Anyone know what we offered for Nate?

[Brickowski]

My guess is that any Nate Robinson deal will be facilitated by Chris Wallace.

As for Jeffries, I'd much rather have Darko. Not only is Darko's deal expiring, but he's a better player.

[PosImpos]

My guess is that any Nate Robinson deal will be facilitated by Chris Wallace.

As for Jeffries, I'd much rather have Darko. Not only is Darko's deal expiring, but he's a better player.

You just named two reasons why the Knicks wouldn't trade him.  They're only holding onto him because he's an expiring anyway.  I believe he's said he wants to get bought out and go play in Europe.

[Chris]

Because of the Knicks trade exceptions, its actually not that hard to match salaries.  For example, the C's could send Tony Allen and Giddens for Robinson, and it works. 

[JIMTONIK]

All what i think is that.....We need Nate.

[Roy Hobbs]

Scali and JR (trade exception) for Nate and Douglas works.

No, because you can't combine exceptions. Doesn't work.

As for Jeffries.... well, he's awful.

Giddens would fit completely under the Knicks' trade exception, so it would work. 

[Gomesfan]

It took awhile but it is up on realgm now
http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/64132/20100119/celtics_trying_to_acquire_nate/

[Chris]

Thinking about this some more, why would the Knicks make a trade like this?  It's not like Nate has a long contract.  They are likely looking for some actual value in return for him, not just garbage contracts.  I don't think this is happening.

[Roy Hobbs]

Thinking about this some more, why would the Knicks make a trade like this?  It's not like Nate has a long contract.  They are likely looking for some actual value in return for him, not just garbage contracts.  I don't think this is happening.

Yeah, we'd have to include cash, at minimum. 

If it took a #1 pick, I'd probably give that up for the right player, although I'm not sure that that's Nate.

[PosImpos]

Thinking about this some more, why would the Knicks make a trade like this?  It's not like Nate has a long contract.  They are likely looking for some actual value in return for him, not just garbage contracts.  I don't think this is happening.

The only way they'd do it is if:

a) Nate is a locker room issue and wants to be bought out anyway (get something for him at least)

b) they can unload one of their albatross contracts (jeffries or curry)

c) they get some talent or picks in return

Since a no longer seems to be the case, we'd have to offer b or c or both in order to get Nate.

[Chris]

Thinking about this some more, why would the Knicks make a trade like this?  It's not like Nate has a long contract.  They are likely looking for some actual value in return for him, not just garbage contracts.  I don't think this is happening.

Yeah, we'd have to include cash, at minimum. 

If it took a #1 pick, I'd probably give that up for the right player, although I'm not sure that that's Nate.

I'm positive that's not Nate.  Nate takes one of our key bench players off the floor, has questionable character, as well as no real BBIQ.  I don't know if I would take him without giving anything up, let alone giving up a first round pick.

[PosImpos]

Thinking about this some more, why would the Knicks make a trade like this?  It's not like Nate has a long contract.  They are likely looking for some actual value in return for him, not just garbage contracts.  I don't think this is happening.

Yeah, we'd have to include cash, at minimum. 

If it took a #1 pick, I'd probably give that up for the right player, although I'm not sure that that's Nate.

I'm positive that's not Nate.  Nate takes one of our key bench players off the floor, has questionable character, as well as no real BBIQ.  I don't know if I would take him without giving anything up, let alone giving up a first round pick.

Really?  He's Eddie House with the athleticism to finish at the rim and even block shots occasionally and the speed to stay with opposing pgs on defense.  He's not the defensive liability that Eddie is, and he can handle the ball, though he's not much of a distributor.

Don't get me wrong, I don't love Nate either, but let's take off the green glasses for a sec.  He'd be a huge upgrade over Eddie House.

[Roy Hobbs]

Thinking about this some more, why would the Knicks make a trade like this?  It's not like Nate has a long contract.  They are likely looking for some actual value in return for him, not just garbage contracts.  I don't think this is happening.

Yeah, we'd have to include cash, at minimum. 

If it took a #1 pick, I'd probably give that up for the right player, although I'm not sure that that's Nate.

I'm positive that's not Nate.  Nate takes one of our key bench players off the floor, has questionable character, as well as no real BBIQ.  I don't know if I would take him without giving anything up, let alone giving up a first round pick.

I was thinking about this:  do the Celtics see their first round pick as an asset?  Or at least, one that holds real value?  Or instead, do they see it as a gamble where, in most cases, you've got a J.R. Giddens on your cap for two years, taking up cap room and roster space while not contributing?

If the Celtics see a player they want, it wouldn't shock me to see them include a #1, even if in a vacuum that's more "value" than one would think.

[Brickowski]

Repeat after me:

You can't combine exceptions
You can't combine exceptions
You can't combine exceptions

enjoy:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

[PosImpos]

Thinking about this some more, why would the Knicks make a trade like this?  It's not like Nate has a long contract.  They are likely looking for some actual value in return for him, not just garbage contracts.  I don't think this is happening.

Yeah, we'd have to include cash, at minimum. 

If it took a #1 pick, I'd probably give that up for the right player, although I'm not sure that that's Nate.

I'm positive that's not Nate.  Nate takes one of our key bench players off the floor, has questionable character, as well as no real BBIQ.  I don't know if I would take him without giving anything up, let alone giving up a first round pick.

I was thinking about this:  do the Celtics see their first round pick as an asset?  Or at least, one that holds real value?  Or instead, do they see it as a gamble where, in most cases, you've got a J.R. Giddens on your cap for two years, taking up cap room and roster space while not contributing?

If the Celtics see a player they want, it wouldn't shock me to see them include a #1, even if in a vacuum that's more "value" than one would think.

Considering Doc is our coach, and will be for quite some time, I don't see late first rounders as very valuable for our team.  It's unlikely any first round picks will have a chance at seeing the floor much until the Big 3 are retired, so they won't develop much unless we get really lucky. 

[Andy Jick]

Dennis Johnson & Tiny Archibald were questionable characters before they arrived in Boston...I think they worked out just fine. 

Nate wants to be here...it's a veteran team that has a different culture / atmosphere than the Knicks.  We NEED him on this team...I can't imagine how much better the bench would be with him on this team.  He's a dynamic player who will only make this team better.  And waiting on Daniels (who I'd rather see on the wing anyway) is a moot point.  Get Nate - he can only make this team better and fills a much needed void on this roster.