Bring Scola in.

[BeerIsGood!]

I'm torn about bringing in Scola since it means releasing a big - that will most likely be Elson. Elson's mobility may just be what the Spurs need next season in certain matchups, and Scola isn't quick enough or defensively minded enough.

If the Spurs aren't going to bring him over, then I say trade him ONLY if they can get what would look to be a good 1st round pick. If they can't, then just leave him in Europe to finish his career. It is more valuable for the Spurs to eliminate him as potential compe ion if they won't sign him or get a good 1st rounder for him.

[timvp]

the need for a PF to shoot 3s is pretty much overstated imo.

I disagree. Come playoff time, teams collapse on Duncan if they can get away with it. Having a power forward who can shoot doesn't allow teams to get away with it.

For an example, just look at the Denver series this year. They put Nene on him and had Camby coming from the weakside. It was a very effective defense against the Spurs . . . until Horry began to spread the court with his three point shooting. If the Spurs didn't have a three-point shooter at the four who could draw Camby out of the lane, he would have had an even bigger impact than he did.

You can also look at the 2005 Pistons. It was almost impossible for Duncan to consistently score without Horry on the court. With Ben Wallace on him and Rasheed free to double team, even Duncan can't consistently overcome that. But if you make Rasheed guard a shooter, then suddenly he can't be so eager to help.

#1, Spurs had PFs to shoot 3s in the years past (Ferry, even Lohaus). They weren't the difference maker, guys who could penetrate and create shots were like Manu and Parker.

When Ferry was on the team, so was that guy named David Robinson. Lohaus was before Duncan.

And no one is comparing Bonner to Manu and Parker. Bonner fits the role of a power forward who can spread the court. No one is saying he's a superstar.

#2, I think people are too readily confusing Horry the player with the idea of the PF position. You can get PFs who shoot 3s on the cheap. Austin Croshere. Keith Van Horn. Cliff Robinson. Sean Marks was good out to a long two-pointer easily, and he was a vet-minimum guy. , if the Spurs wanted, they could have drafted Nick Fazekas and had him for cheap.

Croshere sucks and will still probably get a decent contract this summer. Van Horn is retired. Cliff Robinson is five years older than Robert Horry. Sean Marks is an oft-injured player who sucks even when he's healthy.

Fazekas could be decent, but who knows. There's just as big of a chance that he's a bust. You don't let a known commodity walk for a flier on a second round draft pick. Especially when the known commodity is only going to make $3M a year over three seasons.

#3, as a result, just because Bonner can shoot 3s, doesn't make him a legit Horry replacement. Bonner will never get 5 blocks in a finals game. Bonner will never grab 9 rebounds in the first half of a finals game. Bonner will never be dependable to force multiple turnovers on inbounds passes with his crafty plays.

The only thing Bonner does even close to Horry is shoot from long range, and he's never done that in the clutch, ever.

Who is going to replace all the small things that Horry does? He's one of the best role players of all-time. Robert Horries just don't grow on trees.

To replace him, you have to find a guy who does what Horry does best ... and that's spread the floor. It's no mistake that teams have decided to put him next to Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan. He spreads the court offensively and on top of that does a lot of small things that helps you win games.

A young Horry would cost a whole lot more than $3M a year. But Bonner can spread the floor, he rebounds as well as Horry and he's compe ive. For those three characteristics alone, he'll find his time next to Duncan.

And as far as being clutch, who is available that is as clutch as Horry? And how many "clutch" shots has Bonner missed? Two ... maybe three at most? I'd give him a little longer before figuring out whether he's clutch or not.

And did you really single out Cliff Robinson as a replacement and then just point to clutchness as a prerequisite? Uncle Cliffy is a top ten choker in NBA history.

Signing him to a contract nearly identical to the one Scola was asking for last summer is highly dubious.

I don't buy that talk from the Scola camp. The Spurs have been trying to buy out Scola's contract for years now. Why believe Scola's camp when the Spurs are saying that Scola's buyout is $14M?

The thing is, there is no buyout clause in Scola's contract. Scola's agents say what they think would be enough to convince Tau to let him go, but when the Spurs talk to Tau directly, they give no indications that they'd let Scola walk for anything less than a boatload of cash.

