Nate wants to re-sign in Boston

[celtics2]

Rondo won't play 40 minutes a game next season unless the Celtic Coach is nuts. So I think Robinson has a future with us. He is a spark plug.

[EJPLAYA]

Nate at a 2 yr contract worth vet minimum is fine by me. I take Marquis for a reasonable 2 yr deal if he'd sign it over TA. Before Maquis injured that thumb and went down he was looking like a brilliant pick. TA's starting to come off of his high play of late and looking much more like the TA of old than the TA of the regular season.

Somehow I think we will end up with no Nate, no Marquis, and TA though.

[bigmoneysheed]

nate is the man! he played great while rondo was struggleing,

[Witch-King]

Personally, I would love to see Nate re-sign with us. Hopefully Jeff van Gundy will retract his statemet about God 'hating' the Boston Celtics after this year's NBA Finals seeing as Nate was a big reason why we were able to overcome the Magic in game 6.

Also, I hear Lucky the Leprechaun got fired so in case of emergency Nate might have to be our 'interim' mascot. Now I'm sure this might disappoint alot of Brian Scalabrine fans but hey, from here on out we'll have to do what's best for the team. UBUNTU!!

p.s. I've always thought Lucky could have used a tan or something, however, we all know that certainly won't be an issue with Nate 

[billysan]

I think we look for a couple of decent 2nd tier type players and try to get one to sign for the midlevel if it's someone Danny/Doc likes such as Sheed. We also may have to worry about replacing Ray Allen if that blows up, but I am confident we resign him.

Assuming Nate is willing to wait until that process is finished, he might have a spot on this team in the future. I think we have the same scenario unfolding with TA and Marquis. The team priority will be to add at least one Rotation caliber player at the wing or PG spot to play with Sheed/Baby. That player will be pursued and the midlevel money will not be touched to resign anyone before we see what can get.


TA, Nate and Marquis are consolation prizes.

[nickagneta]

I can't stand Nate's game. He can get unconscious when it comes to shooting, his passing, at it's very best, is mediocre, he relies way, way too much on three point shooting, his defense is slacking and he's really not a good floor general.

But when he's hot, he's electric and the younger crowd love him and his athleticism and the novelty of his dunks.

I want a floor general as my back up PG. Someone who can run an offense and give the ball to the backups in the best position for them to score while playing good defense. Or at least respectable defense.

I also hate Tony Allen's game. That said, Tony and Nate compliment each other well. Where Tony lacks as a shooting guard Nate can pick that part of the game up for him and keeps decent spacing on the floor for the second unit. And vice versa in regards to defense.

Given that bringing both of them back will probably cost this team minimum $6 million a year for two years though, I think the C's can get a better combo of bench guards out there for that price.

Honestly, I'd rather have Earl Watson or Steve Blake or Luke Ridnour as our backup PG next year and maybe sign and trade Nate for help elsewhere.

TP for good arithmetic.  Nate + TA = $6 million for backup guards.

Despite the lavish praise bestowed on TA, he's still not a PG, and he still is best in the most limited of minutes (16mpg) when he doesn't have ball handling duties.  He's still a bit small to guard all wings.  Still a consistency concern.  Prudence would suggest not rushing to resign him...

Ditto for Nate:  I think he can do well in a 16 minute backup role in the NBA.

That arithmetic equates to roughly the MLE-level money committed to a backup PG/SG, and perhaps we'd be better off netting one more complete player as a backup combo guard than keeping either or both of Nate and TA.  It would also simplify rotations (Doc is the coach, after all) and save roster spots for younger, developing players.  I'd take the guys you listed, nick, and I'd probably consider Randy Foye (restricted) or old pal Delonte, if he became available, as a less expensive option.

One of the major problems with committing the MLE to fill the backup PG / SG slots is that we then have no money other than the minimum to offer to a backup SF, which is probably the one position where we currently don't have an adequate backup.

The advantage we have with Tony and Nate is that we can sign them without having to use the MLE.  While neither is ideal, both are probably better than most of the roster fodder available for a minimum contract.

At this point, I'd gladly pay a combined $6 million / season to Tony and Nate, if that frees the team up to use the full MLE on a guy who can legitimately help us.

