Mike Scott

[Vol4ever]

What will it take to resign Mike Scott and how will it affect available cap space?

[Guest]

What will it take to resign Mike Scott and how will it affect available cap space?

I think Mike has an approx $1.1 million cap hold. If Hawks extends QO by June 30th he will be a RFA.

[Vol4ever]

I think Mike has an approx $1.1 million cap hold. If Hawks extends QO by June 30th he will be a RFA.

I'm betting he gets 2.5 - 3 million from someone.

[Guest]

I'm betting he gets 2.5 - 3 million from someone.

That's a lil too pricey. DMC is making $2.5 no way should the Hawks pay Scott more.

[Vol4ever]

That's a lil too pricey. DMC is making $2.5 no way should the Hawks pay Scott more.

I don't necessarily disagree but Scott can score and teams will be looking for that.

[turnermx]

I don't necessarily disagree but Scott can score and teams will be looking for that.

Yeah but he cant play defense well that will hurt his value.

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

No more than $2.5 mil/yr. He needs to vastly improve his defense to get more.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

No more than $2.5 mil/yr. He needs to vastly improve his defense to get more.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't go a penny over $1.75mil that's just about double what he made last year. Edited June 17, 2014 by JayBirdHawk

[GrimeyKidd]

Match him if he gets a low ball offer. He said he will improve his defense this offseason. Wonder what else the ham slamwitch has in mind

[Guest]

The concern for the team this offseason isn't money, it is roster space. Is Mike Scott worth a roster spot? Especially over someone who would take our cap space? Eh, kind of dicey and depends on what free agents we get. It really depends on who we draft.

I get the impression the Hawks will be wary of their cap space for next season in their dealings.

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

The concern for the team this offseason isn't money, it is roster space. Is Mike Scott worth a roster spot? Especially over someone who would take our cap space? Eh, kind of dicey and depends on what free agents we get. It really depends on who we draft.

I get the impression the Hawks will be wary of their cap space for next season in their dealings.

I've thought of this too. If the Hawks pick up Deng or somebody and then add Muscala and Bebe w/ our 1st round pick and Jenkins and Pero, the roster spots become limited and the minutes more so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrimeyKidd]

The concern for the team this offseason isn't money, it is roster space. Is Mike Scott worth a roster spot? Especially over someone who would take our cap space? Eh, kind of dicey and depends on what free agents we get. It really depends on who we draft.

I get the impression the Hawks will be wary of their cap space for next season in their dealings.

probably depends on muscala improvement vs scotts contract.

[MaceCase]

That's a lil too pricey. DMC is making $2.5 no way should the Hawks pay Scott more.

There was this guy, some Squawker even thought that he should have been signed instead of the grossly overpaid Kyle, named Chris Copeland. He signed a 2 year $6 mil deal with the Pacers.

Scott fits the same profile as him (RFA bench tweener that can score some) so there is a precedent for what type of deal he could look for.

The Pacers also signed CJ Watson to 2/4 mil as a comparable for what Mack could be looking for.

[Admin]

There was this guy, some Squawker even thought that he should have been signed instead of the grossly overpaid Kyle, named Chris Copeland. He signed a 2 year $6 mil deal with the Pacers.

Scott fits the same profile as him (RFA bench tweener that can score some) so there is a precedent for what type of deal he could look for.

The Pacers also signed CJ Watson to 2/4 mil as a comparable for what Mack could be looking for.

Difference is Copeland is a dangerous 3pt shooter and Scott has had exactly 1 very good quarter that made him visible but stunk the rest of the series. He doesn't have a can't pass up skill like dead eye shooting so I'm guessing he will get about 2 million per from us.

And NO WAY do we keep Pero over Scott whomever it was who mentioned that.

[TheFuzz]

Scott's a cool dude but not indispensable. I like him for $2.5M tops but no more.

[IBelieveInFerry]

And NO WAY do we keep Pero over Scott whomever it was who mentioned that.

This^^^

[TheNorthCydeRises]

And NO WAY do we keep Pero over Scott whomever it was who mentioned that.

Ummmm . . . I don't know about all of that Dol. This GM and possibly even Bud, seem to be enamored with Antić. They like the "skill" that he brings to the team. I think they value that, over what Mike Scott can give the team. Now of course, I think they are crazy to even consider keeping Pero over Mike. But I can see them making a case for it, and actually doing it.

[Admin]

Ummmm . . . I don't know about all of that Dol. This GM and possibly even Bud, seem to be enamored with Antić. They like the "skill" that he brings to the team. I think they value that, over what Mike Scott can give the team. Now of course, I think they are crazy to even consider keeping Pero over Mike. But I can see them making a case for it, and actually doing it.

They're far more enamored with their own pick of Scott, whom they absolutely love. I'm sure they like Antić, but they aren't keeping a 30 something player over a very promising and much younger home grown Mike Scott.

Keep in mind that had we not had the injuries we had last year, we wouldn't have seen Antić playing much at all. Bud switched up our playing style quite a bit once Al went down and we became a 3pt shooting team and Antić fit that well.

[Guest]

I'm gonna miss him.

[NJHAWK]

Antić was decent for most of the regular season, he sure did stink in the playoffs though. Maybe he carried an injury. That said Scott has more long term value than Pero.