If Scola's contract was that cut and dry, his value would be more than a second round pick. I'm not gullible enough to believe the spin job that originates from the Scola camp.

[objective]

I don't buy that talk from the Scola camp. The Spurs have been trying to buy out Scola's contract for years now. Why believe Scola's camp when the Spurs are saying that Scola's buyout is $14M?

The thing is, there is no buyout clause in Scola's contract. Scola's agents say that what they think would be enough to convince Tau to let him go, but when the Spurs talk to Tau directly, they give no indications that they'd let Scola walk for anything less than a boatload of cash.

If Scola's contract was that cut and dry, his value would be more than a second round pick. I'm not gullible enough to believe the spin job that originates from the Scola camp.

I buy it and here's why. If it was more than that the Spurs would have burned him to Ludden, easily, that they couldn't afford him. At first it was the buyout, then it was that they didn't think he could fit next to Duncan, then it was they needed someone proven in the NBA . . .

Not only that, but Ludden himself, without any contradiction from the Spurs, has written about the buyout being sub 14 million ever since the end of the 05 offseason where the buyout was the real issue and reported as that high. Furthermore, after the Spurs contribution to the buyout it's not even their concern what size loan Scola has to take out to pay off the buyout, he's the one who will pay off Tau, not them. So if Scola takes 9 and really has to pay 5 and live off ramen that's Scola's business. If Scola has to live in debt to a bank the rest of his life it doesn't matter, what matters is what the contract is he'll accept from the Spurs, and that's on the record from last summer. Maybe it's gone up, who knows.

I also don't see his current worth being only a second round pick either as some sort of validation for his having an impossible buyout either.

The entire NBA except for one horrible expansion team wanted nothing to do with Walter Hermann, and he was available free and clear and was signed for cheap. That the same NBA executives are trying to get into the Spurs for cheap on Scola is not a surprise to me considering how they all handled another Argentine from the ACB.

[objective]

I disagree. Come playoff time, teams collapse on Duncan if they can get away with it. Having a power forward who can shoot doesn't allow teams to get away with it. . . .

And did you really single out Cliff Robinson as a replacement and then just point to clutchness as a prerequisite? Uncle Cliffy is a top ten choker in NBA history.

Just to address it as a whole and to sum up.

I am unconvinced that Bonner will be able to get consistant minutes in the crunch because of the other things he doesn't do well enough to match Horry. He may get minutes here and there throughout a season post-Horry (08 and beyond). But in the big moments he can't do enough to be out there solely as a guy to draw defenders away, at least imo.

Now I am not saying that people are calling him a superstar. I'm not comparing his role to that of a penetrator. I'm not advocating Cliff Robinson as a replacement (I was comparing how tall PF shooters such as Bonner are not equal to Horry, they are just tall PF shooters).

What I am saying is that the "Oh yeah, he's the Horry replacement!" fever that surrounds Matt Bonner is over-enthusiastic, that he can't do the things Horry can do, and as a result he won't get the playing time that Horry has gotten.

And to clean up, yes, I know Lohaus played with David, once again I was comparing tall PFs. And yes, Ferry was here while David was, but don't forget who played next to Duncan at PF when Robinson was out, it was Rose and Willis. Not because Ferry was unable to hit threes (he coud) or unable to rebound (he could, 10 rebounds against PHX in round 1 03 when DR was out), or unable to defend with grit (caused Camby to attack him and nail Van Gundy). But because ultimately it was better for the game to have Rose in with Duncan or to have Willis in with Duncan.

Subsi ute how Oberto has played so well next to Duncan in the last two rounds (benefitting from poor defense, for sure from Boozer), but particularly how he played late in games instead of Horry. And consider the plausible if not entirely likely possibility of improvement within the sytem from Elson, the continued presence of Horry through next year, and the marginal chances of Butler/Mahinmi/Splitter and what they could in a longshot provide post summer 08, and I have my doubts as to whether Bonner will ever truly be an 'Horry replacement', rather more of a 'Ferry replacement', a guy who on a healthy Spurs team will be slotted between 8-12 on any given night with his share of DNP-CDs. Yes, that kind of player will come in handy those nights during the bulk of the game when TD is facing heavy pressure from multiple bigs, but at the end of games, most times it will be someone else in there, unlike Horry.

