the spurs are the best team he's been on and i can understand his reluctance to leave, but if he want's to stay, he needs to make himself indispensable. he's been making bad decisions, he's been passive and hesitant on letting the 3 fly. i don't know if he's consciously doing this, but it's certainly not helping us to win games.
I recall Brent nailing that buzzer-beating 3, in Game 2 vs. SAC, that bounced off the rim twice, hit high off the glass and then dropped through to send that game to an OT win. I also remember Pop saying he called the play for Brent as 1st option because of his quick release and willingness to shoot. At the time, he was playing much more aggressively and had no reservations about letting it fly.
Something IS different.
There is no doubt that Barry isn't playing as well for one month but i do'nt think it's related with trade rumors.
Why isn't there more interest in Scola at the moment. I think this would be one of the Spurs' pieces many teams around the league might be interested in, especially those in playoff contention looking for a strong foward. I would much rather trade Scola and Beans than Brent and Beans. Are we waiting for that elusive mid-1st round draft pick?
Probably because Scola still has a buyout.
Didn't Scola offer to pay the buyout himself if the contract was right?
And I still believe that the team with the most interest in Scola is a team the Spurs would not trade him to.
Uh, but people at the time talked about how much his game improved because he was being used as traid bait. Now people are claiming his game has fallen off because he's being used as traid bait.
My point is simply I don't think his being used as traid bait in itself has affected his play . Unless he picks and chooses when he wants to step up is game after being mentioned in trade rumors.
Sure. But a team has to be willing to pay him enough that he can pay the buyout. And I'm not sure any team would do that.
Does anyone know how much the buyout still is? $5M?
Only for this year correct? As in, is the contract over next year (no buyout clause needed)????
I think Scola's contract is through 2008.
Not that I know if he would help our woes or not....
I didn't realize the buyout was that high. I was thinking 2, 2.5 mil tops
If not for the high buyout he'd help us as trade bait
Not that I know if he would help our woes or not....
No one really knows what it is.Two summers ago when it was reported everywhere that the buyout was down to about $5M, it ended up really being about $14M. So who knows. I honestly have no idea what it is right now, because that's a negotiation between him and his team. The Spurs can't control it.
Last year, the almost trade kind of woke him up.
Maybe he felt like he proved himself and now that they're talking trade again he's like "WTF?".
His emotional state does seem to dictate his play...so Solid could be right.
Or maybe it's just the mid-season blues.
Last summer, Scola's buyout was $3.5M. Maybe it will be less this summer because only one year will be left on his contract.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/b...a.1300a8f.html
They were looking to trade him last year when he wasn't doing so hot, but his trade stock went up when he started off the season so well. Beno is in the same boat. They're pretty much damned if they do and damned if they don't. It definitely must suck to constantly hear your name on the trading block all the time.
I think that's more accurate then saying he's tanking it on purpose.
I don't think you can really trust all that numbers, they're part of the pressure/bluff his team is putting on him or on SA. One day it'll be 5M, onather one 10M.No one really knows what it is.
Some europeans FO are kind of exentric sometimes, anouncing big numbers on contracts which turns out to be not that high.
there's also the emotional part. Basketball in those cities is more than just a business as it's often said about the NBA. The relations he has with his club can have an impact on the negociations.
3.5M total?
Now i feel like the FO is being very ey. They made tons off the 2005 Champs. Even if he was just signed for traid bait, it strengthens the trade position. Irregardless of what other GMs claim.
The Spurs were being very chintzy with Scola.
When the Spurs saw Oberto's progress during the summer and then they pulled in Bonner, Elson and Butler...Scola and Javtokas ended up being too pricey. Scola and Robertas were both looking to draw in the $3M per year range, I believe, and the Spurs could have spread most of the buy-out for Luis over 3 years @ $1.5M per year. It just turned into a Bang for the Buck for the "Big" issue, in my opinion.
To Scola and Javtokas, it may have translated into the "Spurs didn't want them". Scola is doing very well meanwhile, and Robertas is languishing on the bench in Greece for the Euroleague's best team.
Also, Oberto was looking like a dead contract. They set the price high with him at $2.5 and he produced nothing last year, making it look worse that Scola could contribute something. Garbajosa coming over for a relatively expensive contract was also bad, in setting a maret value.
Also, Macijauskas had just come over for the Hornets and stunk, and Jacikevicius was playing poorly for Indiana for big bucks. I don't think the Spurs wanted to bring another European player over.
They should have. It's easy to say now, but they should have let Butler slide and gone for Scola instead.
i think the FO can only pay up to $500 thousand. The remainder would be factored into his salary. In essence, you'd have to pay him more than his market value to complete the deal. From a fiscal standpoint, you would only want to bring Scola over when his buyout was $500k or less.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
