Probably. Minus dumping Butler, in retrospect I would much rather have Scola than Bonner. Scola and his contract could probably be traded in the off season with good return. Bonner you'd have to likely give to get rid of.
With Scola, even if his value was low at the time, the best thing to do was to sign him and then trade him if he didn't work out. There's no way that a signed and sealed Scola would have been worth a second round pick. Right now the Rockets would laugh if a team offered up a second round pick for Scola.
Oh well ... I guess eventually I'll have to forget about that amazingly stupid trade.
That's ok, we don't pay the bills either. Salary dumps rarely make basketball sense.
He sucked. Using a guy you would never sign to get rid of a guy that sucks is ok. I wish we had gotten a little more, but there were time constraints.Regarding Butler, I still think it was a pretty good risk by the Spurs. Sure he ended up sucking ... well actually, he didn't end up sucking he just ended up quiting basketball after he signed that contract. Getting a young talented big for less than Francisco Elson got was a good gamble.
The gamble just didn't pay off.
That's why I think Butler was a BIG part of it. Without dumping Butler the Spurs would have been hamstrung in making any moves.
Blame Brown. He's the one who gave Pop the good report on Butler.
*sniff*
Starters
1 Parker
2 Finley
3 Bowen
4 Duncan
5 Thomas
Bench
1 Stoudamire
2 Ginobili
2/3 Barry
2/3 Udoka
4 Scola
4 Horry
5 Oberto
Oh well, back to regular forum programming.
Sign him to half the MLE AND keep sucky Butler?
Impossible.Oh well ... I guess eventually I'll have to forget about that amazingly stupid trade.
Blame John Paxon...
And personally...I like him more on the Rockets than I do on the Cavs...
I know it was a longshot that TMac or Yao would get hurt this season...but still...
I figure Pop had his reasons for okaying that trade.
Did Pop OK passing on Josh Howard?
The point is you don't salary dump a player making less than half the MLE who has an expiring contract. That's not only unheard of, I don't think any team would even think of doing that.
It'd be worse than if in the summer the Spurs traded Splitter and Bonner for a second round pick ... because at least Bonner's contract isn't expiring.
Butler sucked because he quit. He retired when he cashed in. That happens sometimes when you sign a guy cheaply because he is a noted head case.
And regarding signing Scola, it took the Rockets all of like three days to do what the Spurs couldn't do in four years or whatever it was.
Not to mention that he was signed for a rather reasonable contract.
Luxury tax. It has brought about all manner of new trades, especially since teams know exactly what the threshold is now.Agreed.Yes. Contract buyouts work that way.
Or not re-sign Bonner or *gasp* trading Elson. Elson had a bigger contract than Butler.
Link to the last time I complained about the Scola trade? I've let it go ... even though Scola is actually a lot better than I thought he'd be.
I don't know...did you?
I'm sayin' yes to both.
They had no plans for Scola or Butler. Why sign/keep them?
Yes, you have proven you have let it go today.Link to the last time I complained about the Scola trade? I've let it go ... even though Scola is actually a lot better than I thought he'd be.
Congratulations.
Butler's contract was x2 given the luxury tax. Everyone is just going to have to deal with the fact that that's a line in the sand for the Spurs.
What were their big plans for Elson?
You want me to bury my head in the sand and point to won-loss records as to why the trade was a success like you and whottt?
"The Rockets won't win the championship so the Scola trade was a success!"
Bonner was targeted to be the big that could shoot the three and spread the floor. He's not panning out is the problem.
And Elson's wasn't? And Bonner's isn't?
They hadn't given up on Elson. This was his second year and several have taken a second year to adjust. Elson didn't make the grade.
They should have given up on Elson before they even signed him ... but I guess that's a topic to hijack another thread with.
What better trade was available? I know you think giving Cleveland a scoring PF was the wise thing to do...I think you are making a grevious error in judgement there.
And for all you kow Scola was demanding the trade...
Playing him. Which is much more than they had planned for Scola or Butler.What were their big plans for Elson?
Glad to see you're over it.You want me to bury my head in the sand and point to won-loss records as to why the trade was a success like you and whottt?
I've said it was a bad trade from a basketball standpoint, but so what? Every team except the Knicks do these things to get under he luxury tax. It's a reality I have accepted. You can't say "you just don't make that deal" because teams do these kinds of trades with regularity. Even Houston."The Rockets won't win the championship so the Scola trade was a success!"
Elson > Butler
If no better trade was available, you sign him and trade him at a later date. Would the Rockets trade him for a second rounder right now?
Thanks for admitting that error.
If you wouldn't have challenged my take, that would have been the end of it. The logic of "all teams do salary dumps" can't be the catchall. There are good salary dumps and there are bad salary dumps. This was a bad one.
So because the trade was a salary dump I can't have an opinion on whether it was a good salary dump or a bad salary dump? I just have to accept it?
Fixed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