Now as to whether that's worth the 3 million a year.

Sure, 3 million in the NBA is not a big deal. For a locker-room glue guy as he seems to be, for someone who at least IS an NBA caliber player, starter, bench or otherwise, it is a reasonable amount, especially for an insurance policy type should someone get injured (as Elson did last year, which led to summations of 'Bonner played himself into the rotation before he got hurt!' that have persisted ever since).

But to me, if it came down to 3/9 for Bonner or 3/9-10 for Scola, I would go with Scola every time. And considering the luxury tax/roster space issues, there's not room for both.

To me Scola would likely be in the NBA a prime Malik Rose. I don't think he'd be an all-star or anything like that, but Rose in his prime is the best comparison (though not on defense with how rose would switch onto Nash for instance). Rose got his touches on the post during games, and found other ways to score.

So to me, if Rose is to Scola as Ferry is to Bonner, I know who was more important to that 03 le. Doesn't mean that Ferry didn't step up big for a game against PHX or that Bonner couldn't do likewise in a playoff game). But if that construct is reasonable and many may think it not, then I prefer the Rose.

[Bruno]

http://www.indeonline.com/index.php?ID=18006&Category=2

Rumor mill

• If San Antonio brings forward/center Luis Scola to the NBA, it might make Jackie Butler available in a trade.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/story.asp?id=329367

The Bulls have also looked into acquiring the rights to Spanish league power forward Luis Scola from San Antonio, but no deal is imminent.

[50 cent]

Scola. He will never play a day in the Spurs uniform. Some of you guys need to get that through your think skulls.

I would like to see the Spurs get at least a 2nd rounder for him, but I am even doubtful they can pull that off.

[SequSpur]

I disagree. Come playoff time, teams collapse on Duncan if they can get away with it. Having a power forward who can shoot doesn't allow teams to get away with it.

For an example, just look at the Denver series this year. They put Nene on him and had Camby coming from the weakside. It was a very effective defense against the Spurs . . . until Horry began to spread the court with his three point shooting. If the Spurs didn't have a three-point shooter at the four who could draw Camby out of the lane, he would have had an even bigger impact than he did.

You can also look at the 2005 Pistons. It was almost impossible for Duncan to consistently score without Horry on the court. With Ben Wallace on him and Rasheed free to double team, even Duncan can't consistently overcome that. But if you make Rasheed guard a shooter, then suddenly he can't be so eager to help.

When Ferry was on the team, so was that guy named David Robinson. Lohaus was before Duncan.

And no one is comparing Bonner to Manu and Parker. Bonner fits the role of a power forward who can spread the court. No one is saying he's a superstar.

Croshere sucks and will still probably get a decent contract this summer. Van Horn is retired. Cliff Robinson is five years older than Robert Horry. Sean Marks is an oft-injured player who sucks even when he's healthy.

Fazekas could be decent, but who knows. There's just as big of a chance that he's a bust. You don't let a known commodity walk for a flier on a second round draft pick. Especially when the known commodity is only going to make $3M a year over three seasons.


Who is going to replace all the small things that Horry does? He's one of the best role players of all-time. Robert Horries just don't grow on trees.

To replace him, you have to find a guy who does what Horry does best ... and that's spread the floor. It's no mistake that teams have decided to put him next to Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan. He spreads the court offensively and on top of that does a lot of small things that helps you win games.

A young Horry would cost a whole lot more than $3M a year. But Bonner can spread the floor, he rebounds as well as Horry and he's compe ive. For those three characteristics alone, he'll find his time next to Duncan.

And as far as being clutch, who is available that is as clutch as Horry? And how many "clutch" shots has Bonner missed? Two ... maybe three at most? I'd give him a little longer before figuring out whether he's clutch or not.

And did you really single out Cliff Robinson as a replacement and then just point to clutchness as a prerequisite? Uncle Cliffy is a top ten choker in NBA history.

I don't buy that talk from the Scola camp. The Spurs have been trying to buy out Scola's contract for years now. Why believe Scola's camp when the Spurs are saying that Scola's buyout is $14M?