This is where I think drafting a player or players that are seniors and have mature games that could allow them to give the Celtics some minutes right out of college could help. I know I've been pushing these guys for months but Damion James and Quincy Pondexter are 4 year college seniors with exceptional NBA bodies, fabulous athleticism, great defensive games and outside shots and both play SF. Drafting one of them and plugging him into the back up SF slot could pay huge dividends for this team in being able to be more selective about where they spend their MLE.

IF(big if) Danny drafts a player he is confident can step in right away(first year) and contribute, like he was with Glen Davis and Ryan Gomes, he could decide to save some cash and not bring back Tony and Nate.

I see next year as a transition year for this team. I think they bring back as much of the core of this team as possible for one last run at a title but also add a bunch of young talent to start to develop and turn it into a running unit with Rondo at its head.

For that reason I see them probably bringing back Tony but not Nate. I see them buying another first round draft pick. I see them drafting one SF that will contribute right away with one first rounder, one big man project to develop who will slide into Scal's 6th big position, and in the second round taking either Gervais Vasquez or Sherron Collins as a third PG to develop as a back up PG behind Rondo long term.

I'm not sure we can rely upon rookies being big contributors next year, and I don't think we should draft rookies because they can help right away.  Last time Danny did that, we ended up with J.R. Giddens (supposedly close to being an NBA contributor out of college). 

I'd rather see Danny take the best player available, regardless of how ready they are.  I'd look to free agency to fill in the bench with guys on short term deals; Tony and Nate would be just fine with me.

I mean, what do we care what Wyc spends his money on (i.e., potentially overpaying for Tony and Nate) if it doesn't affect our salary cap flexibility?  I can understand not liking Tony and Nate as players, but their salary slots are definitely valuable.

Sometimes Roy, the best player available IS a player that can contribute right away, even when picking in the end of the first round of the draft. All one has to do is go back to last year to see that is true  when Darren Collison, Roddy Beaubois and Taj Gibson were all chosen after pick 20 and all contributed in the first year, two to playoff teams.

Why is it so hard to think that Danny could actually chose the best player available and that that player could contribute next year to a contender? By year's end Beaubois was arguably the guard playing the best basketball on the Mavs, a team considered to be a contender. I think Danny's drafting will determine whether how the off season could play out. If he can't get another draft pick and then feels the best player available is a project, he might be forced into retaining Nate and Tony as off the bench guards. If he drafts the best player available and he feels that that player can contribute and that player happens to allow him flexibility to save money elsewhere, I think he will take that opportunity.

Why do I care how much they spend? Because that's the type of fan I am. I think good salary management is ultimately good for me, a person who enjoys going to 5-10 games a year. If Danny spends frivolously, ultimately, I probably won't be able to afford those games. Also, I think good salary management is good for the future of this team in being able to secure talent. If next year Danny can fill out the final "non-core"(starters, Sheed, Tony, Baby) portion of the team with younger cheaper talent that can grow or less expensive vets that can produce that are on short term deals, that's what I want.

[MBz]

He has the ability to be better then a lot of backup PGs, but he just doesn't do it consistently enough for me.  I'll take a player of lesser skill who brings a consistent level every night.

Unless you can fill the description of your ideal player in name, then it sounds too much of a knock on Nate as opposed to a true solution to the problem. Truth is, I don't know if he deserves that much for someone who tried to get into the system with around 30 games left in the season. If this system was too difficult for rookies like Bill Walker or J.R Giddens to figure out after two full seasons with the C's, then why am I supposed to be overly shocked that it took till the middle of the playoffs for Nate to figure it out? 

Also, back to your point on wanting a "player of lesser skill who brings a consistent level every night". See, this seems to have Marquis Daniels all over it, who we already had but didn't work out like that..and to think he took a pay cut to come here. Heck, based on this season, I could even make an argument for Tony Allen, who we also already have (and might or might not re-sign). Though, some people may disagree with me on TA "bringing it on a consistent level" if only because of his past years, who knows.

Point is, careful what you wish for. If Nate would work out next year, would you really take TA or Daniels over him? Or, back to my first sentence in a form of a question: who WOULD you take instead that's not already on the team?

