Reply With Quote
whatever,even if he averages 1.7 rpg will be better tham š
šELY.šfor the same kind of money.
In 17 minutes. Why did you leave that out?I said 8/7 dude.and stand by it
whatever,even if he averages 1.7 rpg will be better tham š
šELY.šfor the same kind of money.
If Scola is only going to play 10.7 minutes a game, I don't want to sign him in the first place -- although according to you, he'd get average five rebounds in that time.whatever,even if he averages 1.7 rpg will be better tham š
šELY.šfor the same kind of money.
And it's not whatever, you stand by your entire statement or you don't.whatever
Do you?
IŽll just say it one more time,ok?
WHATEVER
Even Duncan can have a bad game.
But yesterday Mahinmi got owned.Period
You can't even say you will back up your own statement you just made a couple of minutes ago?
All you had to say was "yes."
Is that really so difficult for you?
Yes, Scola owned the frontline of the Spurs' summer league reunion team.
It's just not that impressive, dude.
I stand by that entire statement.
IŽll tell you what,chump(AKA Mr.Mcfly from the back to the future movie)
I belive he can put up 2 more boards tham Fabbs per game.but I canŽt predict the future.
by NBA rules HeŽll be able to.
If he does it or not in 17 mins.weŽll see about it.
But I can guarantee you that heŽll be better tham Bonner or Ely ,as far as inside scoring and rebounding.No questions about it
Nice backtracking.
you shouldŽve seen him play against Jarmine OŽNiel, in Athens.That was IMPRESIVE dude.
I did. it was nice. Not enough for me to think he'll be the most productive rebounder in the NBA.
Sorry dude,you give me no choice.Have to say it again
WHATEVER
no hard feelings,ok?
In athens or in WC 2002?
Actually you could have just it was a wildly unrealistic prediction and revise it.
Why can't you do that?
Ely would probably cost more than $3M per year and would look to get a 3 or 4 year deal. He can also sign with any team in the league. As long as the Spurs have Scola's rights exclusively he's a talent/potential trade asset that's wasting away in Europe. About his trade value, I guarantee the Spurs will not get equal value for a player that has to be bought out of his current contract and hasn't proven anything in the NBA.
If he doesn't show anything then he's not worth re-signing and Scola is the guy...
Not sure I understand what you're getting at? Scola's salary was set based on previous negotiations that fell through (because of buyout concerns). So there is no premium, he would cost about $3M per year.
What is your reasoning for this? I don't think he has done anything to justify any GM's giving him more.Ely would probably cost more than $3M per yearWho would give him more?He can also sign with any team in the league.You mean NBA scouts might have doubts about Scola's effectiveness in the NBA? What side are you arguing again?As long as the Spurs have Scola's rights exclusively he's a talent/potential trade asset that's wasting away in Europe. About his trade value, I guarantee the Spurs will not get equal value for a player that has to be bought out of his current contract and hasn't proven anything in the NBA.The ONLY guy?If he doesn't show anything then he's not worth re-signing and Scola is the guy...So there was definitely a premium for Oberto, but none at all for Scola? That doesn't make much sense.Not sure I understand what you're getting at? Scola's salary was set based on previous negotiations that fell through (because of buyout concerns). So there is no premium, he would cost about $3M per year.
2nd round picks usually get the minimum salary..I think this has alot to do with why Scola is "wasting" away in Europe.
Does anyone remember the last second round pick that got more than the minimum?
I've also asked this before but I never saw an answer:
How much does Scola make now?
He got over $3M for showing a glimpse of reaching his potential from one of the most penny-pinching organizations in the league. Teams with MLE are just looking for places to blow it, and Ely qualifies as one of those guys who stands to make more money than he probably should if he has a decent playoffs/last bit of the season. So it's based off of ludicrous spending on undeserving free agents by teams w/ MLE in the past...
My point, though counter-intuitive at first glance, basically is if the Spurs want to get "full value" for Scola in a trade, they have to gamble and bring him overseas. He may not be a long-term piece of the future, but if he comes over and proves he's a solid player it will up his value for future consideration on trades. If he comes over and is a "bust" then all the Spurs lose out on is his trade value going from moving up a few spots in the draft to Scola for cap space and a pick.
Posted a list of upcoming free agents in another thread (though I can't recall which one) from ESPN.com, and there was no player of consequence that could be had for the $3M per yr it would take to get Scola that had his game. But by all means, if you have one I'd like to hear it....
Listen Chump, I don't know why Fabricio's market value was set at $2.5M per year and I have no idea why Scola's value is around $3M per year, so attach whatever amount you want to each player based on talent or "intangible" premium, I don't care. What I know is that Scola's previous contract discussions had his market value set at around $3M per year and I have seen nothing to the contrary. What is your point?
Last edited by AFBlue; 02-23-2007 at 10:12 PM.
It's a fair point that second round picks are not given long-term deals for much more than the minimum before they prove themselves in the NBA.
Scola is a unique case though, because he is a proven player, although not in the NBA.
Several other prospects from overseas have signed multi-million dollar contracts before ever proving themselves on NBA ground, so why should Scola's value be different just because he only has the right to negotiate with one team instead of 29?
"Wasting away" in terms of value to the Spurs. What value is he while he's not in a Spurs uni and proving he can play at this level?2nd round picks usually get the minimum salary..I think this has alot to do with why Scola is "wasting" away in Europe.
He got $3 million by default because they couldn't agree to terms of a new contract. I don't know what he was asking for.So which team would be falling all over themselves to give Ely more than $3 million?Teams with MLE are just looking for places to blow it, and Ely qualifies as one of those guys who stands to make more money than he probably should if he has a decent playoffs/last bit of the season. So it's based off of ludicrous spending on undeserving free agents by teams w/ MLE in the past...Why would anyone want to give up cap space and a pick for him if he is a bust? That's counter common sense.My point, though counter-intuitive at first glance, basically is that the if the Spurs want to get "full value" for Scola in a trade, they have to gamble and bring him overseas. He may not be a long-term piece of the future, but if he comes over and proves he's a solid player it will up his value for future consideration on trades. If he comes over and is a "bust" then all the Spurs lose out on is his trade value going from moving up a few spots in the draft to Scola for cap space and a pick.We have Ely, Butler and three draft picks. Any one of these has the potential of working out as well as you say Scola might. There are your options. Five of them.Posted a list of upcoming free agents in another thread (though I can't recall which one), and there was no player of consequence that could be had for the $3M per yr it would take to get Scola that had his game. But by all means, if you have one I'd like to hear it....Actually Scola's agent set his value at $3 million a year. There is no market -- he's a draft pick. Can you find any second round draft pick that has been paid as much? Can you find any second round pick that has been paid more then the minimum?Listen Chump, I don't know why Fabricio's market value was set at $2.5M per year and I have no idea why Scola's value is around $3M per year, so attach whatever amount you want to each player based on talent or "intangible" premium, I don't care. What I know is that Scola's previous contract discussions had his market value set at around $3M per year and I have seen nothing to the contrary. What is your point?
Why should Scola deserve more than Manu when he entered the league? He was much more proven with far fewer questions about his adaptability to the game.
This is the only way he can get into the NBA. If he wants to blame it all on his buyout, why the did he sign such a horrible contract in the first place?
BTW, does anyone actually know what he's being paid in Spain? Everyone talks about all the money he'd be passing up, but the difference between what Euro stars make and what board posters think they make has been historically huge.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions