting guard like Carlisle is playing him (Bird as always criticized Carlisle for that)...but Indiana had, like us at center, too many persons at play (Tinsley, Johnson).
We'll see next year...

Coming to Scola, the point is that this sumer we have to sign not only Scola but also Javtokas.
Signing both would be, for at least next year, as good as signing two high first choices, doesn't take away from us any right for next year, and would mean sign both with not so huge contracts...(at least for three years, like for Oberto, and for no more than 5,5 milliions for both).
I hope this will be possible considering that, in the Scola situation, we'll have to pay also the buy-out to Tau (that doesn't count on the salary cap, but counts on Holt's pockets).
They both are young (24/26) and the minimun you can say is their value (or, at least, the value of one of them) in the NBA market will be higher next year!

So, I don't see a total waste of time and money...and it could be the last time we could sign them both.
Coming to chances for the le, I don't see a free agent in their roles (center and power forward) more valuable at the some price.
The negative point is I don't see a way, other than sign and trade with other teams, for filling the real other team needs (back up point and small - long forward ) ...

[strangeweather]

Both Jasikevicius and Oberto didn' have a fair chance proportional to their level of talent and experience...(it was just their first year and they needed time to "understand" the differences there are between the legues).
They also found a difficult situation in the role they had to play.
This year we had too many men at center with NBA experience and Mohammed was in his contract year...so you had to play him!
Anyway, Fabri didn't played that bad, when He played...
Jasi is, obviously, a play, not a shooting guard like Carlisle is playing him (Bird as always criticized Carlisle for that)...but Indiana had, like us at center, too many persons at play (Tinsley, Johnson).
We'll see next year...

I'm not criticizing either player, and I'm hopeful that Oberto can build on his past season and work his way into the regular rotation next year. But I seriously doubt that either Jasikevicius or Oberto is going to have the same level of impact in the NBA that Manu or Nocioni have had.

My point is that some european players have a huge impact, and some have a relatively modest impact. It's not always easy to tell which is which up front.

Coming to Scola, the point is that this sumer we have to sign not only Scola but also Javtokas.
Signing both would be, for at least next year, as good as signing two high first choices, doesn't take away from us any right for next year, and would mean sign both with not so huge contracts...(at least for three years, like for Oberto, and for no more than 5,5 milliions for both).

If we spend that much on Scola and Javtokas, it pretty well rules out getting much help at other positions, such as small forward and backup point guard. That's a significant opportunity cost for the organization.

Coming to chances for the le, I don't see a free agent in their roles (center and power forward) more valuable at the some price.
The negative point is I don't see a way, other than sign and trade with other teams, for filling the real other team needs (back up point and small - long forward ) ...

Exactly. Which is why we may either need Scola to come in for less if we can get him for that, or we may need to explore other avenues such as signing cheaper players and trading Scola's rights for someone less expensive who can help us.

[leemajors]

the spurs don't have to pay the buyout, scola has to pay it. i think the most the nba team can contribute to the buyout is like 500k.

[strangeweather]

the spurs don't have to pay the buyout, scola has to pay it. i think the most the nba team can contribute to the buyout is like 500k.

It was 350k unless the new CBA changed that.

[venitian navigator]

I'm not criticizing either player, and I'm hopeful that Oberto can build on his past season and work his way into the regular rotation next year. But I seriously doubt that either Jasikevicius or Oberto is going to have the same level of impact in the NBA that Manu or Nocioni have had.

My point is that some european players have a huge impact, and some have a relatively modest impact. It's not always easy to tell which is which up front.


If we spend that much on Scola and Javtokas, it pretty well rules out getting much help at other positions, such as small forward and backup point guard. That's a significant opportunity cost for the organization.





Exactly. Which is why we may either need Scola to come in for less if we can get him for that, or we may need to explore other avenues such as signing cheaper players and trading Scola's rights for someone less expensive who can help us.

Right, but i think that, next year, at least one of rasho/mohammed will be dealt (for mohammed sign and trade, if possible), and we have to take a decision on Udrih too...
I think N.O. could be a good partner for trading (claxton, mason, jr smith, macijauskas, pj brown)...

[venitian navigator]

the spurs don't have to pay the buyout, scola has to pay it. i think the most the nba team can contribute to the buyout is like 500k.

Yeah, but ther's no rule that say you can't pay the buy out in more than one year...500 k x 5 years is 2.5000 k...!

[ducks]

yes there is

[Ariel]

the spurs don't have to pay the buyout, scola has to pay it. i think the most the nba team can contribute to the buyout is like 500k.

The team does pay it, just not directly, by giving the player a contract large enough to both pay the buyout (except the 500K they can put upfront) and have a fair amount left that would serve as 'real' salary.

