To those saying we need at least one offensive scorer between the C and PF, I want to submit the following for your consideration: Bill Simmons's current post is talking about the OKC Thunder and says this: "Kendrick Perkins said something interesting: he believed you need two quality big guys if you really want a good defensive team. His reasoning was that one guy alone couldn't protect the rim, defend the low-post and jump out on high screens. With two big guys, everything falls into place...the Celtics have unraveled over these last few weeks, and also because Perkins transformed Oklahoma City and unleashed Ibaka (who no longer has to defend everyone else's best low-post guy) as a devastating weak side shot blocker and general menace. The Thunder can go to war with anyone now." So, if Houston can get a shot blocking presence at the 5 like McGee or something similar, Houston will be set up similar to OKC. Now, Martin is obviously not Durant, nor is Lowry quite Westbrook -- but if they pick up a solid 3 like Granger, as someone previously suggested, they might be able to afford having a frontcourt that mainly shuts people down and destroys their offensive scheme, just like OKC now does.
More simply -- if this team is constructed so that they "need" to give more minutes to Scola than to Hayes, then we may want to get ready to be the best team not in the playoffs again. Construct the team so that the more effective and impactfull PF (Hayes) is able to get starters minutes.
Agree completely. This is an interesting topic and permits comparison, but it's premature until the center position is clarified.
Scola. Just try to see who will bring more in a trade? If you try to use Hayes on a trade, who do you think that deal can bring? Nobody!
Between Hayes Pat and whatever big we can acquire, you want those 3 all getting starter minutes. Scola needs to be getting starter minutes on whatever team we trade him to
Patterson and the improvement of Hayes's scoring moves really make Scola dispensable. Without Yao, Scola used to be the only dependable scoring big we had. Not anymore. While I like Scola's hustle and never-give-up mentality, I think it's time to ship him for either a good banger center or a two-way wing. Patterson and Hayes can man the PF spot and give good production on both ends of the floor.
Scola would be the player to keep alonside with Yao but in this case, trade Scola. He might give you 18-24pts a night but he gives up way much more than his output. He has been terrible closing out games this year with ill advised turnovers and fouls. His offense doesnt fold in crunch time but everything else does. Patterson will do just fine in his place. Keep chuck, get a real center, a better SF than Bud, and see how this team pans out.
REALLY?? Hayes over Scola? So if we get a defensive center you would start Hayes alongside him?? The backcourt will have a lot of trouble scoring with such non-scoring frontcourt. Also consider that Hayes is almost unoticed on offense and scouters will take a note on him next year, while Scola is very well scouted and sometimes double-teamed. I think the answer to your question depends on who we are signing, for example, if we were to sign Gortat, who is pretty cappable on offense i would have no problem starting Hayes, but if we are going after someone like Perkins, Ibaka, or Mohammed i would always choose Scola.
OKC will not beat neither the Lakers or the Spurs, and none of those teams have "great" defensive frontcourts. By the way, OKC will be one of the teams offering something for Scola once they realice that one of the basics of the game is have a good inside-out offense in the playoffs when the defenses close out on the wings well.
We'll see about OKC vs the Lakers and the Spurs -- I really think you are underestimating them. I'd bet on OKC over SA, but not against the Lakers (yet). Still, even an LA series will be a great series. Also, at least one great team lacked a frontcourt inside offensive presence and had a wing oriented offense -- The Jordan-Pippen Bulls for one. For them, the inside presence was penetration -- which Westbrook can bring in droves. I agree that it is rare for a team to be successfully so constructed though. The main thing for Houston though is getting better -- and I think losing 30+ minutes of Chuck Hayes would be a step in the wrong direction.
Hayes is so great for the money.. - with a big contact he will no longer have the same appeal to me - I do not want him if not at a small price... Scola 18/8 is nice but he plays NO D... Pat Patterson is the answer / future...
If we do get a legit defensive center, we'll start Patterson alongside him, and bring Hayes off the bench to back up both position. And we'll see how Hill develops... and Thabeet.
How about this: HAYES AND SCOLA WHOA! MIND BLOWN! 2 GOOD BIG MEN ON THE SAME TEAM! OMG! These X or Y player cookie-cutter threads are getting worse and worse.
You know what is the problem whith that kind of thinking, is that you are assuming that Patterson has a Scola-like potential on offense, if teams covered patterson the way they cover Scola you'll see he is nowhere Luis's level. I have no problem in giving time to rookies, actually i think Scola should play between 25 and 35 minutes, more towards 30 than 35, but of course to play Scola so little would require a consisten player behind him, untill Patterson proves he can be a consistent contributor, i wouldn't name him the next superstar to come. This board tends to overhype any player wearing the red shirt that is below 25 years old, and then they forget that you are almost everytime talking about rookies drafted in the high 20's at best. San Antonio has had a great knack for grabbing good players at that positions and even higher, but it was because their coach made the rookies earn their minutes that they are so good and mentally tough, if you just gave away starters minutes just for the sake of developing a player, then you'll never make any difference between good young players and just young players. I say give Patterson one year, with consistent 20-25 minutes of court time before we decide he is ready.