Except Marquis Daniels has never been consistent.  The first part of being consistent is being on the floor.  Daniels has played 70+ games in a season once in his career.  Looking at just free agents, you have guys like Steve Blake, Luke Ridnour, Earl Watson, heck even Jason Williams.  We don't need much more then 7-10 minutes a game at the backup point, all you need is something who can come in and take care of the ball.  We don't need a gunner.  Also, I don't think you can ask if you would take TA or Daniels over Nate.  Nate just can't play the off guard, he just doesn't have it defensively to do so.

[nickagneta]

He has the ability to be better then a lot of backup PGs, but he just doesn't do it consistently enough for me.  I'll take a player of lesser skill who brings a consistent level every night.

Unless you can fill the description of your ideal player in name, then it sounds too much of a knock on Nate as opposed to a true solution to the problem. Truth is, I don't know if he deserves that much for someone who tried to get into the system with around 30 games left in the season. If this system was too difficult for rookies like Bill Walker or J.R Giddens to figure out after two full seasons with the C's, then why am I supposed to be overly shocked that it took till the middle of the playoffs for Nate to figure it out? 

Also, back to your point on wanting a "player of lesser skill who brings a consistent level every night". See, this seems to have Marquis Daniels all over it, who we already had but didn't work out like that..and to think he took a pay cut to come here. Heck, based on this season, I could even make an argument for Tony Allen, who we also already have (and might or might not re-sign). Though, some people may disagree with me on TA "bringing it on a consistent level" if only because of his past years, who knows.

Point is, careful what you wish for. If Nate would work out next year, would you really take TA or Daniels over him? Or, back to my first sentence in a form of a question: who WOULD you take instead that's not already on the team?

Except Marquis Daniels has never been consistent.  The first part of being consistent is being on the floor.  Daniels has played 70+ games in a season once in his career.  Looking at just free agents, you have guys like Steve Blake, Luke Ridnour, Earl Watson, heck even Jason Williams.  We don't need much more then 7-10 minutes a game at the backup point, all you need is something who can come in and take care of the ball.  We don't need a gunner.  Also, I don't think you can ask if you would take TA or Daniels over Nate.  Nate just can't play the off guard, he just doesn't have it defensively to do so.

TP. That's the way I see it.

A think a S&T of Nate to Atlanta for Maurice Evans(1 year at $2.5 million left for a contract) would be a decent move the Celtics. Evans could fill Tony's role and then the C's could sign Steve Black to a two year $3 to $3.5 million contract. Maximum out lay for Blake and Evans as compared to Tony and Nate could mean a savings in one year(including lux tax payments) as high as $3.5 million dollars. And I think they would be better fits for this team and make the team better than if they had Tony and Nate.

Such a move could also still leave as much as $4 million in MLE money to throw at someone else like Rasual Butler or Travis Outlaw.

PGs available in free agency I would like to sign so we could then sign and trade Nate include:

Steve Blake
Luke Ridnour
Earl Watson
CJ Watson
Chris Duhon

[Roy Hobbs]

He has the ability to be better then a lot of backup PGs, but he just doesn't do it consistently enough for me.  I'll take a player of lesser skill who brings a consistent level every night.

Unless you can fill the description of your ideal player in name, then it sounds too much of a knock on Nate as opposed to a true solution to the problem. Truth is, I don't know if he deserves that much for someone who tried to get into the system with around 30 games left in the season. If this system was too difficult for rookies like Bill Walker or J.R Giddens to figure out after two full seasons with the C's, then why am I supposed to be overly shocked that it took till the middle of the playoffs for Nate to figure it out?  

Also, back to your point on wanting a "player of lesser skill who brings a consistent level every night". See, this seems to have Marquis Daniels all over it, who we already had but didn't work out like that..and to think he took a pay cut to come here. Heck, based on this season, I could even make an argument for Tony Allen, who we also already have (and might or might not re-sign). Though, some people may disagree with me on TA "bringing it on a consistent level" if only because of his past years, who knows.

Point is, careful what you wish for. If Nate would work out next year, would you really take TA or Daniels over him? Or, back to my first sentence in a form of a question: who WOULD you take instead that's not already on the team?

