Reply With Quote
right now it might have been better to pay scola then elson or butler
but who knows what scola can do
other posters posted players that played good in euro and not so good in nba for that kind of money
Nope. I've argued this before, but that's just lame . Scola deserves something close to market value. Otherwise he'll be content to play in Europe forever, failing to improve the Spurs in any way. Nice going.
right now it might have been better to pay scola then elson or butler
but who knows what scola can do
other posters posted players that played good in euro and not so good in nba for that kind of money
when spurs shopped him they must not have found a team and a owner even MARK CUBAN to pay his demands...................................
his loss and the spurs loss of a second round pick
could be spurs big loss if they pay him 3.5 million and he sits own the bench as a scrub
Not a second round pick; the best power forward in Europe.
second round pick
Scola isn't worth the minimum.
What's close to market value to you for him? 3years/$9M? Would offering him that last summer been enough for him to cover his buyout? Or was the buyout still $5M+ then?
would scola be willing to come off the bench and play the postion duncan does?
Both statements have merit. Jasikevicius for has been a disappointment, but not surprising to those who had doubts that his game would translate, with him not being a pure point guard, a streaky shooter, and whose age (30+) and athleticism would be problems with playing NBA defense. Plus the fact that he as a starter overseas and a back-up here. I don't think that would be as big an issue for Scola as he's come off the bench for the national team.
Scola is no guarantee of anything in the NBA, but it's hard for him to be worse than what the Spurs have right now.
I don't see why not, he's been come off the bench for the national team.
if scola thinks he is as good as he is sign a 2 year deal(insurance incase he sucks to cover his buyout) with the spurs and then opt out(if he is all that) and test the market and flea and hit his big pay day
or is he to much of a chicken.......................
I don't know about market value, but the Express News reported that 3/9 was enough for him to cover his buyout as it had dropped to 3.5 million and he was willing to pay it off.
Sounds like barely more than half of the league average is a modest figure for market value.
I think Garbajosa set the market value last summer and Scola can expect around the same. He'd definitely be worth 3yrs/$9M. I have no idea what his buyout is. We need a mole in the Spanish front office.
yeah, someone tell me the market value for a second round pick that hasn't done in the NBA?
from the Express News this offseason:
Scola is seeking a three-year contract worth between $9 million and $10 million, about a third of which would go to paying the $3.5 million buyout he has with Tau.
Yeah I'm not sure about that $3.5M figure, the summer before it was reported as everything from $1.5M to $14.5M. I'm not sure anyone really ever knows. I never hear Scola's camp say how much it is each year.
You think it would be easy to pin down a number each summer, but there's always 5-10 different reports.
I blame Holt for each and every one of them.
Dude is not worth a 3 year deal. I can't blame the Spurs for not signing him. Dude is out of control just like his cousin Ginobilly.
I think it had dropped from the year before, which was reported in the Express as 12+. Scola had argued the summer before IIRC in Argentine papers that the reported number wasn't hard and true and it was all part of negotiating with Tau which the Spurs backed out of because they didn't want to miss out on signing Oberto with a portion of the MLE before Memphis did and they couldn't wait on Scola because there was no guarantee the buyout would come down.
Whether the 3.5 figure is accurate or it's really 1.5 or 5.0, is less important the Express reporting on what he would accept, the 3/9-10. If Scola was looking for that kind of deal than the buyout is no issue since he would be the one paying most of it off anyway
What seems clear is that the Spurs could have had Scola last summer if they wanted him. But they didn't.
Sure, his lack of rebounding would hurt, but our defense wouldn't be any worse and we'd have a fourth valuable scorer, plus some youth and energy off the bench.
Mark another misfire by our once brilliant front office.
Memo to Argentina Fans.
Scola was a second round pick. Second round picks get minimum wage and all the peanuts you can eat during your first year. End of conversation.
Would he really score that much ?
One thing for sure, he could get his own shot. Finley, Bowen, Horry, usually Barry, usually Udrih, and Oberto... none of them can get their own shots.
What numbers do you think Scola would be putting up right now as a Spur?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