If he needs 3.5 M, the team can put up 500K, and he makes 2M a year, for him not to lose money he'd need at least, 5M for 1 year, or 7M for 2 years, or 9M for 3 years, etc. The longer the contract, the lower the cost per year, and viceversa.

A good compromise should be a 7M contract for 2 years. That should give him enough not to lose much money, and allow him to earn much more if he goes on to prove he is worth it in the NBA.

[ducks]

he is not going to make 5 million in year one with the spurs
see you if he wants that

[Ariel]

he is not going to make 5 million in year one with the spurs
see you if he wants that

Which is exactly why I said a 2 year contract would be best. 5M for 1 year wouldn't favor the Spurs, 9M for 3 years wouldn't favor him, 7M for 2 years sounds fair to both.

[objective]

A good compromise should be a 7M contract for 2 years.

then the spurs get worked when they don't have his bird rights.

Better to give three years with player option for year 4 in case he gets injured he has one year's insurance. If he does great, then the Spurs still have Bird rights.

Anyways, I think foreign players usually get loans to pay off the buyouts and then just pay off the loans, they don't hand over a check for millions of dollars.

[Ariel]

then the spurs get worked when they don't have his bird rights.

Better to give three years with player option for year 4 in case he gets injured he has one year's insurance. If he does great, then the Spurs still have Bird rights.

That could be an interesting idea. However I was emphasizing the need to bring him now over a hypothetical scenario 2 years down the road. After all, the Spurs situation then might not even warrant giving him that contract regardless of being capable of doing so or not.

Anyways, I think foreign players usually get loans to pay off the buyouts and then just pay off the loans, they don't hand over a check for millions of dollars.

Regardless the money does have to come from somewhere. I'm not sure that 'we're not giving you the money to pay the buyout, but don't worry, you can do it yourself in 2 or 3 years' is going to work.

[Bruno]

then the spurs get worked when they don't have his bird rights.

No because of the Gilbert Arenas provision.
The best contract for Scola is likely a 3 years contract with a player option for the third.

[objective]

I'm not sure that 'we're not giving you the money to pay the buyout, but don't worry, you can do it yourself in 2 or 3 years' is going to work

I'm not saying that, I'm saying he can pay off the buyout loans over a number of years, he doesn't need 5 mil upfront on July 1 to cover his buyout and taxes. So if he gets 3 or 3.5 per year over 3 or 4 years he can do it.

Anyways, I can't imagine the Spurs would be willing to sign him without getting Bird rights. It isn't just about being able to re-sign him, it's also about being able to be involved in a sign-and-trade.

Spurs were lucky to have cap room after Manu's 2 years were up. They won't have cap room 2 seasons from now. They don't want to get worked like the Warriors were when they lost Gilbert Arenas for nothing.

[objective]

No because of the Gilbert Arenas provision.
The best contract for Scola is likely a 3 years contract with a player option for the third.

Unless something changed when the CBA got re-upped the Spurs need 3 years to have the bird rights. So maybe you mean a 3 year contract with a TEAM option for the 3rd.

[Bruno]

Unless something changed when the CBA got re-upped the Spurs need 3 years to have the bird rights. So maybe you mean a 3 year contract with a TEAM option for the 3rd.

Something has changed and it's called the Gilbert Arenas provision :
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#37

[ChumpDumper]

Under the new rules, it's better to sign Scola and Javtokas to a two-year deal. No other team could offer more than the midlevel after that, and the Spurs could match.

[Bruno]

Under the new rules, it's better to sign Scola and Javtokas to a two-year deal. No other team could offer more than the midlevel after that, and the Spurs could match.

No, other teams can offer more than the MLE.
Only the third year should be under the MLE and you can have a big raise between the third and fourth year.

[objective]

unable to match an offer sheet:

* If the player is a Non-Bird free agent and the team already used their Mid-Level exception to sign another player.

...

* If a team has two Non-Bird free agents with one or two years in the league. They can use the Mid-Level exception to keep one of them, but would lose the other.

if the Spurs sign either to a 2 year deal, then they can't use their MLE that year if they have to match after 2 years (drawback vs. Bird, though at least they get the option to match)

If they sign both, they can only keep one.

[Bruno]

if the Spurs sign either to a 2 year deal, then they can't use their MLE that year if they have to match after 2 years (drawback vs. Bird, though at least they get the option to match)

If they sign both, they can only keep one.

No because you have early-bird rights for a player in the league for 2 years.

[ChumpDumper]

No, other teams can offer more than the MLE.
Only the third year should be under the MLE and you can have a big raise between the third and fourth year.

But the Spurs could still match that. The first year's salary is the only one that needs to be matched with the early-Bird exception. Go back and read you link.

[Bruno]

But the Spurs could still match that. The first year's salary is the only one that needs to be matched with the early-Bird exception. Go back and read you link.

Did I say that Spurs can't match. Go back and read my post.