The Traded Reviewed Again

[AFBlue]

And their offense isn't going to be improved as much as you think it will be...because they weren't built to be an offensive team....offensive teams get up and down the court, and the Rockets franchise player can't do that.

Actually agree with most of your post, but this point has false logic.

"Offensive teams" and "running teams" are not synonymous. They often go together, but all "offensive teams" are not also "running teams".

Secondly, I never said that Houston would be known as an "offensive" team. I simply said they wouldn't be known as a "defensive team".

They have a very good defender in Battier, a "bulldog" in Mike James, and a 7'5 300lb behemoth cloggin up the lane to the basket. So they won't be defensively inept.

And at each position they will have upgraded their offensive potential, especially at Coach. That coach will figure out a way to maximize offensive output from more than just Yao, who was the center of the offense under Van Gundy.

Bottom Line: They won't be an "offensive team" or a "defensive team"....they'll just be a "good team" or a "great team", depending on how they mesh.

[pad300]

Would it be a correct premise to state that unless Scola scores more than Howard and Hayes combined, they essentially remained neutral at the position?

Howard - 5.0 PPG/4.4 RPG
Hayes - 3.7 PPG/6.4 RPG

Howard is already gone and Hayes is a free agent. Considering Scola would take the majority of minutes logged by both players, he would need to be at least a 10-10 guy just to keep up the same level of production. I don't doubt that he could probably get the 10 PPG, but the 10 RPG would be an unrealistic expectation, considering he has never done it.

Just by being on the floor, he's going to make their offence considerably better. They have 2 guys who really need a double team to defend - TMac and Yao. They used to have 1 guy who you couldn't reliably double off of without getting burned - Battier. That left the defending team with 2 spots they could double off of - PG and and PF. Scola makes it 2 guys you can't reliably double off of without getting burned. 2 Doubles needed, only 1 player you can double off of... And Mike James is an upgrade over Alston... Yeah their offense will get better. He may only get 10 ppg and 6 rpg, but he'll help the floor spacing and flow enough that they will get significantly better on offence. I also doubt he's going to be much more of a defensive liability than Juwan Howard or Chuck Hayes, as posted above.

[sandman]

Just by being on the floor, he's going to make their offence considerably better. They have 2 guys who really need a double team to defend - TMac and Yao. They used to have 1 guy who you couldn't reliably double off of without getting burned - Battier. That left the defending team with 2 spots they could double off of - PG and and PF. Scola makes it 2 guys you can't reliably double off of without getting burned. 2 Doubles needed, only 1 player you can double off of... And Mike James is an upgrade over Alston... Yeah their offense will get better. He may only get 10 ppg and 6 rpg, but he'll help the floor spacing and flow enough that they will get significantly better on offence. I also doubt he's going to be much more of a defensive liability than Juwan Howard or Chuck Hayes, as posted above.

I think we both agree that he will be an effective player on a good team, unlike those who are calling this the worst trade the Spurs have ever made because they gave up the history of the franchise. Again, I won't go to the extreme and say that he won't help this team, but I'm not going to get into some man-crush suicide watch simply because we did not add another Argie to our team. No team makes every move perfectly. At least we can see the cap room/roster spot potentials that came about, without having to lose any of the primary/role players from the championship run.

[wildbill2u]

Actually agree with most of your post, but this point has false logic.

"Offensive teams" and "running teams" are not synonymous. They often go together, but all "offensive teams" are not also "running teams".

And at each position they will have upgraded their offensive potential, especially at Coach. That coach will figure out a way to maximize offensive output from more than just Yao, who was the center of the offense under Van Gundy.

Bottom Line: They won't be an "offensive team" or a "defensive team"....they'll just be a "good team" or a "great team", depending on how they mesh.

Houston's greatest needs were at PG and PF. They drafted Brooks, a short but very fast PG with scoring skills and picked up Scola so they have tried to shore up those areas.

Adelman likes to run and is more offensive minded than Van Gundy although VG had to work with what he had--and his two offensive stars were often off the court with injuries. Houstonians are expecting more offense and more entertainment with this crew although they may not be any better as other teams improve.

[sandman]

They have a very good defender in Battier, a "bulldog" in Mike James, and a 7'5 300lb behemoth cloggin up the lane to the basket. So they won't be defensively inept.

