Author Topic: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?  (Read 24499 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #90 on: January 20, 2010, 03:37:25 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
Boston Gets:
Nate
Chandler

NY Gets
TA
Giddens
Sheldon
2010 or 2011 1st round pick
2010 2nd round pick


I think thats a fare deal! Chandler will probably lose his spot to either Gallinari or Lebron or whoever they sign so whats the point of staying there? NY gets cap relief, picks and we can throw in Walker if they want talent back as well! but ainge should push for Chandler!

C's would be soo deep they'll look scary!

Remember ppl talk **** about Nate alot but how many PGs can average 13ppg and 3apg off the bench? with the ability to both create and score? you might wanna think about that for a moment!

Paul Pierce is looking better after that surgery Ray Allen looks the same to me and hopefully KG can get back to looking like the old KG maybe not as good but at least 85% or 90% to what he use to be would be good! Rondo and Perk are playing great the only problem we have is depth issues! and with a backup PG Daniels can score his 13ppg that he use to average off the bench in Indiana and House can play his natural role which will increase their effectiveness!

That would be a heck of a deal for us? But why does New York do this?

They wouldn't.  I don't think we'd need to throw in Shelden, either.  We'd need to be taking back Jeffries or Curry in order for the Knicks to trade us Chandler.

Even if we take Jeffries, I'm skeptical they'll give up Chandler. He's their best player under contract for 2010.

He'd be an outstanding fit off the Cs bench. He can defend 2s, 3s and 4s while hitting 3s ala Posey.

I'd say that Gallinari is the most untradable player on the Knicks.

The thing is, they have to get enough under the cap to bring in two top FAs (LBJ or otherwies).....

I'm not sure the Cs have the right package, but some team taking on Jeffries IMO could definitely pry away Chandler if they play their cards right....The Knicks have to move Jeffries...

I don't disagree with you on either count -- i've been batting around Jeffries-based trade ideas here and there for weeks because I agree they'll have to trade a talent to ditch him, something they need to seriously consider.

Gallinari may indeed be their untouchable, but Chandler is right now the better player in my opinion. He's a good defender, and a pretty versitile offensive guy. If I had to rank their young guys in order of their desire to keep em it would likely be Gallinari, Chandler, Douglas then Hill.

I'd rather have Chandler on this team than Gallinari. But my guess is they're unlikely to trade either, and I do doubt they'd trade both Robinson and Chandler to get rid of Jeffries. If so, that would of course be a no-brainer...

Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #91 on: January 20, 2010, 03:39:12 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
If New York decides it has to get rid of Nate Robinson because he is just detrimental to the team in behind the scenes they have four choices

1 Send home for the year and let him collect his checks
2 Buy him out and hope and pray he accepts less than what he is owed
3 Release him outright
4 Trade him to the Celtics as Nate is a no-trade clause player due to CBA rules regarding one year contract Bird Rights players and has said he will only accept a trade to Boston

Personally, I like my trade of Shelden Williams and Tony Allen for Nate Robinson and Marcus Landry

It works on Trade Machine

Just to clarify, I don't believe he ever said he will only accept a trade to Boston.  I believe he just said that he would like to play for Boston, the last time there were rumors of him being bought out or traded, although I am not sure if that was prompted by a direct question or not.  But I am almost positive he did not say that it would only be Boston.

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #92 on: January 20, 2010, 03:53:09 PM »

Offline PosImpos

  • NCE
  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12383
  • Tommy Points: 903
  • Rondo = Good
If New York decides it has to get rid of Nate Robinson because he is just detrimental to the team in behind the scenes they have four choices

1 Send home for the year and let him collect his checks
2 Buy him out and hope and pray he accepts less than what he is owed
3 Release him outright
4 Trade him to the Celtics as Nate is a no-trade clause player due to CBA rules regarding one year contract Bird Rights players and has said he will only accept a trade to Boston

Personally, I like my trade of Shelden Williams and Tony Allen for Nate Robinson and Marcus Landry

It works on Trade Machine

Just to clarify, I don't believe he ever said he will only accept a trade to Boston.  I believe he just said that he would like to play for Boston, the last time there were rumors of him being bought out or traded, although I am not sure if that was prompted by a direct question or not.  But I am almost positive he did not say that it would only be Boston.

What I've read is that Nate wants to be on a playoff team, more for the extra $1 million it would earn him than for the sake of a competition.
Never forget the Champs of '08, or the gutsy warriors of '10.

"I know you all wanna win, but you gotta do it TOGETHER!"
- Doc Rivers

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #93 on: January 22, 2010, 11:36:07 AM »

Offline Jeff

  • CelticsBlog CEO
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6673
  • Tommy Points: 301
  • ranter
forget Nate, send them our pu pu platter of expirings for Jeffries and Chandler
Faith and Sports - an essay by Jeff Clark

"Know what I pray for? The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin (Bill Watterson)

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #94 on: January 22, 2010, 11:47:28 AM »

Offline ManUp

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8511
  • Tommy Points: 285
  • Rondo doesn't believe in easy buckets...
forget Nate, send them our pu pu platter of expirings for Jeffries and Chandler

Yes please :)

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #95 on: January 22, 2010, 11:57:34 AM »

Offline PosImpos

  • NCE
  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12383
  • Tommy Points: 903
  • Rondo = Good
forget Nate, send them our pu pu platter of expirings for Jeffries and Chandler

I'd be cool with that, but can Celtics ownership really afford to pay Jeffries next year? 
Never forget the Champs of '08, or the gutsy warriors of '10.

