C's should sign Adonal Foyle

[Kim Malo]

At 11:19 PM 8/13/2007, Mark Piotrowski wrote:
> >At 10:13 PM 8/13/2007, Mark Piotrowski wrote:
> >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.

A mixture. Limited their options might be more accurate.  I think 
they may be disappointed in him but still look to him for some of the 
things you mentioned they signed him for, so that they're not exactly 
desperate to dump him but also less likely to do so and try someone 
else than they would be if it wouldn't cost them money and cap space. 
But what I was thinking about as much was that that 3MM is the 
difference between signing and not signing other FA, such as say 
Sarunas when he was first coming over here, given that they weren't 
going to go into luxury tax territory for only incremental 
improvement, which I don't totally blame them for. And you've tied up 
that $3MM, limiting your options to sign others (until they finally 
bit the bullet about the tax when it was more than incremental 
improvement) for 5 bloody years. Again, it's the 5 years, not the $3MM.

>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?

Mark, do you really want to get into my opinion of this sort of 
thing, given what you know of it <g> To begin with, almost no teams 
are under the cap and I hate these plans based on taking out our 
trash to other teams....  while if you take equivalent salary back 
you still don't have that money free to pay to others.

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

Shoot, sorry about that, thought it was better known. De gustibus non 
est disputandum is the full version, more or less there's no 
disputing taste. Hey, at least I didn't make it in Greek, which would 
be more basketball connected <g>
Kim