Not defensively inept. Of course not. But I don't believe that they will be defensively proficient either. Not a defensive team, but defensively proficient. James is a chucker, always has been. And that behemoth clogging the lane averaged less than 10 RPG and 1 BPG last season.

IMO, a motion offense with the big man passing out of the high post is the only thing that will get them winning more games this year because it will increase their scoring. They can't win by running and they can't win by defense. Wow, I just described the old Kings teams.

[pad300]

I think we both agree that he will be an effective player on a good team, unlike those who are calling this the worst trade the Spurs have ever made because they gave up the history of the franchise. Again, I won't go to the extreme and say that he won't help this team, but I'm not going to get into some man-crush suicide watch simply because we did not add another Argie to our team. No team makes every move perfectly. At least we can see the cap room/roster spot potentials that came about, without having to lose any of the primary/role players from the championship run.

I'll agree with the "effective player on a good team", I will say that I am nowhere near as sanguine about the trade. We may have layed the foundations for another Mavs level team in our division, which is REALLY bad. (former Rockets - 2 stars, 1 good roleplayer+ scrubs. Current Rockets - 2 Stars, 2 good roleplayers + scrubs, including an improved bench. Mavs - 1 Star, Dirk, 1 almost star, Howard, 2 good roleplayers, Terry and Harris, and a deep bench). We also got basically squat back for it - as it doesn't even really give us enough cap-space to maneuver. I my opinion, this was a very bad trade. Maybe not the worst in Spurs history, but a candidate for sure.

[wildbill2u]

According to the common wisdom of Houston fans, sportswriters and some statements from Adelman, they intend to move Yao out of the low post more and have him use his perimeter shooting skills.

That should mean that Scola will be expected to rebound more and work low in the paint a la Oberto.

[Mr. Body]

They can't win by running and they can't win by defense. Wow, I just described the old Kings teams.

A pretty damn good team a few calls from the Finals that was a greater threat to the Lakers than we were for three years.

[sandman]

I'll agree with the "effective player on a good team", I will say that I am nowhere near as sanguine about the trade. We may have layed the foundations for another Mavs level team in our division, which is REALLY bad. (former Rockets - 2 stars, 1 good roleplayer+ scrubs. Current Rockets - 2 Stars, 2 good roleplayers + scrubs, including an improved bench. Mavs - 1 Star, Dirk, 1 almost star, Howard, 2 good roleplayers, Terry and Harris, and a deep bench). We also got basically squat back for it - as it doesn't even really give us enough cap-space to maneuver. I my opinion, this was a very bad trade. Maybe not the worst in Spurs history, but a candidate for sure.

I understand the argument about planning for the future versus trying to win now, but how does this trade make the 2007-2008 Spurs a worse team? It doesn't. Does it make the Rockets a better team? On paper, sure. But a new coach, a new scheme, two new starters and two franchise players that are injury prone does not translate into a 60 win season and vault them into the Spurs/Mavs/Suns talk. Maybe 2-3 years from now it all makes a difference, but not this year. And quite frankly, I'm looking for the repeat and 5 in 10 years to validate the dynasty talk.

[sandman]

A pretty damn good team a few calls from the Finals that was a greater threat to the Lakers than we were for three years.

Way to focus on the three years out of the last 9 that we were not champs or a play away from being the champs.

Some of you are looking too hard for something to complain about...

[sandman]

According to the common wisdom of Houston fans, sportswriters and some statements from Adelman, they intend to move Yao out of the low post more and have him use his perimeter shooting skills.

That should mean that Scola will be expected to rebound more and work low in the paint a la Oberto.

Considering that rebounding has never been his strong suit, it will be interesting to see if he can be effective in this area.

[justanotherspursfan]

And my ultimate point is that their offense will improve more than their defense will suffer...making them a better team overall.

But to label them a "defensive team" isn't right.

They WERE a "defensive team", but I would say that stereotyped pigeonhole goes out the window with them hiring Adelman and bringing in more offensive firepower.

Their offense was horribly ineffective last year, because JVG sucks at offense. Given a creative offensive mind, they have all the tools to be a superior scoring team, and Adelman's likely good enough once this year's team meshes.