The thing is, there is no buyout clause in Scola's contract. Scola's agents say what they think would be enough to convince Tau to let him go, but when the Spurs talk to Tau directly, they give no indications that they'd let Scola walk for anything less than a boatload of cash.

If Scola's contract was that cut and dry, his value would be more than a second round pick. I'm not gullible enough to believe the spin job that originates from the Scola camp.

Is this another Malik Rose is an allstar in the eastern conference story? Bro, Matt Bonner sucks. He didn't get a legit minute in the playoffs for a reason. Comparing him to any trait that horry has is dangerous.

Quit dreaming bro, Bonner was worth the minimum and was overpaid x 3.

Bonner will never amount to , he's slower than a handicapped turtle, he can't shoot when pressured, he collapses when defended, and his game is just plain ugly....

Wake up from the dream.

[waly.mg]

Tim Duncan plays 35 minutes per Game

So, we need a real PF/C Backup of Duncan 13 minutes each game

Tim Duncan plays the 68% of the Spurs Minutes

http://www.82games.com/0607/06SAS13C.HTM

49% of the minutes he plays Center
19% of the minutes he plays PF

so, why we need a real Center?

We need a PF/C like Oberto or better, and Scola is a better PF/C than Oberto, and a lot of better than Matt Bonner

That´s the Spurs problems to found a Center who can work, because the Spurs Don´t need a center because the 50% of the Time Tim Duncan is the Center, for that reason Nesterovic don´t work, not Nazr Mohammed, not Elson and Not any C who can´t play in the low post

[Ariel]

I don't buy that talk from the Scola camp. The Spurs have been trying to buy out Scola's contract for years now. Why believe Scola's camp when the Spurs are saying that Scola's buyout is $14M?

There's nothing to buy, things are what they are. For one, no one is even reporting the buyout is $14M anymore, not even the Spurs' FO. You'd have to go back 2 off-seasons ago to find such reference. And it was already settled by Scola and Tau that that was the case only for another European team, and that for the NBA it was $3M. The past offseason and this one, all sides (Scola to the Argentine press, Tau to the Spanish press, the Spurs to the Express News) pretty much reported the same on the buyout, that it was around $3 million. Tau said if he exercises the buyout Scola will leave, Scola has said he's willing to do it, other teams are willing to sign Scola to the contract it'd take... the sticking point comes down to the Spurs demands in return for his rights. If he were a FA or if his draft rights belonged to any other team, he would have been in the NBA a long time ago.

The thing is, there is no buyout clause in Scola's contract. Scola's agents say what they think would be enough to convince Tau to let him go, but when the Spurs talk to Tau directly, they give no indications that they'd let Scola walk for anything less than a boatload of cash.

No. Tau themselves publicly acknowledge they're willing to let him go if he pays the buyout. They'd rather cash him in this year, as opposed to maybe lose him for nothing the next. History says they've done the same thing in analogous situations, like those of Nocioni, Macijauskas and Calderón, with no additional problems.

[timvp]

I buy it and here's why. If it was more than that the Spurs would have burned him to Ludden, easily, that they couldn't afford him. At first it was the buyout, then it was that they didn't think he could fit next to Duncan, then it was they needed someone proven in the NBA . . .

I've heard every excuse in the book. Even before his buyout issues, I heard how he didn't rebound well enough to play in the NBA. On any given day, the excuse will change.

Not only that, but Ludden himself, without any contradiction from the Spurs, has written about the buyout being sub 14 million ever since the end of the 05 offseason where the buyout was the real issue and reported as that high. Furthermore, after the Spurs contribution to the buyout it's not even their concern what size loan Scola has to take out to pay off the buyout, he's the one who will pay off Tau, not them. So if Scola takes 9 and really has to pay 5 and live off ramen that's Scola's business. If Scola has to live in debt to a bank the rest of his life it doesn't matter, what matters is what the contract is he'll accept from the Spurs, and that's on the record from last summer. Maybe it's gone up, who knows.

Well, the buyout is going to come out of the Spurs' pocket one way or another. If he had no buyout, the Spurs could bring him over for a couple million. But since he has a large buyout, that's why they are forced to pay a lot more.