Except Marquis Daniels has never been consistent.  The first part of being consistent is being on the floor.  Daniels has played 70+ games in a season once in his career.  Looking at just free agents, you have guys like Steve Blake, Luke Ridnour, Earl Watson, heck even Jason Williams.  We don't need much more then 7-10 minutes a game at the backup point, all you need is something who can come in and take care of the ball.  We don't need a gunner.  Also, I don't think you can ask if you would take TA or Daniels over Nate.  Nate just can't play the off guard, he just doesn't have it defensively to do so.

TP. That's the way I see it.

A think a S&T of Nate to Atlanta for Maurice Evans(1 year at $2.5 million left for a contract) would be a decent move the Celtics. Evans could fill Tony's role and then the C's could sign Steve Black to a two year $3 to $3.5 million contract. Maximum out lay for Blake and Evans as compared to Tony and Nate could mean a savings in one year(including lux tax payments) as high as $3.5 million dollars. And I think they would be better fits for this team and make the team better than if they had Tony and Nate.

Such a move could also still leave as much as $4 million in MLE money to throw at someone else like Rasual Butler or Travis Outlaw.

PGs available in free agency I would like to sign so we could then sign and trade Nate include:

Steve Blake
Luke Ridnour
Earl Watson
CJ Watson
Chris Duhon

Is there any reason that we should believe that a guy like Steve Blake is going to take a $1.5 - $1.75 million contract, though?  Certainly, his production deserves a much bigger deal, in my opinion.

I mean, sure, if we can upgrade the PG and SF positions while still letting Nate go, beautiful.  I'm just skeptical that we're going to be able to land two rotation-caliber players with the MLE.

(Also, I think the trade market for Nate is going to be fairly small, but who knows?)

[wiley]

Nate at a 2 yr contract worth vet minimum is fine by me. I take Marquis for a reasonable 2 yr deal if he'd sign it over TA. Before Maquis injured that thumb and went down he was looking like a brilliant pick. TA's starting to come off of his high play of late and looking much more like the TA of old than the TA of the regular season.

Somehow I think we will end up with no Nate, no Marquis, and TA though.

Tony's got a better motor than Marquis, at least at this stage of Marquis' career, and our team needs guys with energy as we get older and older......It takes Tony a while after he gets injured, but then he brings it again....I understand people get tired of the ups and downs....but I think he can help us, especially on defense...he and Rondo will do good things next year on defense and fast breaks.....If I had to choose between Nate and Tony I'd keep Tony, but I'm willing to give Nate a shot too....maybe he and Tony together can cause some havoc for other teams....

[Who]

(Also, I think the trade market for Nate is going to be fairly small, but who knows?)

Agreed -- teams are going to be reluctant enough to give him $4 million or so per annum in his contract ... but to have to give up that money + a rotation player or some other valuable asset?

Sign and trade with Nate Robinson is as likely as a sign and trade with Glen Davis was last year.

[Cman]

Nate, Tony and Marquis are being talked about in this thread.  Here's my take on all three.

(1) I'd be shocked if Tony Allen isn't back with Boston next year.

(2) I consider it likely that Nate will be back.

(3) I'd be shocked if Marquis is back.

My reasoning for (2) is that no one is going to offer Nate a lot of money.  He has shown he just isn't worth it.  My guess is that Boston will offer him a one year deal at $2.5M (sort of like what Tony got last year).  That will be more than any other team offers him, and Nate will take it, figuring that he will play better this upcoming year given that the existing starters will play fewer minutes than this past year, and given that Nate has a half year with Boston under his belt.

In return, the Cs get a player with moxie, who provides a lot of spark off the bench.

[Kenhov]

On another note, would Josh Howard be a huge risk for the Celts ?

Ok so he tore his ACL and could be half what he used to be, but he could be had or a bargain. And he may just turn around and reward whoever shows faith in him.

[jdub1660]

I am all for a resigning of Nate. But a note to him, is that I'd hate to see him fall into the same road as Earl Boykins. He too is a guy that can come in, dish assists and rack up points, but b/c of his size and desire to earn 6'5 money, he ended up in Europe and now a backup on a junk squad in Washington.
Nate would be smart to stray away from that and the Marbury path as well, and accept that he will always be a backup Sparkplug type player like Eddie House.
So if he can realize that now, and accept a BBD type contract, then bring him back next year and let him flow in our offense. Then use Marquis in a a sign and trade with BBD or Sheed to the Bobcats for Tyrus Thomas and a filler

[j804]

#wordaaappp