The real key will be piecing together a decent defense, especially for the playoffs. I don't think they're likely to accomplish that this year, given the guys they have. They may be better this year than last year, but I don't see any reason to think they're going to be a real threat to us for another year or two.

[Solid D]

Aaron Brooks could be an exciting rookie for the Rockets. He's small but he can really play. That doesn't equate to team success, necessarily, but I think he's a better offensive player than Skip to my Lou (not defensively). Brooks could play a nice change of pace scorer/creator option off the bench. Forget Mike James at the lead guard. That he ain't.

[Booharv]

Once again, it doesn't really matter what Butler and Scola do, a dead person could have done better because of their worth right now.

Agreed.

[pad300]

I understand the argument about planning for the future versus trying to win now, but how does this trade make the 2007-2008 Spurs a worse team? It doesn't. Does it make the Rockets a better team? On paper, sure. But a new coach, a new scheme, two new starters and two franchise players that are injury prone does not translate into a 60 win season and vault them into the Spurs/Mavs/Suns talk. Maybe 2-3 years from now it all makes a difference, but not this year. And quite frankly, I'm looking for the repeat and 5 in 10 years to validate the dynasty talk.

This franchise's success has always been built on keeping the long and short term in balance. See how we lost SJax, by not being willing to outbid ourselves. See how we dumped Rasho, Nazr, and Malik. See how we tend to roll late 2nds forward a draft (see Milwaukee last year and Toronto this year). See how our drafting tends to be very speculative, looking for good long term prospects we can watch develop in Europe (Mahinmi, Javtokas, Scola, Sanikidze, Splitter)...

This trade didn't help in the short term, in that it brought nothing back, not even enough salary cap room to maneuver. It didn't fill any short term needs, eg. the long awaited "long SF". It expended at least 1 asset (Scola) and maybe 2 (Butler). It also generated minimal long term benefits, a 2009 second round pick.

The other thing the Spurs recent success has been built on is not throwing away assets. Need to dump Malik's contract - Bring in Nazr for immedate big man help, in a trade many thought we won in the short term, and even in the long term looks roughly even; especially with Malik costing the Knicks something like $14 million this year... Rasho's contract gets turned into Bonner, Williams and a 2nd round pick...

In general, success in the NBA seems to be built on keeping the bigger picture in view, and weighing both short and long term benefits. This trade brought in little of either, apparently being excuted for the owners (NOT the organizations) financial benefit only.

As far as the transformation of the rockets talk; just look at what happened to the Mavs. Pre Avery : soft choking es. Add new head coach (Avery), New starters (Terry, Dampier). That season they finally got some guts, coming back against the Rockets, and playing well against a strong Suns team. From that year on, we have to worry about them in the playoffs, not just writing them off as another series win. In one year, with 2 new starters. The next year, they beat us and go to the finals. After that, well, they meet the Warriors, but we'll see if they bounce back.

[sandman]

This franchise's success has always been built on keeping the long and short term in balance. See how we lost SJax, by not being willing to outbid ourselves. See how we dumped Rasho, Nazr, and Malik. See how we tend to roll late 2nds forward a draft (see Milwaukee last year and Toronto this year). See how our drafting tends to be very speculative, looking for good long term prospects we can watch develop in Europe (Mahinmi, Javtokas, Scola, Sanikidze, Splitter)...

This trade didn't help in the short term, in that it brought nothing back, not even enough salary cap room to maneuver. It didn't fill any short term needs, eg. the long awaited "long SF". It expended at least 1 asset (Scola) and maybe 2 (Butler). It also generated minimal long term benefits, a 2009 second round pick.

The other thing the Spurs recent success has been built on is not throwing away assets. Need to dump Malik's contract - Bring in Nazr for immedate big man help, in a trade many thought we won in the short term, and even in the long term looks roughly even; especially with Malik costing the Knicks something like $14 million this year... Rasho's contract gets turned into Bonner, Williams and a 2nd round pick...

In general, success in the NBA seems to be built on keeping the bigger picture in view, and weighing both short and long term benefits. This trade brought in little of either, apparently being excuted for the owners (NOT the organizations) financial benefit only.