Scola is looking to become the richest second round draft pick in NBA history. That fact isn't lost on the Spurs and I believe that it's one of the reasons why they've hesitated. There's no precedence to giving a second round draft pick, in which one team holds exclusive rights, the type of money Scola has reportedly asked for. And even if the Spurs offer it, there's a pretty good chance Tau balks at letting Scola go.

I also don't see his current worth being only a second round pick either as some sort of validation for his having an impossible buyout either.

The entire NBA except for one horrible expansion team wanted nothing to do with Walter Hermann, and he was available free and clear and was signed for cheap. That the same NBA executives are trying to get into the Spurs for cheap on Scola is not a surprise to me considering how they all handled another Argentine from the ACB.

Scola has been an NBA prospect for over half a decade now. He's a well known commodity. Even the most uninternational teams know all about Scola.

Herrmann's best known attribute was that he was Argentinean. Nobody expected too much from him. His last year in Europe, he averaged less than eight points and less than two rebounds in Euroleague. Scola, on the other hand, is the leading Euroleague scorer in its history.

[Rescueone]

What happens next summer? Horry's gone. Elson and Butler can be gone.

Spurs could have...

4 Duncan/Scola/Bonner
5 Oberto/Splitter

That's a damn good 4/5 rotation and likely the four other than Duncan would be on cheap contracts (by NBA bigman contract standards).

Where does Ian Mahimi fit in this picture for next year? Let's not forget about him. I don't care if Elson is gone. He reminds me too much of Mohammed.

[TheWriter]

What is Scola's buyout this summer?

[timvp]

There's nothing to buy, things are what they are. For one, no one is even reporting the buyout is $14M anymore, not even the Spurs' FO. You'd have to go back 2 off-seasons ago to find such reference. And it was already settled by Scola and Tau that that was the case only for another European team, and that for the NBA it was $3M.

So you believe that the $14M floated two summers ago was wrong? From what I've heard, the Spurs have held long negotiations with Tau in the past that have gone nowhere.

Another thing to remember is Tau has to keep Scola happy too. Of course they are going to turn around and blame the Spurs after an unsuccessful buyout. That's an understandable tactic on their part. They tell the Spurs $14M and then when the Spurs scoff, they'll turn around and tell Scola a different story. I wouldn't expect anything different from a team trying to keep its star player happy.

The past offseason and this one, all sides (Scola to the Argentine press, Tau to the Spanish press, the Spurs to the Express News) pretty much reported the same on the buyout, that it was around $3 million.

And that's probably all originating from the same source. No one knows if that source is accurate or trying to appease the Scola camp.

All that is known for sure is that the last time the Spurs were serious in their attempt to buy out Scola's contract, they were shot down. They've tried getting an outside negotiator to get the buyout number down. They've tried appealing to FIBA.

Of course, suddenly when the Spurs aren't trying, Tau trots at the $3M card and everyone soaks it up and plays the Spurs as the bad guy.

Tau said if he exercises the buyout Scola will leave, Scola has said he's willing to do it, other teams are willing to sign Scola to the contract it'd take... the sticking point comes down to the Spurs demands in return for his rights. If he were a FA or if his draft rights belonged to any other team, he would have been in the NBA a long time ago.

If his buyout were as cut and dry as some Spurs fans make it seem, Scola would have been traded long ago. However, it's well known that Scola has a horrible contract with literally no buyout clause.

That's what people don't understand. In literally every contract in Europe, it spells out the terms of the buyout. However, in Scola's case, the buyout clause only came into effect if Scola was drafted in the first round. He wasn't and now there's no language in the existing contract that spells out a buyout.

That's why the $3M tag is bogus. People assume that if Scola give Tau $3M that Tau would voluntarily give up the rights to Scola. Perhaps there could be some truth to that, but it'd be naive to take that as gospel. Of course Tau is going to do everything in its power to make it look like they aren't keeping Scola hostage.

No. Tau themselves publicly acknowledge they're willing to let him go if he pays the buyout. They'd rather cash him in this year, as opposed to maybe lose him for nothing the next. History says they've done the same thing in analogous situations, like those of Nocioni, Macijauskas and Calderón, with no additional problems.

