I am not going to compare 2 proven successfull veterans playing the same style for almost a decade with a 2 year team constructed around almost rookies. Not to say that Jordan-Pippen tandem was astronomically superior, for example, PER wise, than Durand-Westbrooks. And about Hayes, i still believe that,A) Scola is a better rebounder, B) If he was so great Morey could sale him high as of now, while in reallity, Hayes is only spectacular in your eyes. I bet you have more offers for Scola (older and worse salary) than for Hayes (younger and cheaper).
Alright, I surrender, I'll stop defending my thread...after this. After this one you guys can tear me up and I'll bite the bullet. @ puzzled -- uh, "ever", that's a dumb question, right? Hell, Dream had 30 dropped on him sometimes. Even the indomitable Chuck Norr -- I mean Hayes has. But if your point is that it is more rare than I let on -- you are correct--my apologies. @ Seth -- Scola is not a better rebounder. @ parmesh -- if (and that is a big if) Houston can get a 5, that means Housotn will have to choose between Scola and Hayes for minutes and the starting position. Can you have both of them? Yes. Can you give both of them a lot of minutes? Sure. Can you start both of them -- No. So, the questions is just who should start. My only theory is that it is Hayes because he is a more complete player and has a bigger impact on the game overall --or at least in the opinion of my humble and lowly eyes. Alright comrades, signing off.
Assuming we get a C who can play some D, then Scola is the way to go. Patterson may be the future, but he's not ready to be the starting 4 on a serious contender (IMO). He'll get there, and I love what I'm seeing from him in his rookie season, but I don't think he's there yet.