As far as the transformation of the rockets talk; just look at what happened to the Mavs. Pre Avery : soft choking es. Add new head coach (Avery), New starters (Terry, Dampier). That season they finally got some guts, coming back against the Rockets, and playing well against a strong Suns team. From that year on, we have to worry about them in the playoffs, not just writing them off as another series win. In one year, with 2 new starters. The next year, they beat us and go to the finals. After that, well, they meet the Warriors, but we'll see if they bounce back.

Depending on how you look at it, I counted around 10 good personnel moves that you do ented from the last few years when we have been winning championships. Seems to me that we could look at the bigger picture when it comes to a brain fart transaction like the Scola deal and realize that the good FO decisions have vastly outweighed the bad ones. We don't win 3 in 5 years because our FO is screwing up on a consistent basis.

As far as the Rockets go, there are too many assumptions:

That a new coach and a new scheme will improve the Rockets won-loss record. They won 50+ last season. It would be a very large assumption to get to 60 wins, which is what it will take to overcome the Elite 3.

That the new guys will mesh well by the end of the year, or at all for that matter. Team chemistry is a fickle thing. See: Payton and Malone on Lakers.

That the Rockets have improved and will make up ground on the Elite 3. Where have the Spurs/Mavs/Suns declined that would allow Houston to make that leap simply with internal improvement?

[spurster]

I see Whott is still trying to convince himself singlehandedly that this wasn't a bad trade.

I think a better angle is to note that no other NBA team was willing to made a better trade with the Spurs. If Scola is so good, then why wasn't the whole NBA knocking on the Spurs door. Well, there is uncertainty about whether Scola can perform on the NBA level, and also, there is a kind of unity in the NBA to not help the Spurs any.

I still think it's a bad trade, but the Spurs are too deep in bigmen and seem to be committed to a Duncan/Oberto/Bonner rotation to some extent this year, but much more after this year.

[objective]

As far as the Rockets go, there are too many assumptions:

That a new coach and a new scheme will improve the Rockets won-loss record. They won 50+ last season. It would be a very large assumption to get to 60 wins, which is what it will take to overcome the Elite 3.

That the new guys will mesh well by the end of the year, or at all for that matter. Team chemistry is a fickle thing. See: Payton and Malone on Lakers.

That the Rockets have improved and will make up ground on the Elite 3. Where have the Spurs/Mavs/Suns declined that would allow Houston to make that leap simply with internal improvement?

In general I would tend to agree with the chemistry part, but I feel your example is very poor. If Malone was as healthy against the Pistons as he was against the Spurs I think the Lakers win that finals. Even so, they still got to the finals. Not exactly a strong condemnation of less than hoped for chemistry.

[pad300]

Depending on how you look at it, I counted around 10 good personnel moves that you do ented from the last few years when we have been winning championships. Seems to me that we could look at the bigger picture when it comes to a brain fart transaction like the Scola deal and realize that the good FO decisions have vastly outweighed the bad ones. We don't win 3 in 5 years because our FO is screwing up on a consistent basis.

As far as the Rockets go, there are too many assumptions:

That a new coach and a new scheme will improve the Rockets won-loss record. They won 50+ last season. It would be a very large assumption to get to 60 wins, which is what it will take to overcome the Elite 3.

That the new guys will mesh well by the end of the year, or at all for that matter. Team chemistry is a fickle thing. See: Payton and Malone on Lakers.

That the Rockets have improved and will make up ground on the Elite 3. Where have the Spurs/Mavs/Suns declined that would allow Houston to make that leap simply with internal improvement?

We may have layed the foundations for another Mavs level team in our division

Understand the meaning of the word "may" much? It is hardly a certainty, but putting the pieces in place for essentially no return was stupid.

As far as needing the Spurs/Mavs/Suns to decline for Houston to join the big league, who are you kidding. The Spurs were not a worse team from 02/03 (defeat to the Lakers) to 03/04 (Win it all), yet in that span, both Dallas transformed into serious contender (as I discussed above), and the Suns transformed from perenial also ran to consistent division winner (even if I don't think their style can win in the playoffs). I'll admit, the lakers fell off, but that didn't give either the Suns or Dallas any new players or coaching... THIS IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Internal improvement can be enough. If the chemistry works out; in recent examples, it has worked out for Dallas, it has worked out for the Suns (added 2 startes: Nash & Q-rich and coach D'antoni at the midpoint of previous season). Houston wasn't a bad team last year. It wasn't a bad team the year before. They have had significant injury issues both those years. Adding a new coach and a starter at what may be their weakest position for no significant return, is STUPID. Anybody who thinks that this trade was vaguely a good idea needs to pull their head out of their ass and take a look around at recent history...

