What if scola has a sophmore slump? What is his caliber? We can come to the consensus that Artest is the far superior player, isn't the goal to field the best players to combine with the really good coach? After a Artest deal, could u use battier as trade bait for a young team like bulls?
I wouldnt trade Scola unless we get a real big upgrade. Artest would be it if it wasnt for the fact that you cant trust him to behave and would bring chemistry issues to the table. You really think he and Tmac would get along? Think again.
Kobe and Shaq wasn't even on speaking terms and won rings. Allen doesn't care for the profanity laced language of garnett, yet they won 66 games. Why should it matter as long as artest produces. If u don't call a top 7 player at his position vs a mid of the pack at his position a upgrade, I don't know what to say.
i like the thread about michael redd...he'd be a major asset for the team...and i think luis scola and a couple of other guys would work...
No way. We are undersized at the 4 now and it's been a while since we had a legit pf. I'm not givin up the best one we've had in a long time for someone like Artest.
I would HATE to see Scola traded away. That said, when discussing the possibility of bringing in a legit third star or better, you have to consider it. oh, and if anybody is interested in why I say no to J.R. Smith because of his character issues but not Ron Artest, my reasons are two fold: 1. Ron Artest never killed anybody (that we know of) 2. Ron Artest is an actual star, not some kid with unrealized 'potential'.
The Rockets were in meltdown mode earlier this season and they still managed to come back and win 55 games despite all the drama. Why? I think the biggest single factor was Scola moving to the starting position ahead of Hayes. Anyone's tradable, but I'd be very, very careful about moving Scola.
Basically, the question here is whether Scola is "untouchable." Absolutely not. Scola is good, but he will never be a dominant player. He is an excellent role player who hustles, has a smart offensive game, and he is improving. But if we can get a guy of Artest's caliber, we do it. Artest is a stud and can dominate the game on both ends of the floor. Oh, and we have Carl Landry who is going to keep getting more minutes and can take some of Scola's time.
I kinda think because a scrub like hayes was starting, I think scola is overblown a tad. I mean to fathom hayes playing major mins on a 52 win team is crazy. Right now I have scola as the 10th best 4 in the west. Artest is the 4th best 2/3 in the west. That's a huge gap.
Yes, Scola is totally different from Ron. Scola is not as talented as Ron for sure. But he is a winner, a team leader, never give it up and reliable. Specially the leadership is hardly measured by the stats as Morey mentioned before. Ron is talented but not reliable. He needs a Rodman treat such as L.Head + picks but not a major starter.
i am a big scola fan. but he's certainly not untouchable in my mind. however for artest i won't do it. not that high on artest.
sure its a hard decision actually but i'd rather keep scola for his mentally stronger in this system of rokets,i really think they are in a short of passion like things
Scola should not move out of the Rockets unless you previously assure a better PF coming over from another or from the Scola thread, is not a matter of "who is better" or "who is more valuable" is a matter that if Scola goes just like that then we will have, 2 starter SF (Battie - Artest) and two non starters at PF (again) in a second year player Landry (injury prone until he shows the opposite) and No-Offense Hayes. Now, let´s say the Rockets FIRST trade Battier for.. say, Udonis Haslem, and then you go on to trade Scola, then is OK. Team chemistry is so good because finally we can repeat our starting five from day to day without mistake, the player roles are clear in that regard, you don´t mess with that unless you are sure you won´t be leaving any holes uncovered.
Oh and I think leebigez forgot to suggest that you completely ignore these facts too: - Artest makes 4 times what Scola makes. - Scola is locked up for two years, Artest for 1. - When ranking them at their positions, ignore the strength of PF's in the West. - Landry is not locked up at this point and dealing Scola gives his agent upper hand.
To answer the question, Scola is a deal breaker depending on the deal obviously. At this point in time, unless we get an extremely significant (All Star) upgrade at PG then I'm not doing it. I wouldn't deal Scola to go from Battier to Artest.
I would hate to see Scola traded away as well, but for Ron Artest, you have to do it. I think you can pry Artest away from the Kings without giving up Scola and instead give them some combination of Battier, Brooks, BJax, and/or a 1st round draft pick. Hypothetically speaking, however, if the Kings are asking for Scola and fillers for Artest, the answer is yes you do it. I would not trade Scola for Miller though. I'm just not that high on him.
Dude... Artest is not Shaq or Kobe or Garnett. He would want to be top dog not third scorer behind Yao and Tmac and he is not good enough to be so in this team. The culture and chemistry of a team can be just as important as their raw talent. I almost would wish that trade happened so we got to see the results, but not really...
Artest would be a great piece to add, but not for Scola. It's not that Scola is a better player, but on an undersized team he plays a need position well at a bargain price. Also, we know he can fit in with Tracy and Yao.
