C's should sign Adonal Foyle

[Mark Piotrowski]

>At 10:13 PM 8/13/2007, Mark Piotrowski wrote:
>  >I've never seen what the big deal was with Scal and his contract
>
>Well I'm not one of the knee jerk Scal bashers and wish they would
>lose the would-be witty little nickname that says a lot more about
>the person using it than about Scal, but I have no problem seeing the
>big deal - it's the 5 years ...tieing up limited resources of cash
>and roster spot that could be better used. I don't care if you pay
>him $3MM for a year or so but you don't sign end of the bench
>infinitely replaceable parts that you should be always looking to
>upgrade ASAP to 5 year contracts. You just don't. He's an improvement
>over the Sundov and Rubens who occupied the end of the bench a few
>years ago, but that's the point - they were only signed to a year or
>so and so you readily turned them over for improved replacements.
>
>  >  -- i'm pretty sure we've disagreed on
>  >that over the years.  They're end of the bench guys.  I would have
>  >rather gone after guys who fit this team better or filled needs
>  >(Mikki Moore when he left SEA or Darrick Martin when he signed with
>  >TOR)
>
>Exactly - see above about why you don't tie your hands by signing
>Scal to a 5 year contract.

this is an interesting point --- do you think it's tied their hands 
or that Scal's still around for the reason that Ainge originally 
signed him (vet presence, by all accounts a guy other teammates like 
(which is not to be discounted IMO)).  I'm asking this honestly .... 
i don't know.

all we have and will have is the MLE and LLE exceptions (the later 
every other year) and the vet. minimum.  Scal doesnt have any direct 
effect on using those ---- other than the amount of lux tax we pay. 
But if that's an issue don't you think Ainge could/would do a Kurt 
Thomas-like dump of Scalabrine, $3Mil, and a 2nd rounder to (say) 
Charlotte or some team under the cap?

i don't think Scal's contract is actually hand-tying .... but i could be wrong.



>  >and that's what I see Foyle as.
>
>Fair enough and de gustibus. As I said, my view's probably colored by
>listening to my friend the Golden State fan talk about him the past
>few years, but he's underimpressed me when I've seen him.  Stats are
>fine but you find stats to "prove" anything - I'm very good at doing
>it myself. The results haven't done much for me. And I don't see him
>as somehow outstanding in how well he'll fit here and fit our needs,
>separate from what I think of him per se. But I've never considered
>myself a virtual GM wizard so if they go after him, hopefully your
>evaluation is the right one.
>
>Kim


fair enough, but.... <wince> what does "de gustibus" mean for those 
of us in the peanut gallery :)

(the other) mark