Mike Scott thread

[Guest]

How's he a thug? lol

 

Well in @Alex's defense, Mike Scott does have tattoos and whatnot.  Plus, he didn't go to MichiganSt so ....

Edited August 17, 2015 by kg01

[macdaddy]

Cut-and-paste from NBA.com's CBA 101...

 

 

How are they defining 'drug of abuse'?

[AHF]

By drugs listed on a schedule attached to the CBA.

[Alex]

How's he a thug? lol

The fact that he's facing felony drug charges.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

"I don't mean to speculate based off of no information, but here let me now speculate as to what the charges will be and how the legal process will proceed!"

(still no information here...still no reason to conclude Mike will or will not be suspended based upon any non-information...still no reason for Hawks to do anything...)

Interesting to note that the CBA 101, which is paraphrasing the CBA, misses on information. Like, a player can be dismissed if they are convicted of "a felony involving the distribution of marijuana." (pdf page 383 although it is page 359 by the page numbers)

But you wouldn't be able to figure that out from CBA 101. And actually, since the CBA 101 says "If a player tests positive for marijuana, or if he is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, the use or possession of marijuana," without any reference to distribution of marijuana, then one might assume that "distribution of" would fall under "use of" and then you'd have a problem. Because that is wrong.

Or in other words, when you paraphrase someone paraphrasing the CBA, you run the risk of misinterpretation from 2 sources instead of 1. You start to fall into errors more frequently and that becomes a problem. I don't know why we're still playing this dangerous game on the board. As far as a fan should be concerned to what the Atlanta Hawks actions might be, it is obvious that they sit and wait for the legal and NBA process to unfold. Certainly, if the Hawks want Mike Scott back then they can only wait to see if they will get him back. But under the scenario that the Hawks do not want Mike Scott back, then the smart move is to wait. If the Hawks waive Mike Scott right now, then they put themselves into a peculiar legal situation where they may not have any recourse to remove their $3,333,333 obligation to him from literal payment but also from the Salary Cap. But if the Hawks simply wait and the NBA decides that Mike will be dismissed, then the Hawks get to avoid what might have been a lengthy and expensive legal process to remove literal payment and his Salary from the Salary Cap. And nothing has changed about this situation since the last time I said all of this somewhere on this board.

[sturt]

Bama, the problem isn't that his salary would still count.

 

But I see now that my quick mental math didn't take into account the higher salary cap, so let me correct something I've been saying erroneously, pending any further input from our resident capologists...

 

In fact, we would dip down below the cap to ~67.6m, giving us just under $2.4m to sign Scott's replacement.

[Guest]

Bama, the problem isn't that his salary would still count.

 

But I see now that my quick mental math didn't take into account the higher salary cap, so let me correct something I've been saying erroneously, pending any further input from our resident capologists...

 

In fact, we would dip down below the cap to ~67.6m, giving us just under $2.4m to sign Scott's replacement.

Are you cutting Muscala, Patterson, and Petteway? And ignoring Richardson? http://www.basketballinsiders.com/atlanta-hawks-team-salary/

Cutting Muscala, Patterson, and Petteway would mean there is no way they return because 29 other teams would put in a waiver claim for Muscala and a good chunk for Patterson and Petteway.

If you did all of that, the Hawks would be at $66,666,667 with $3,333,333 to spend ... how are you getting to $67.6m ?

But even in that scenario the only benefit is that you can sign 4 year contracts with Cap Space. The Room MLE of $2.814m is still a good chunk to use plus you'd be able to keep Muscala, Patterson, and Petteway.

[sturt]

Was using sportrac's number, and just subtracting Scott from it.

 

[sturt]

Are you cutting Muscala, Patterson, and Petteway? And ignoring Richardson? http://www.basketballinsiders.com/atlanta-hawks-team-salary/

Cutting Muscala, Patterson, and Petteway would mean there is no way they return because 29 other teams would put in a waiver claim for Muscala and a good chunk for Patterson and Petteway.

