Mike Scott Theory

[iDash]

Date being set tonight for court trial-radio

 

Edited July 9, 2016 by iDash

[sturt]

It's Friday night, and you're trying to tell me that the court clerk is still sitting there in his/her office trying to figure out a date?

[Duff_Man]

If Scott does more than 10 days, I'll be shocked.

[sturt]

Where his NBA career is concerned, it doesn't matter even if he gets a $5 fine for the molly, ie, a "drug of abuse." 

He'll still get paid, of course. Probably very well. Chinese teams, in particular, appear to be eager of late to throw money at good NBA players.

 

[JTB]

not feeling good about that...if he does get in trouble we have yet another hole to fill unless moose is ready to go all season long which I'm not sure if he is or not.

[Thomas]

Watching Moose go all season long cheering is one thing but watching him on the floor a lot game in and game out would be painful. Still hasn't shown up yet. PF is just a really awkward position for us right now. Sap being dangled recently, Scott's legal questions and the very low caliber of play by Moose.  

[sturt]

Nothing to feel good or bad about, imo.... as far as we've ever seen, "all indications" can hardly be taken to mean there's an actual reliable source behind the assertion. More like, "From all I've read reported by my peers," no upcoming roster move to prevent it. (It's almost like C-Viv must have a Twitter quota to meet?)

[Brokentree]

I could be wrong but I believe if a player is "dismissed" from the league his contract can be voided which would make dropping him for fear of him being convicted mute.

[sturt]

13 minutes ago, Brokentree said:

I could be wrong but I believe if a player is "dismissed" from the league his contract can be voided which would make dropping him for fear of him being convicted mute.

Today and tomorrow, Budcox has a window to not guarantee the contract for 2016-17, and recover that $3.3m of space. If instead it is guaranteed, then  yes, it would become a mute... and a moot (*wink*)... point later to discuss the virtue of whether to cut him.... there would be no point salary-cap wise. It'd be dead money.

It remains a possibility that, as @AHF suggested, both sides will ultimately extend the date to some point after his Tuesday arraignment. I can only imagine the only reason they haven't already done so (as have other teams and players in similar circumstance) is b/c.... well.... come to think of it.... I have no clue why.

[GameTime]

57 minutes ago, Duff_Man said:

If Scott does more than 10 days, I'll be shocked.

If Scott doesn't get suspended by the NBA for at least a year i'd be shocked.

[sturt]

I like Mike, both as a player, and from what one can tell, as a person, too. It's too bad he didn't have better judgment. Kids these days.

[thecampster]

IMHO, failure to waive Scott at this point is a insanity. I can't believe it is 5:30 on Saturday evening and Scott is still a Hawk.

[sturt]

What I'm wondering is why the two sides haven't already agreed to move back the deadline so that it occurs after the arraignment (?!?), and once the situation becomes clearer what to expect. All I can figure is that maybe it's not in Scott's best interests to let it all go down  that way, and that he's holding out for some buy-out (?).

[Guest]

Have the Hawks picked up Scotts's option or no?

[sturt]

How should we know? You act like we have a local newspaper beat writer or something. Get real.

[RandomFan]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

How should we know? You act like we have a local newspaper beat writer or something. Get real.

 

[sturt]

Lost me after "thinking."

[sturt]

Almost midnight, and no report from any source regarding the highest impact Hawks story of the day?

Honestly, trying to be as fair-minded as I can, that amounts to journalistic malpractice for those in ATL sports media, AJC and otherwise, but especially those whose entire job  is to cover the Hawks. That's not to suggest I'm surprised, but it is to suggest, I'm nonetheless incredulous. Embarrassing.

[RandomFan]

It looks like the Hawks feel confident Scott's legal troubles wont cost him any of this season, at least.  Although I was kind of hoping we'd be able to trade him and perhaps some other players/picks for a clear upgrade at one of the backup spots. But oh well. Scott greatly improved last year, and if he's the backup PF at only $3.33M, then we could definitely do worse.

We just need Splitter to stay healthy and/or Edy to emerge as a decent backup.

[sturt]

I would have thought that if they were confident in his availability, they would have come out today, if not yesterday, and said they were guaranteeing the contract. This wait would seem more consistent with the idea that they're working on a deal involving him. But if the deadline is midnight EST, of course, they're really really really pushing it. Then, too.... there was the thought that they would be able to get Scott to push back the deadline to sometime after Tuesday.... seemingly, that's not something Scott was willing to do. All so curious.