Some thoughts from a “neutral” basketball fan.
This was not a good trade for the Spurs for only one reason. They didn’t receive enough for both Butler and the rights to Scola. If this had been a straight up trade of Butler for the Melancholic Greek OR the rights to Scola for a second-round pick, I don’t think we’d see all the outrage. However, this amounts to two lopsided deals done for purely financial reasons, with no talent in return. I don’t think you’ll find anyone willing to say that this was a “great” deal for SA. The question then becomes, “How bad is it?”
It is important to remember that the NBA labor pool is not a zero-sum game. A player may be more valuable to Team A than to Team B or C. This is fairly self-evident, but I will cite an example. Compare Dennis Rodman’s worth to the Spurs to his value to the Pistons and Bulls.
In short, Scola’s rights and Butler had very little value to San Antonio. Conversely, these players represent much greater value to Houston. The problem is that the Spurs received little or no value in return, rather than receiving anything close to what the players were worth to Houston. This essentially happened twice in one trade. I understand that the Spurs were not in a good bargaining position, but you can’t get taken to the woodshed twice on the same deal.
My real concern is that when you are on top, it is difficult to stay there, and there is nowhere to go but downhill. Obviously, Butler wasn’t going to play significant minutes with the Spurs. The problem is that a team cannot continue to trade talent for cap relief, while receiving no talent in return. That is your classic downward spiral.
