Gregg Popovich was recently quoted as saying that "Luis Scola's buyout is the Spurs' top priority for next summer". He went on to say that in essence, the asking price was too much for the Spurs to incur this year.
Here's what I'm getting at; If the Spurs hadn't signed Sean Marks, Tony Massenburg, Linton Johnson or any combination thereof, would the buyout have then been possible? Did the front office even consider this? It sees to me that Scola is ready to contribute more right now than these three individuals combined so why not spend the money on him instead of IR fodder that will do nothing more than ensure the water is cold and the coffee hot?
Somebody?
I see where your getting at that Scola could probably contribute more than these guys, but Spurs didn't have a lot of players on there final roster and there doubts if Scola was NBA ready yet and Massenburg and Linton Johnson signed for the minimum I believe.
Which players in the current Spurs rooster will be free agents next summer? How much money free for signnings will be?
In short, once the Spurs used all the cap space, they had only minimum salaries to fill up the roster.
This was enough to sign each of the players you mentioned above, but NOT enough to sign Scola (~$385K for a rookie minimum).
The minimum salaries CANNOT be combined if that is what you are asking.
those players got the vet min to sign those players since they were over the cap
the nba even pays for some of that
the problem is scola's buyout was 1.7 million
and the spurs could not pay that.
No.Here's what I'm getting at; If the Spurs hadn't signed Sean Marks, Tony Massenburg, Linton Johnson or any combination thereof, would the buyout have then been possible?
All those players were signed after the Spurs were over the cap. You'd have to drop one of Manu, Barry or Bowen to fit Scola in this season since the cap space was used on them.
Theres only so much a team can contribute to a players buyout the rest has to come from a players salary. Scola would make more playing in Europe than he would here because all we could pay him was the minimum - his buyout + 500k cash which would = negative dollars.
Thanks for the clarification people.
It makes sense.
I think the precise answer to the question is that the Spurs could have signed Scola in theory, since he could have accepted the rookie minimum (in theory). It's the buyout that's the biggest problem. Had Scola accepted the rookie minimum, he could have taken that money plus the relatively small amount the Spurs can apply to a buyout and paid down some part of the buyout. Scola would have been left to independently pay off the remainder of the buyout, meaning he would have had to dip into his own pockets and would have played basketball this year for free. So, while a signing was possible in theory, it was virutally impossible in practice.
I guess the real question should be should the spurs
signed bowen to a lesser one year deal
then promise to start the next deal with full mle next year on him for a 3 year deal?
Not if they intend to give Scola all or part of the MLE next year, which they'll have to do (I think) to get him over here, particularly if they get Parker's deal done this summer. If you took Bowen out of the equation, the Spurs were going to be over the cap next summer with Manu, Tim, Rasho, Malik, Beno, Barry already in the fold for next season. So, it made sense to reward Bowen by giving him the security now of a longer deal. Parker's situation should have no capspace implications, per se -- Parker's deal is more about whether the Spurs will inch towards the luxury tax threshold. Adding Bowen in, your core is set for the next several years, so the summers of extensive capspace are gone for a while. Now its about supplementing the core with other players, like Scola, which is accomplished nicely with appropriate divisions of the MLE.guess the real question should be should the spurs
signed bowen to a lesser one year deal
When does Scola's contract end?
I have heard rumors 2007
nope
his contract is over next summer so they won't have to worry about a buyout...they will bring him over with part of the MLE...probably a 2+1 team option similar to Manu's numbers when he came in...
Both Scola and Javtokas are 24 years old.
Do you know that is correct for sure?nope
his contract is over next summer so they won't have to worry about a buyout
I have heard everything from the contract ending after 2004-05 all the way to after 2007-08.
Kori I can't give you a link but I am pretty sure I have read that it is up after this season...
this sentence from the ESPN article seems to suport that...
Scola is under contract this season in Spain, but Buford is hopeful that he could be a Spur during the 2005-06 season.
i suspect you could see hte spurs split the MLE with Scola and Javotkas next summer.
He should be under contract until 2007, he was playing for Ferro in 1997 when at the age of 17 signed for 10 years with the TAU Ceramica of Spain.nope his contract is over next summer so they won't have to worry about a buyout...they will bring him over with part of the MLE...probably a 2+1 team option similar to Manu's numbers when he came in...
it is cool Walton Buys Off Me did not have to much pride to ask such a stupid question!
when does scola's contract run out?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote