Reply With Quote
So, is the point of the now-expanding Scola diatribe that the Spurs should just come out and say "There's a quarrel between the sides -- one that would probably seem pretty petty to most objective observers -- that has stopped the organization from doling out millions of dollars over several years to a young player who, it seems, might have some ability to make our team better?" Would that be the sort of transparency that would satisfy furry_spurry?
Should the Spurs front office, manifested in Popovich, Buford, and Presti, be open to disclosing that the Spurs are pursuing trades, that they've targeted certain players in the draft, or in free agency, or that they just don't like particular guys and have decided to never bring them to San Antonio? Should the Spurs front office be making basketball decisions based on what the fans want?
I'll be frank -- I don't buy much of furry_spurry. This willingness to be "mostly ambiguous" about sources and undisclosed facts makes it rather difficult to even be sympathetic to the point. I mean, the claim is that the Scola situation wasn't about money (or apparently years) so when asked if its personal, we get "well, you could call it personal, but the Spurs "don't want Scola." Fair -- but the Spurs could not want Scola for any number of reasons that don't make them petty or vindictive. They could have quite reasonably decided, after watching Scola play for years in various European and international compe ions, that Scola isn't capable of complimenting Duncan for an extended period of time. Call me a lemming if you will, but I'm inclined to buy the evaluation of the Spurs front office over an extended period of time more than I am the evaluation of a disgrunted fan who watched an exhibition match between international teams with nothing to play for.
Ultimately, I understand that I'm likely not getting all of the Scola story because it would make ABSOLUTLEY NO SENSE for the Spurs to tell me all of the Scola story. Assuming for one moment that the reason Luisito is still playing in Europe boils down to a petty quarrel, it does the Spurs absolutely no good to even intimate that that is true. If they did, other players -- with whom they might be more willing to overlook such pettiness -- would be seriously disinclined to even think about coming to San Antonio in the future. That would be particularly true with any other of this generation's Argentinians. The further you move away from a petty personal issue being the reason for Scola's non-arrival in SA, the more the Spurs apparent lack of candor makes sense. If they don't want to bring Scola over, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to trash him about anything publicly. Scola's rights remain an asset to the Spurs -- the value of that asset depends entirely on what the rest of the basketball world thinks of him. I'm sure we all already know that it is decidedly in the Spurs best interests to do whatever they can to keep Scola's stock high -- indeed, the Spurs might very well believe (at least in part; I have to believe the completely ambiguous assertions by furry_spurry to avoid further wrath) that the best thing they can do to elevate Scola's stock is keep him out of the NBA. Just a thought.
In the end, it seems to me that furry_spurry will be unhappy with the Spurs' front office until either there is complete transparency or a press conference that entails an admission that Popovich and Buford are lying, manipulative bas s and no different than the rest of the NBA.
Having followed the Spurs since the late 70's, I take a different view of the work that those guys have done. I guess my appreciation for that is naive.
