Reply With Quote
SCOLA THREAD
- Mars
If this belongs in the Scola thread, sorry. And sorry if this opens any old wounds.
Thought his point was interesting how the Spurs got rid of someone because they were worried about his character, but he ended up being a good guy
Q: I suppose I already know the answer to this ... BUT earlier in the season, you praised the Spurs for unloading Luis Scola in the name of chemistry and now you blast them. What gives? BTW, I'm not a fan of either squad ... just a fan of consistency.
-- Anthony, Charlestown, S.C.
SG: The Spurs traded Scola because they were worried his ego wouldn't be able to handle a supporting role with Duncan and company; they didn't even want to take the chance that it wouldn't work out. I accepted that explanation at the time because I didn't know anything about Scola and assumed they had enough information at their disposal that they were worried just enough about his character and they didn't want to risk it. Well, he has been a fantastic teammate in Houston, even though his role was yanked around for the first half of the season, and he eventually became a key guy for the Rockets during their 22-game winning streak. So the previous explanation was invalidated. What made them think he would hurt their chemistry? By all accounts, he's a fantastic guy. Upon further review, I think they just misjudged how good he was.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/080404
Last edited by Guajalote; 04-06-2008 at 02:43 PM. Reason: Forgot link
SCOLA THREAD
- Mars
How sorry are you??
I call BS. Scola has not actually been challenged to accept a smaller role, he's suddenly playing well because he's playing on a depleted team without its star. And he would know if he pays even a modi of attention that in going to the Rockets he'd be likely to be in that situation, whereas the Spurs have players who are not nearly as injury prone as McGrady and Yao.
Let's see how happy and golucky Scola is if he has to go a whole season without being a starter, and barely getting off the bench, if that could ever happen in Houston with Mr. My Back Hurts and Mr. If I Play Defense I Get Injured.
James Whi --er...Scola thread!
Do you think that Tim, Manu, Parker or any guy with a little selfrespect would be happy spending a whole season in the bench?
Scola never had at ude issues in his career.
About thissorry.
Scola is a stand-up guy who has never minded taking a backseat or playing off the bench at any point in his career. He's been well-coached and was terrific for the Argentenian squad. He's exactly the sort of player I wouldn't mind having for the Spurs and, if they ever had the chance to acquire a player like this, I sincerely hope they jump at the chance.
*vomits*
Scola has never had to play as small a role in Houston as he would have had to in SA.
Concerns about his willingness to accept a backup role? It was about money. Since most of the scouting about him was wrong, it would have been nice to keep him, but when you are running a championship team on a shoestring budget, you gotta make tough decisions sometimes.
The luxury tax giveth, the luxury tax taketh away.
That was basically my whole point. Said much more succinctly.
Scola has also never had to play as small a role in Argentina as he would have had to in SA. And I don't think he'd be very happy with that. He PLAYS AT DUNCAN'S POSITION! People may want to keep trying to make Duncan a C, but he has said himself, and Pop has always supported his insistence on this, that he is a PF first and foremost. So Scola would have to play C, where he'd be weak since he's not a great defender, or play backup to TD.
Whereas, as I hear, Spurs have two strong up and coming candidates for starting and/or back up C...Mahinmi and Splitter...and they have money to sign them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