[ArgSpursFan]

Sounds like you could be describing Oberto...

why not?
do you see any diference between argentinians players?
of course they are not the same,but the hustle,temple,and big heart is something that they all have in comun.

[ArgSpursFan]

I see Whott is still trying to convince himself singlehandedly that this wasn't a bad trade.

I think a better angle is to note that no other NBA team was willing to made a better trade with the Spurs. If Scola is so good, then why wasn't the whole NBA knocking on the Spurs door. Well, there is uncertainty about whether Scola can perform on the NBA level, and also, there is a kind of unity in the NBA to not help the Spurs any.

I still think it's a bad trade, but the Spurs are too deep in bigmen and seem to be committed to a Duncan/Oberto/Bonner rotation to some extent this year, but much more after this year.

because the spurs weren´t asking averybody to trade scola,they wanted to get rid of butler,and Scola´s right were the sweet part of the deal.
No one but Houston wanted to take a gamble on Butler,that´s why Scola ended up 200 miles away from S.A.
BTW,there was a bunch of teams trying to get Scola´s rights,not just the Rockets.

[ShoogarBear]

I know you didn't just say Yao VS Timmy = a push.

I stopped reading at that point.

Duncan = never lost in the first round.

Yao = never won in the first round.

[sandman]

Anybody who thinks that this trade was vaguely a good idea needs to pull their head out of their ass and take a look around at recent history...

My argument was not that this was a bad trade. It was a horrible trade. On that we could not agree more. I have not been attempting to defend the trade, I have merely been opining that this trade did not make the Rockets an instant le contender. As Shoog pointed out in another thread, that we ended up with both Villi and Beno on the same team speaks volumes as to how we got owned in this trade.

We are assuming that the Rockets, with a new coach and a few new key players, will not only achieve last year's success but exceed it as well. I am just not convinced that this coming year will be any better than a 50 win team again. The few games extra games that they may win due to a more free flowing offense will be given right back because of integrating two rooks and a career journeyman with their existing roster, and everyone learning a new system. Does that mean that they will not continue to improve in coming years? Who knows, but the odds look like they are putting something good in place for a few years down the road.

And yes, I understand that standing pat is the same as moving backwards when it comes to trying to stay on top of the mountain, but since we are talking history, the Spurs have played with the rosters every year after winning a championship without success. Maybe standing pat this year was the best thing for this club. The Rockets may have closed the gap somewhat, but I for one am not willing to put money on them in a seven game series this coming year against the Spurs/Mavs/Suns.

[sandman]

why not?
do you see any diference between argentinians players?
of course they are not the same,but the hustle,temple,and big heart is something that they all have in comun.

Only in that you said Scola was better than Oberto, then proceeded to describe traits that easily apply to both players. Since hustle, heart and passing skills seem to be inherent in Argie big men, what basketball traits make Scola better than Oberto? I think that they are both marginal rebounders based on stats, but I do know that Oberto has a knack for offensive boards and tap outs. Does Scola play this same way, or is his superiority exclusively offensive? (seriously asking, because I have not seen Scola play much)

And yes, I love watching the Argie team play because of their passion, et al.

[biba]

Timvp, as you started again this discussion I suggest a poll!

Something like - you can rearrange it -:

The Butler/Scola move is :

- A Good move: tons of money and the Spurs got rid of 2 players who didn't fit in San Antonio and won't make Houston a contender

- An Average move: without much choice the FO made what they could at best. It traded Butler and his fat ass, got one free spot and money to maybe get one player. The gamble is on Scola: will he be a stud in the NBA?

- A Bad move: 1 of them could turn in a very good NBA player... for a division rival. In return? A free spot. Not that much.

- The Worst trade ever: Spurs got nothing for the best european player and a promising young center. And they made a fierce division rival an instant contender