If you did all of that, the Hawks would be at $66,666,667 with $3,333,333 to spend ... how are you getting to $67.6m ?

But even in that scenario the only benefit is that you can sign 4 year contracts with Cap Space. The Room MLE of $2.814m is still a good chunk to use plus you'd be able to keep Muscala, Patterson, and Petteway.

 

 

Some of us want to use that Room MLE to sign a 6-8-ish SF instead of using it to replace the #2 PF. So, yeah, without speaking to the politics or the morality... just the basketball business side of things... I'm just looking for our best case scenario, which regardless, means seeing Scott's Hawks career survive all this mess.

[Guest]

Was using sportrac's number, and just subtracting Scott from it.

 

....

It's decisions like using spotrac and CBA101 that make me wonder about you sometimes...

http://www.spotrac.com/sources-affiliates/

...they source Basketball-Insiders.com and sell their service out...whoever actually purchases anything from spotrac has goober written all across their forehead.

And they still get it wrong. They don't even reference that Patterson and Petteway both have $75K guaranteed which you can figure out by hovering over their links here: http://www.basketballinsiders.com/atlanta-hawks-team-salary/

Or a simple "petteway guarantee" search off ye old Twitter will also tell you this.

I can't quite tell if I dislike spotrac or not. I probably don't actually care because people take data from one source (or multiple) and package them back together for resale all the time. This happens with gov't data all the time. So if there's a market for it, then OK not a bad idea. But for the people who pay for free data, man. No words.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

J.r. is known to be a friend killa too

(( flagrant 2 technical foul ))

[sturt]

....

It's decisions like using spotrac and CBA101 that make me wonder about you sometimes...

Screenshot 2015-08-17 at 14.09.15.png

http://www.spotrac.com/sources-affiliates/

...they source Basketball-Insiders.com and sell their service out...whoever actually purchases anything from spotrac has goober written all across their forehead.

And they still get it wrong. They don't even reference that Patterson and Petteway both have $75K guaranteed which you can figure out by hovering over their links here: http://www.basketballinsiders.com/atlanta-hawks-team-salary/

Or a simple "petteway guarantee" search off ye old Twitter will also tell you this.

I can't quite tell if I dislike spotrac or not. I probably don't actually care because people take data from one source (or multiple) and package them back together for resale all the time. This happens with gov't data all the time. So if there's a market for it, then OK not a bad idea. But for the people who pay for free data, man. No words.

 

 

"Sometimes" = progress.

[SalvorMallow]

"Sometimes" = progress.

What are you progressing towards?

[lethalweapon3]

In addition to financial matters, PR-wise, it's probably sensible to ride out Scott's legal proceedings and the league's investigations (whichever comes first, probably the latter) until at least another Mike's legal matter reaches a satisfactory conclusion. As per C-Viv, Bud's DUI trial date has been set for October 8.

 

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/basketball/trial-date-set-in-dui-case-of-atlanta-hawks-coach-/nnLhT/

 

The "DUI Less Safe" charge allows the State of Georgia to still charge a person who they DIDN'T prove exceeded the state's legal limit (what would otherwise be "DUI Per Se") by asserting they still had enough alcohol (Bud had admitted he had a glass of wine, according to the arresting officer, but refused a breathylzer) to be impaired as a driver ("Under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive").

 

The "Bud was so impaired he didn't know his tail light wasn't working" insistence by the State Patrol's Nighthawks DUI Task Force still seems shaky to me, so I'm glad Bud is contesting this charge. The State will instead depend on the officer's assessment of Bud's "bloodshot and watery" eyes (when are they not?) and his imperfections with the "Walk and Turn" and "One Leg Stand" tests. They're also still insistent on arguing over Defective Taillights on Bud's then-new Audi. 

 

~lw3

[Randy]

I like Bud's chances a lot better than Mike Scott's. One thing that seems odd is that Bud's DUI was almost 2 years ago.  If Scott's lawyers can get that much time before trial, it leaves this up in the air for a long time.  (Might be a lot harder to do in Banks County, which is very small, and looks to be a very conservative place to get busted.)