The difference is those players had buyout language in their contract. Whoever drew up Scola's contract made it so that he could leave for the NBA if he were drafted in the first round. That's it. There's no other buyout talk in the contract.

Additionally, Scola is viewed as the team's franchise player. They'll let other players go and use the buyout to replace the players with other similarly talented players. Scola is viewed differently. He's their Tim Duncan. They don't want to lose him, as noticeable by the $14M tag they gave to the Spurs and the fact that they want to lock Scola up for a long-term, high salary contract.

Bottomline is Tau has to play both sides of the fence. They have to ward off the Spurs while keeping Scola happy. Their goal is to have Scola sign a long-term contract. If their goal was to let Scola buyout his contract, they could have done that long ago. Of course they are going to float out a "Nocioni like" buyout number to placate Scola. It's just common sense.

The Spurs, for their part, are probably tired of play the games with Tau and are more than willing to just let the contract expire. Wasting time and legal fees on Tau doesn't make much sense when the chances are good that Tau won't release him. Plus if it drags on, the Spurs could miss out on other free agents. They've played the Tau games before and it's never gone anywhere.

[Kori Ellis]

What is Scola's buyout this summer?

No set amount until he gets an offer and negotiate the buyout. But rumors are that it "could be" in the $3M range.

*see LJ's post above

[SAGambler]

And you don't think Scola is going to have the same learning "disability" his first year?

No. See. Scola already "knows" the Spurs system and will be ready to step right in and contribue.

At least that seems to be what everyone that is sure he will be the Spurs savior would have you believe.

The truth is he would be just as "clueless" his first year as Elson was.

[Bruno]

People shouldn't forget that Spurs have still Scola's right and can still trade him.

Spurs choice wasn't Bonner vs Scola but it is Bonner + what you can get for Scola vs. Scola.

If Spurs can get a first round pick for Scola, it's Bonner + first round pick vs. Scola. Maybe Scola can help Spurs more than Bonner but is it worth a first round pick ?

[Ariel]

So you believe that the $14M floated two summers ago was wrong? From what I've heard, the Spurs have held long negotiations with Tau in the past that have gone nowhere.

I don't have the time right now to spend hours debating this. So I'll make it short. One, you take that $14M figure and run with it, but you won't accept when those same sources report something different. I would like to know, outside of the boundaries of your imagination, who on Earth is claiming that $14M number stands. Is there anything, other than speculation, supporting your stance? I can point you to 10 different papers in 3 different countries, interviews of parties involved included, that support my stance. Until to you point me to credible sources supporting yours, there's nothing else to debate, really.

PS: There are a number of inaccuracies with the rest of your post, if I have the time I'll get to them later on.

[Kori Ellis]

I can point you to 10 different papers in 3 different countries, interviews of parties involved included, that support my stance.

Do you have a quote from a Tau representative or Spurs management saying a dollar amount for the buyout?

I've never seen one, so I'm curious.

[timvp]

Just to address it as a whole and to sum up.

I am unconvinced that Bonner will be able to get consistant minutes in the crunch because of the other things he doesn't do well enough to match Horry. He may get minutes here and there throughout a season post-Horry (08 and beyond). But in the big moments he can't do enough to be out there solely as a guy to draw defenders away, at least imo.

I guess we'll find out. I think they'll certainly be times in the future when Pop will want to spread the floor without going small. Bonner will make that possible.

Now I am not saying that people are calling him a superstar. I'm not comparing his role to that of a penetrator. I'm not advocating Cliff Robinson as a replacement (I was comparing how tall PF shooters such as Bonner are not equal to Horry, they are just tall PF shooters).

What I am saying is that the "Oh yeah, he's the Horry replacement!" fever that surrounds Matt Bonner is over-enthusiastic, that he can't do the things Horry can do, and as a result he won't get the playing time that Horry has gotten.

Horry's main attribute is his ability to spread the floor and do so in a clutch manner. Bonner's main attribute is his ability to spread the floor. Of course Bonner doesn't bring everything else to the table that Horry does. Few players in NBA history have.

