Anyone know what we offered for Nate?

[lon3lytoaster]

Do it up, give the Knicks a pick. Who cares? We'll get a legit scorer off the bench, in exchange for expiring contracts and a player that will sit on the bench next year.

It's a good deal, really. I'm interested in seeing New York's response to this.

[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.

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.

I think it is is an asset in that it will allow a team making a salary dump to save some face with their fans.  So if a team wanted to get rid of a decent player (say, John Salmons), but didn't want to have nothing to show for it other than expiring contracts, or a second round pick, the C's pick can be valuable. 

You are right that it won't have much value at the time of the draft, but at the trade deadline, it is still relatively valuable.

Mostly though, I just can't think of any player in the NBA that I dislike more than Nate Robinson.  And that is including guys like Kobe.  Maybe it is irrational, but IMO, he stands for everything that is wrong with the NBA, and will never be a "winner".

[dlpin]

How can people say it's a good deal or that we NEED to do it when we don't even know what we're offering? Nate's an expiring deal, so its not like they'd only take expiring contracts back.

So the question really is:
- If we take back a bad contract, will that affect our ability to resign Allen for the next season? Our ability to sign an MLE player? Because that starts getting mighty expensive for a 5 month gamble.

- If we include a draft pick, how many restrictions do we put on it? Because if we are talking about something like an unprotected draft pick 4 years from now, that is a mighty steep price.

[Roy Hobbs]

Mostly though, I just can't think of any player in the NBA that I dislike more than Nate Robinson.  And that is including guys like Kobe.  Maybe it is irrational, but IMO, he stands for everything that is wrong with the NBA, and will never be a "winner".

I'd put the list at Kobe, Starbury, and then maybe a guy like Nate.

[Chris]

Another thing to remember is that we would not have Bird Rights on Nate.  He is playing on a 1 year deal, which means if he gets traded, he loses his Bird Rights.  This also means he has veto power on any trade (though I doubt he would invoke it).  

[Chris]

Mostly though, I just can't think of any player in the NBA that I dislike more than Nate Robinson.  And that is including guys like Kobe.  Maybe it is irrational, but IMO, he stands for everything that is wrong with the NBA, and will never be a "winner".

I'd put the list at Kobe, Starbury, and then maybe a guy like Nate.

I like Starbury.  He is entertaining.  There is a difference between bad guys, and insane guys.  Starbury is insane.  I actually like him more than someone like Jason Kidd.

[Chief]

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

So, what are you saying?

[Roy Hobbs]

Another thing to remember is that we would not have Bird Rights on Nate.  He is playing on a 1 year deal, which means if he gets traded, he loses his Bird Rights.  This also means he has veto power on any trade (though I doubt he would invoke it).  

I'm not sure if this is right.  Since he didn't change teams, we would have his Bird rights, I believe.  So long as he doesn't change teams through free agency, his Bird rights should remain. 

(You've confused me, though, so I'll think about it some.)

[xmuscularghandix]

I would be able to sleep fine if we traded Shelden and House for Robinson.

[dlpin]

Another thing to remember is that we would not have Bird Rights on Nate.  He is playing on a 1 year deal, which means if he gets traded, he loses his Bird Rights.  This also means he has veto power on any trade (though I doubt he would invoke it).  

Why would we not have Bird rights on him? AFAIK you only lose Bird rights if you sign with another team or if you are waived. So unless he was waived and then re-signed with the Knicks, we'd still have it.

[wdleehi]

Another thing to remember is that we would not have Bird Rights on Nate.  He is playing on a 1 year deal, which means if he gets traded, he loses his Bird Rights.  This also means he has veto power on any trade (though I doubt he would invoke it).  

I'm not sure if this is right.  Since he didn't change teams, we would have his Bird rights, I believe.  So long as he doesn't change teams through free agency, his Bird rights should remain. 

(You've confused me, though, so I'll think about it some.)

No.  It's a weird rule where when they sign that one year contract, they only keep their Bird rights with the team that sign them.


Remember when Dallas tried to make a big trade and Devin George (I believe) blocked it so he wouldn't lose his Birds rights.

[KCattheStripe]

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

You can't combine exceptions.

[wdleehi]

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

You can't combine exceptions.

You can't combine exceptions, sir!

[Roy Hobbs]

Another thing to remember is that we would not have Bird Rights on Nate.  He is playing on a 1 year deal, which means if he gets traded, he loses his Bird Rights.  This also means he has veto power on any trade (though I doubt he would invoke it).  

I'm not sure if this is right.  Since he didn't change teams, we would have his Bird rights, I believe.  So long as he doesn't change teams through free agency, his Bird rights should remain. 

(You've confused me, though, so I'll think about it some.)

No.  It's a weird rule where when they sign that one year contract, they only keep their Bird rights with the team that sign them.


Remember when Dallas tried to make a big trade and Devin George (I believe) blocked it so he wouldn't lose his Birds rights.

Was that the reason that George vetoed that?

Larry Coon doesn't mention any restriction:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q25

[Roy Hobbs]

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

You can't combine exceptions to form one greater exception.

I believe you can, however, include an exception in a trade that includes multiple players, if one of the players being acquired fits within that exception.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q71