Luis Scola

The Spurs trading Luis Scola and Jackie Butler for what amounts to nothing is a bit puzzling. Scola, in particular, seems like a good player. Given his age, he lacks superstar potential but according to John Hollinger's Euroleague formula, based on his translated stats he "projects as one of the few Euros who could start in the NBA immediately." He's mature, he has experience winning at the highest non-NBA levels of competition available, etc. He seems, in short, like an asset you wouldn't just give away -- to a rival team, no less.

That said, at this point "maybe RC Buford is a moron" doesn't seem like an incredibly plausible scenario. What's more, given that Manu Ginobili and Fabricio Oberto are on the team, it's hardly as if the Spurs organization is driven by a pathological loathing of Argentinians. Nor do they seem like the kind of people inclined to arbitrarily discount accomplishments in the ACB or international competition. Indeed, the reverse seems to be the case. The Spurs would seem to be in a much better position to evaluate Scola than anyone else is. So what do they know? What do they think they know?

Comments

according to the Houston Chron, the Spurs think recent draftee Tiago Splitter is the better prospect (younger, bigger, plays center), so they cleared about $3 mil in cap space (Butler's and Spanoulis' slots) to make it happen. They didn't want to trade him inter-division, but a deal with Cleveland fell through.

Still no idea why the Spurs could never get Luis to sign in previous years. Scola's comments seem to imply that he didn't think he was ready for all the changes involved.

Posted by paperpusher | July 18, 2007 9:09 AM

I think Scola just wants to get a lot of PT, and that's never going to happen in San Antonio. Once your agent tells a franchise "in the country of liberty, he is being held hostage" you're probably beyond reconciliation. Even San Antonio has to cut their losses eventually.

Posted by jerry | July 18, 2007 9:19 AM

The Spurs couldn't bring him over in years past because of his buy-out clause for his Euro-league team. We would have brought him over in 2004-2005 except for that. (I am no capologist, but what I have heard is that NBA teams are limited to what they can contribute to buy-outs, and the rest would have had to come from Scola's NBA salary, which would have had him playing for very little.)

Bottom line is that the Spurs have a roster logjam for this season, and Jackie Butler did not develop his game in the last year as much as needed. This gives the Spurs a chance to sign their second round pick from Arizona and send him to Austin to see whether his game develops. They would like him to be a Bowen replacement down the line.

As paper says above, a couple of deals fell through to make this happen within the division. Chicago was also interested at some point according to our local paper.

Posted by Curtis | July 18, 2007 9:30 AM

Curtis is right about the buyout - Scola has to pay a few mil of his own to get out of his contract, and the Rockets can contribute only $500,000 to the buyout.

Posted by paperpusher | July 18, 2007 9:36 AM

It's the Mike Maroth factor--sometimes a decent player has reduced value on the trade market because his organization has no room for him, and has to clear roster space.

Posted by rea | July 18, 2007 9:36 AM

i love the story floated that the spurs did this out of the goodness of their hearts, so that scola would get a chance to play in the NBA, etc. yeah, it wasn't that this somehow fit the spurs the plans, they just took one for a guy who was never on the team.

Posted by dj superflat | July 18, 2007 11:26 AM

"The Spurs would seem to be in a much better position to evaluate Scola than anyone else is. So what do they know? "

They know that they screwed up their payroll this past year and paid tax, and that they don't want to do so again this coming season.

That's what they know.

Posted by Petey | July 18, 2007 11:46 AM

The spurs have had the rights to Scola for five years, but haven't been able to bring him over because of complications with his buyout. It was something in the neighborhood of $3 Mil. The Spurs may only pay 500k toward that amount under the rules. That difficultly soured the relationship a bit, with Scola (or his agent) at one point claiming "Scola is being held prisoner in the land of liberty."

Over those five years, the spurs drafted three other prospects at the 4-5, Javtokas, Ian Mahini, and this year, Tiago Splitter. Mahini will probably come over this year, and Tiago next. In the meantime, the Spurs frontcourt is currently stacked.

So to make room for Mahini, the Spurs were willing to cut Butler, instead they gave him away (and his contract), because they couldn't trade him for much value, and didn't really want or have room for anything back.

With Scola, they would have liked to held on to him but he was threatening to sign another extension with Tau Ceramica. Plus, he is enterning his prime, and is homies from way back with Ginobili and Oberto. So, they did the "right" thing by sending him somewhere that could work out a deal and give him a opportunity to play. Scola is free, the Spurs can bring in their new prospects.

Basically, the Spurs have some great prospects and no room for all of them. So they let him go and couldn't take anything back.

Why the beneficiary had to be Houston beats the ever lovin shit outta me.

Posted by MP | July 18, 2007 12:00 PM

As a lifelong Rockets fan, let me heartily thank RC Buford. More than happy to catch the crumbs that fall from the Spurs' table at this point.

I was stunned that Houston drafted Aaron Brooks over a forward (although Brooks certainly looked intriguing in summer play). Scola's going to fill a huge gap in the Rockets' game. Second round of the playoffs, here we come!

Posted by Woody Bombay | July 18, 2007 12:18 PM

Houston was the other party because they had one asset nobody else had - a player who wanted out of his guaranteed NBA contract. When you have trades in the NBA between teams at or above the cap - basically everyone - then salaries of the players traded have to roughly equal. (Don't know the specifics, but this is my understanding ...) The Spurs could just cut Butler, but they would be on the hook for roughly $4 million between salary and luxury taxes.