And to clean up, yes, I know Lohaus played with David, once again I was comparing tall PFs. And yes, Ferry was here while David was, but don't forget who played next to Duncan at PF when Robinson was out, it was Rose and Willis. Not because Ferry was unable to hit threes (he coud) or unable to rebound (he could, 10 rebounds against PHX in round 1 03 when DR was out), or unable to defend with grit (caused Camby to attack him and nail Van Gundy). But because ultimately it was better for the game to have Rose in with Duncan or to have Willis in with Duncan.

Ferry played small forward for the Spurs. That's the position he started at in 2001. That's the position he played in 2002 and 2003.

The only game I can ever remember Ferry started at power forward for the Spurs was Game 2 against PHX in '03. And the reason for that was because the Suns played small back then with Marion at power forward for much of the game. That was Pop going with a small ball unit.

Subsi ute how Oberto has played so well next to Duncan in the last two rounds (benefitting from poor defense, for sure from Boozer), but particularly how he played late in games instead of Horry. And consider the plausible if not entirely likely possibility of improvement within the sytem from Elson, the continued presence of Horry through next year, and the marginal chances of Butler/Mahinmi/Splitter and what they could in a longshot provide post summer 08, and I have my doubts as to whether Bonner will ever truly be an 'Horry replacement', rather more of a 'Ferry replacement', a guy who on a healthy Spurs team will be slotted between 8-12 on any given night with his share of DNP-CDs. Yes, that kind of player will come in handy those nights during the bulk of the game when TD is facing heavy pressure from multiple bigs, but at the end of games, most times it will be someone else in there, unlike Horry.

Again, Ferry was a small forward. Bonner is a power forward. And what's the one thing Oberto, Elson, Scola, Splitter, Mahinmi and Butler combined can't do? Spread the court offensively ... and that's Bonner's best attribute.

And against the Jazz and Cavs, Oberto was fantastic when he was in to close out games. But then again, those two teams have two of the weakest defending front courts in the league. They didn't have anyone to guard Duncan, much less another big to bring over to disrupt him. But the Spurs aren't always going to face teams that can't disrupt the inside-outside rhythm of the Spurs' offense.

Now as to whether that's worth the 3 million a year.

Sure, 3 million in the NBA is not a big deal. For a locker-room glue guy as he seems to be, for someone who at least IS an NBA caliber player, starter, bench or otherwise, it is a reasonable amount, especially for an insurance policy type should someone get injured (as Elson did last year, which led to summations of 'Bonner played himself into the rotation before he got hurt!' that have persisted ever since).

But to me, if it came down to 3/9 for Bonner or 3/9-10 for Scola, I would go with Scola every time. And considering the luxury tax/roster space issues, there's not room for both.

Assuming that Scola could be had for that money and not paying attention to Spurs needs, I'd agree that Scola > Bonner. However, there's no guarantee that Scola would have come for that money. And Bonner is a better fit in the Spurs system than Scola.

To me Scola would likely be in the NBA a prime Malik Rose. I don't think he'd be an all-star or anything like that, but Rose in his prime is the best comparison (though not on defense with how rose would switch onto Nash for instance). Rose got his touches on the post during games, and found other ways to score.

I think that's a poor comparison for Scola. First of all, Rose didn't get many touches in the post. Rose was a player who scored either off of offensive rebounds or jumpers. Very rarely did he score on the low block. And I don't remember ever Pop drawing up a play to post up Rose. Rose was also able defensively to guard both players small and bigger than he was.

Scola, on the other hand, is the complete opposite. He's a guy who lives off of posting up on the low block. That's 90% of why he's such a good player. He's not much of a rebounder at all (Andres Nocioni put up better rebounding numbers in Europe). He's not a player who scores off of trash points like Rose did. He also isn't a good defender against players smaller or bigger than he is.

The only thing I can think of that is similar between the two players is that they both bring great energy to the table. Other than that, there's really no comparing the two. Rose was a garbage man style player who never had plays called for him and could make his mark defensively and on the boards. Scola is a scorer who needs the ball on the low block to succeed.

And that's nothing against Scola. I think in a system like Chicago where Scola could post up to his heart's delight, he could score 16-17 points per game. He's a very good low post scorer. Problem is the Spurs already have the best.