"I know you all wanna win, but you gotta do it TOGETHER!"
- Doc Rivers

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #96 on: January 22, 2010, 12:16:54 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
forget Nate, send them our pu pu platter of expirings for Jeffries and Chandler

I'd be cool with that, but can Celtics ownership really afford to pay Jeffries next year? 

They can...but it would likely mean Ray would be walking.  So the question is, do you feel that Chandler will be ready to take over for Ray next season?

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #97 on: January 22, 2010, 12:34:41 PM »

Offline PosImpos

  • NCE
  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12383
  • Tommy Points: 903
  • Rondo = Good
forget Nate, send them our pu pu platter of expirings for Jeffries and Chandler

I'd be cool with that, but can Celtics ownership really afford to pay Jeffries next year? 

They can...but it would likely mean Ray would be walking.  So the question is, do you feel that Chandler will be ready to take over for Ray next season?

Nope!  Maybe if he could shoot better...but no.
Never forget the Champs of '08, or the gutsy warriors of '10.

"I know you all wanna win, but you gotta do it TOGETHER!"
- Doc Rivers

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #98 on: January 22, 2010, 12:37:14 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
forget Nate, send them our pu pu platter of expirings for Jeffries and Chandler

yep -- absolutely Jeff. he would be the PERFECT fit behind ray and paul (very versitile).

I think this deal may have been doable some weeks ago, but he's really become their best player along with Lee. They'd still have to consider it, but it would sure be a tough sell to their fans and / or potential free agent targets. If you were LeBron or Joe Johnson or whoever, would you rather play with Chandler or Gallinari? Bet most would pick the former...
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #99 on: January 22, 2010, 12:52:38 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
BTW, if Chandler suddenly becomes available, just for the right to pay Jeffries, don't you think there will be teams lining up to make that deal, and perhaps sweeten it?

Wouldn't a team like Milwaukee, who need a wing, trade Ridnour and Kurt Thomas (much better than our pu pu platter, as Ridnour would be perfect in that system) for that package?  It wouldn't put them in the luxury tax, and they aren't going to have cap space in the summer anyways.


Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #100 on: January 22, 2010, 01:08:20 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
forget Nate, send them our pu pu platter of expirings for Jeffries and Chandler

I'd be cool with that, but can Celtics ownership really afford to pay Jeffries next year? 

They can...but it would likely mean Ray would be walking.  So the question is, do you feel that Chandler will be ready to take over for Ray next season?

I would be, but I also appears having jeffries and chandler doesn't proclude them signing ray for, say, 6-7mil, then using part of the MLE and still ending up at this years payroll level...

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #101 on: January 22, 2010, 01:12:57 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
BTW, if Chandler suddenly becomes available, just for the right to pay Jeffries, don't you think there will be teams lining up to make that deal, and perhaps sweeten it?

Wouldn't a team like Milwaukee, who need a wing, trade Ridnour and Kurt Thomas (much better than our pu pu platter, as Ridnour would be perfect in that system) for that package?  It wouldn't put them in the luxury tax, and they aren't going to have cap space in the summer anyways.



Good point, but is Chandler's stock really that high? $7mil is a steep price tag for a team like the Bucks to pay for the rights to Chandler, and it's hard to imagine Sen Kohl paying a combined $14mil to Jeffries and Gadzuric next year.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 01:35:09 PM by ssspence »
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #102 on: January 22, 2010, 01:27:05 PM »

Offline Jeff

  • CelticsBlog CEO
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6673
  • Tommy Points: 301
  • ranter
yeah, that's fair

truth is, I'm sure Danny has offered the Pu Pu to several teams and none of them will come close to happening until the deadline approaches and teams start running out of better options

the Celtics are one of a select few teams willing to take on a little salary for next year, and a lot of teams are looking to dump money fast - they'll get something done - I'm very confident in that
Faith and Sports - an essay by Jeff Clark

"Know what I pray for? The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin (Bill Watterson)

Re: Anyone know what we offered for Nate?
« Reply #103 on: January 22, 2010, 01:43:54 PM »

Offline Andy Jick

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3795
  • Tommy Points: 89
  • You know my methods, Watson.
Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated... :)

I had to take a break from this site for awhile.  I've read things, just never posted.  But this Nate thing caught my attention.  This guy can put up points in bundles.  Ironically, it seems that the bench needs a guy like this.  Eddie House is not a point guard...if the C's had to send him off in a deal, then I'd be all for it.  I think Nate would make us forget about him pretty quickly...
"It was easier to know it than to explain why I know it."