By throwing in the Greek guy, the salaries fall within the acceptable threshhold for teams at the cap. And since the cat didn't want to play in the NBA, the Spurs got exactly what they wanted, rid of Butler's salary and taxes. So pretty much, the Spurs sold Scola to Houston for $4 million.

This trade couldn't work with a different team because a player would have to come back with a contract in the neighborhood of Butler's. And the Spurs didn't want another contract and didn't have a spot for another player since they want to send this Arizona kid to the d-league.

The salary cap makes for weird transactions. Who would have thought a key to Houston's off-season would be having a guy homesick for Greece?

Posted by Curtis | July 18, 2007 12:25 PM

Yeah, Woody, here is to McGrady's back taking a crap on him next year.

With Adelman running the show, I can see Rockets being a pretty special team next year. I thought they would get there this year.

Scola is high-energy, a great team player, plays hard Argentina-style, a great passer, and can score some. But the spurs don't have room.

If you can read spanish, Ginobili has been vehemently defending the spurs' front office on his blog.

Posted by MP | July 18, 2007 12:27 PM

"Bottom line is that the Spurs have a roster logjam for this season"

Again, the problem is not a roster logjam, but a tax threshold logjam.

Posted by Petey | July 18, 2007 12:28 PM

Best headline in Hoopshype today:

Juan Carlos Navarro will have dinner with Pat Riley and Woody Allen in Barcelona.

Posted by Petey | July 18, 2007 12:35 PM

its not entirely lux tax issues. the spurs have paid it before. they also did of course have the option of leaving scola in europe for a while longer and avoid having to pay him. like they did for 5 years.

Posted by MP | July 18, 2007 12:48 PM

Right. I don't understand the financial benefit. The Spurs weren't paying Scola. He was playing in Spain.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 18, 2007 1:37 PM

The financial benefit comes from dumping Butler without having to accept another contract in return.

Posted by Curtis | July 18, 2007 2:00 PM

So Scola is the sweetener to persuade Houston to accept a Butler-for-nothing deal? Seems short-sighted.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 18, 2007 2:08 PM

It is a roster logjam as well. You can only have 15 guys under contract, and 12 of them are active on any given night.

The Spurs have under contract for next season:

Duncan
Parker
Ginobili
Bowen
Finley
Oberto
Barry
Horry
Udrih
Vaughn
Elson
Bonner
James White

Now they can cut White if they want to for the extra spot, but there are the 12 players they are going into the next season with. Last year's first round (Mahinmi) pick is going to get a long look, and they would like to have both White and Williams from this year's draft as well playing in the D-league in Austin. They would like one of them to emerge as a defender to replace Bowen.

They just didn't see Scola fitting into the picture anytime soon. Oberto knows the system and plays well within it, and they have the last two picks in the pipeline. So they would rather have the roster spot vacated by Butler, which gives them the ability to keep both White and Williams and see which one emerges as the more promising player for them, rather than have to make that decision in the next two weeks.

The question, ultimately, was whether to waive Butler and Scola's rights and let them go where they wanted to, or trade them to Houston and keep an extra $4 million.

Posted by Curtis | July 18, 2007 2:09 PM

Plus, Curtis, they were doing the honorable thing for Scola. The sensible thing would be to stash him in Europe for another year, but it was getting a little ridiculous at this point when he really wanted to play in the NBA.

Posted by MP | July 18, 2007 2:52 PM

Yeah, Petey, cause paying the tax worked out sooo badly for them last year.

Posted by eriks | July 18, 2007 3:16 PM

"The financial benefit comes from dumping Butler without having to accept another contract in return."

Yup.

Posted by Petey | July 18, 2007 4:29 PM

"Yeah, Petey, cause paying the tax worked out sooo badly for them last year."

I'm not sure you're quite following the point here...

Posted by Petey | July 18, 2007 4:37 PM

"The financial benefit comes from dumping Butler without having to accept another contract in return."

You generally have to give up something of value to get rid of a contract that has no value.

Similarly, the Bullets are attempting to use JCN to get rid of one of their fighting Thomas/Haywood duo, since no one wants those contracts otherwise.

Posted by Petey | July 18, 2007 4:42 PM

"It is a roster logjam as well."

While I understand your argument, I'd still say that the motivation here is almost exclusively a tax issue.

Do you really think they'd rather have Bonner or Elson taking up a spot than Scola if tax weren't at issue?

"The question, ultimately, was whether to waive Butler and Scola's rights and let them go where they wanted to, or trade them to Houston and keep an extra $4 million."

Absent tax issues, I assume they'd have wanted to waive Butler and keep Scola.

-----

And finally, I fail to understand the consternation folks always have about helping another team inside your division. The impact of divisions is really pretty minimal at this point.

Not wanting to help another team inside your conference makes sense, but the added import of divisional rivalries is really pretty small.

Posted by Petey | July 18, 2007 4:59 PM

[i]They know that they screwed up their payroll this past year and paid tax[/i]

I'm sure the owner didn't mind paying the tax since that payroll brought in a championship.

Posted by eriks | July 18, 2007 5:06 PM