Nate wants to re-sign in Boston

[rjsuperfly66]

i would have no problem with keeping nate and resigning ray allen. then get 2 guys in the draft that can help right away.

It will be impossible to get 2 guys in the draft that can help right away.  Where are they gonna play? You are going to get a guy who can give you 5-10 mins a night in the 1st round, and probably send the 2nd rounder to the d-league. 

If you resign Nate, your bench is Rasheed (who will play), Baby (who will play), and I imagine TA will come back as well.  You essentially will have the same team, with different spare parts on the back end of the bench.

[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.

[snowball]

My feeling is that someone offers him a multi-year contract and he starts PG on that team.

[celticinorlando]

i would have no problem with keeping nate and resigning ray allen. then get 2 guys in the draft that can help right away.

It will be impossible to get 2 guys in the draft that can help right away.  Where are they gonna play? You are going to get a guy who can give you 5-10 mins a night in the 1st round, and probably send the 2nd rounder to the d-league. 

If you resign Nate, your bench is Rasheed (who will play), Baby (who will play), and I imagine TA will come back as well.  You essentially will have the same team, with different spare parts on the back end of the bench.

well daniels, finley and sheldon are goners...not sure they resign tony...and they are certain to get someone pretty good at #19. they need a young athletic wing that can spell paul pierce

[Andy Jick]

I miss Eddie.  I think we lost in that trade.  Not sure I want Nate back.

[Roy Hobbs]

I miss Eddie.  I think we lost in that trade.  Not sure I want Nate back.

I miss Eddie, too, but if he's going to get playing time, Nate brings an element that Eddie simply didn't. 

[Tai]

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?

[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.

[More Banners]

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.

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

[kozlodoev]

Nate Robinson has played sparingly during Boston's postseason run, but that hasn't changed his desire to re-sign with the team this summer.

He will be an unrestricted free-agent for the first time in his five-year career.

"Of course," Robinson said when asked by FanHouse whether he'd like to re-sign with the Celtics.

"I feel wanted here," said Robinson.

"This group of guys, this team, this organization is good for me. They're high class, man. They keep it 100 percent (real) with you. Doc (Rivers, the coach) keeps it 100 percent. He tells you straight forward what he wants. I like that."

Link.

This could be Nate just being diplomatic, or trying to keep his free agent options open, but what do you think?

I am surprised to hear this, especially after the rumors that surfaced about him being unhappy the benching during the last regular season games that cost him a bunch of money.

Aside from that, I see definite benefits in having him around. Worse case scenario, he's that minute-gobbler on the bench that we will need badly during the regular season in order to have Rondo play limited minutes. Even if he doesn't have anything other than a reserve role for the playoffs, he can still be valuable for the team.

This being said, I am pleasantly surprised by what I've seen from Nate in these last couple of games. He was better than his usual mediocre defensive self, and didn't get (too) trigger happy when his shot wasn't falling. He made a couple of good passes that led to layups.

If he's available at his current rate, I don't think there's a downside to having him back. Of course, it's also interesting how he (and the rest of the team, for that matter) will fare without Thibodeau on the bench. But that's kind of out of our control now anyhow.

[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.

[Andy Jick]

I only sign Tony for one year deals (at a time).  He strikes me as the kind of player who can't be trusted with a long-term contract.  He's still a dumb player, but he's now showing intelligence 3 days a week instead of 1, so it's worth bringing him back.  But if he wants a 3+ year deal I'd wish him well.  He won't be hard to replace...

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

[MaxwellSmart86]

While I like Nate...I'd rather have Delonte back if Cleveland is just gonna give him away----just hope his mind is in the right place.