So to me, if Rose is to Scola as Ferry is to Bonner, I know who was more important to that 03 le. Doesn't mean that Ferry didn't step up big for a game against PHX or that Bonner couldn't do likewise in a playoff game). But if that construct is reasonable and many may think it not, then I prefer the Rose.

Only thing I agree with in that paragraph is Rose > Ferry

Other than that, Rose isn't comparable to Scola. Bonner and Ferry don't play the same positions.

If you want to compare Scola to someone, I'd point to Antoine Carr. A low post scorer who could put up huge points on a team with a low post need. Doesn't rebound much but can still be a quality player in the right system. Carr and Scola have very similar games.

And really, Bonner is way more Malik Rose than Scola is. Bonner led the Spurs in offensive rebounds per minute. Offensive rebounding is where Rose made his living with the Spurs and that's where Bonner could find equal success. Also, neither one of them are much of a post threat. They could both space the floor (Bonner much better, obviously). They both brought infectious energy to the table. The main difference between the two right now is Rose was a much better defender.

And if you think about it, all things being equal, Antoine Carr > Malik Rose when both were in their primes. However, Rose was a much better fit for the Spurs.

[timvp]

I don't have the time right now to spend hours debating this. So I'll make it short. One, you take that $14M figure and run with it, but you won't accept when those same sources report something different. I would like to know, outside of the boundaries of your imagination, who on Earth is claiming that $14M number stands. Is there anything, other than speculation, supporting your stance?

Where did I say that $14M was still the number of the buyout? I said that the last time the Spurs tried to negotiate with Tau, Tau came back with a buyout figure of $14M. I never said in my post that I think that's the current number. I'm just not going to be gullible and think that because Tau says a number publicly, that behind closed doors it's automatically going to be the same number. They have to keep their star player happy.

I can point you to 10 different papers in 3 different countries, interviews of parties involved included, that support my stance. Until to you point me to credible sources supporting yours, there's nothing else to debate, really.

If you want to take Tau's word as gospel, there's not much I can do. I just realize that Tau has to play both sides of the fence. They have to keep the Spurs away while keeping Scola happy.

I'm sure that the buyout is now less than $14M since Scola's contract is about to expire. However, I'm not going to automatically believe what Tau says. They never came out and said it was going to be $14M two years ago. Why would they all of a sudden be considered a credible source now?

PS: There are a number of inaccuracies with the rest of your post, if I have the time I'll get to them later on.

Fantastic.

[Spurs Dynasty 21]

Rumor mill

• If San Antonio brings forward/center Luis Scola to the NBA, it might make Jackie Butler available in a trade.

what is his buyout?


does anyone know?

[timvp]

what is his buyout?


does anyone know?

Read the thread.

[ploto]

I said that the last time the Spurs tried to negotiate with Tau, Tau came back with a buyout figure of $14M.

That points to the beginning of the end between Scola and the Spurs. Scola's people claim that was never the case and that the Spurs lied about it to appease those who wondered why Scola was not signed after Pop said to all the World at the Olympics that signing Scola was a priority the next summer.

Who will ever know which side is telling the truth and which is lying. Like most things, it is probably somewhere in the middle. But the final analysis is that Scola will NEVER be a Spur- and that has been apparent for 2 years.

The question is really whether the Spurs will ever trade his rights- and for what- because they do not want to look stupid when he plays really well for some other team, and I think he will if given the chance. I get the impression at times that the Spurs want him to sign a new deal in Europe so that they are not painted as the bad guys like he chose not to come, and they never have to watch him play well for another NBA team.

[drmvp]

http://www.spursreport.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=71453

Rumor: Scola going to Portland instead.. For whom/what I do not know.

Sorry about the cross-contamination with that other Spurs' board, but spurssheriff acts like he's an insider, so who knows. (Of course, I remember his other infamous and vacuous Scola rumor.)

Anyway, it'd be nice to flip-flop the rights to Scola for the rights to Rudy Fernandez.

...or use Scola's rights to get Outlaw.

[timvp]

spurssheriff acts like he's an insider, so who knows. (Of course, I remember his other infamous and vacuous Scola rumor.)

We know who spurssheriff is and he has as many insider contacts as a dead man.

Oh and don't worry about putting an SR link. Just think of it as the kiddie pool.