Simple Explanation: Scola In Causes Pat/Hill Regression

Scola is our centerpiece for the D.Howard proposal next season....I would only trade him as part of a bigger deal ....If the Clippers are that high on DeAndre then maybe they would give up Kaman...Kaman 5x>Jordan

 

wow..are you serious???...I hope not

 

I think you're using too small of a sample size to make these judgments. That, and Patterson is a rookie who is going to have ups and downs regardless of whether Scola is playing or not.

 

Someone else said it best, we will never be a contender with Martin, Budinger, and Scola starting.

They are all bad to terrible defensively.

Chase has some room to improve, but Scola and Martin? Nope.

Martin is younger and a more potent scorer in a position of less depth for the Rockets... therefore...

If we can get anything reasonable for Scola, we should do it.

Let Pat Pat be the man down low next year.

 

I guess if stating facts makes me serious then umm...yeah I guess I'm serious?

 

Where do yall find these ridiculous, worthless stats??....The point is Scola is a nice player but not a championship caliber PF for THIS teams aspirations...He's the Steve Nash of our PF rotation...If we dont get a legit center (not Jordan or Whiteside or any of these youngins yall want to bring here) to make up for Scola and Martin's defensive liabilities , then Scola is gonna cause more losses than wins for us here on out...

 

repped without actually reppin . sup DM!!

 

OK..no need to "stepchild" me.. I stand corrected ..

 

Hayes is a starter with Scola. Scola was out for what 2-3 games? Hayes still performs well with Scola in the game. And of course when a player goes down someone has to step up.

 

I think this makes a better point if you remove Budinger, since he's pretty easy to replace anyway.

Either way, I don't really agree with that. I think saying "we will never be a contender without a center" is more appropriate.

Would love to see this team play just one season with a healthy quality center, but it probably won't ever happen.

 

If we can be a contender with Scola and Brooks starting, I'm pretty sure we can be one with Scola and Martin starting. Nobody thinks that Bud is our SF of the future anyway...

 

Nothing is wrong with Scola in Adelmans offense. Rockets just needs a defensive minded tall center that can box out and rebound. Scola is not taking away anyones game either, Patterson is a rookie and gets enough time to develop off the bench. Hill is garbage.

 

The internets. And how are they ridiculous and worthless? Where did your ridiculous and worthless ideas come from?

What do you mean "championship caliber PF"? Does having Scola per se exclude a team from winning a championship?

Scola is not a "superstar" and won't likely be the best player on a championship team. The same applies to every player on this team, and to everyone from Melo to Bosh and probably all but a dozen or so players in the NBA. Doesn't mean you don't want him as a part of your collection of talent. Doesn't mean he's not helping the current collection of guys right now and won't help the team in the future if it does acquire a star or two.

Scola, like everyone else, can be traded, but there's no point to just shuffle him out the door for the sake of moving players around.

 

I said from the jump Scola was not a championship starting PF.

 

I submit that the original premise is irrelevant.

The only way we can keep Scola, Hayes, PPatt, and Hill is if we do not bring in a center who deserves 20 minutes a game or more. In that case, we have minutes for all four (assuming injuries). Otherwise, one must go, maybe two.

PPatt and Hill are going to improve significantly next season, unless PPatt suffers a sophomore jinx. If we have all four, the low guy (Hill, probably) only gets 3-4 minutes a game, except when one of the other three is injured. With all due respect to the Hill-haters, giving him time, in a growth period of his career, returns too much to let that happen. If we have a new center grabbing real minutes, we have two of our current four getting no minutes.

The natural guy to trade is Scola, though I am confident DM will bring us another young big in the next couple of years, anyhow. Scola is at the top of his value, while PPatt and Hill are still growing. Hayes might never fetch what he is worth to us. How many teams are going to want to tell their fan base that they just traded for a 6-6 center?

Scola is a keeper if we think we're going to cause major damage next season. If we do not keep Adelman, or if the lockout lasts until, say, January, I think the season will be a crapshoot.

Trading Scola for a pretty good SF, or a defensive center, or just a decent player at such a position, plus a pick, looks pretty good.

 

I don't know why a couple posters around here have the idea that the Clippers want Scola. Why would a young team want an $8 million/year veteran for their bench, whose presence will only impede Blake Griffin's development?