Who will be resigned in the off-season, Nate or TA?

[slamtheking]

I hope neither will be back but probably both will be re-signed and at numbers nowhere near where the OP is suggesting. I think the C's will probably bring both back on two year deals at a combined $5-$5.5 million per year.

I understand that you'd like to upgrade over both of them.  I think it's fairly safe to say that most people would including myself.  I think the financial reality prevents us from getting an upgrade over both of them since we only have the MLE (which would presumably go for player that can cover multiple positions, defend and score but not necessarily a combo guard which is what we'd need to replace those two players) and the vet min available.  I cannot see getting overly optimistic that the solution to the problem will be found at #19 in the draft.

If you have something in mind as a better option, please share.

Fact is I could give you a list of a bunch of players that I would rather have than Tony or Nate because I believe them better players than Tony And Nate. But the financial realities of the situation are getting those players to come here while just using the MLE would be unlikely and would make it more difficult to improve this team and it's chances to repeat next year. So I will decline trying to write out any scenarios.

ok so you're basically in line with what I've said-->there's better players out there but the financial realities are such that we're not likely to get them while filling a different hole we have which is back up SF (IMO)

[More Banners]

At this point I'd take Nate, because I think the team really needs the guy in Tony Allen's role to have some more size and because I think we need a good insurance policy on Rondo being out.

My ideal bench (assuming all starting 5 are back) would be:

Combo guard -

Combo forward -

Big Man with a post game

That being said - I think we'll have Sheed and Baby back, so I'd like to target a backup SF/SG with some size in the draft or with MLE, that means someone needs to be able to dribble and shoot behind Rondo, and that's Nate, not TA.

TP.  I think bench players that can back up 2 positions each makes for nice 8-player rotations.  We don't really have that.

Choosing between Nate and TA, I'd take Nate for two reasons:  

I know, based on YEARS of watching TA, that he will drive me crazy if he comes close to the ball on the offensive end.  What was up with that 3 early in the clock in the 4th?  And the turnovers...ugh.  That just isn't changing, though in a limited (defensive) role in limited minutes, he's less of a gamble, as he defends on each possession, but doesn't mess with the ball on each possession.  That means though, IMHO, he can't even be a part-time starter.  There are just too many wing players in the league to fret over keeping a 15 minute backup who can only be trusted on one side of the ball in limited minutes.  So I would wish Tony well if he signs elsewhere.  I'd offer him a small and short contract out of good will, but hope he gets more elsewhere.

Nate:  I'm really loving watching what happens with the offense when a PG with range is in the game:  everything opens up.  His cuts are fast, his release is quick, and he's working the S/R and S/Pop quite nicely.  I'm loving his defensive intensity and fast hands, too.  He's a threat off the dribble; I don't get nervous when the ball is in his hands.  I like him in a microwave role, and suspect that if the minutes are meaningful, he will accept fewer of them (15/gm).  Further, PG is a harder slot to competently fill than wing.

[moiso]

I hope neither will be back but probably both will be re-signed and at numbers nowhere near where the OP is suggesting. I think the C's will probably bring both back on two year deals at a combined $5-$5.5 million per year.

Why wouldn't you want them back? Have you been watching the D TA has been playing in the playoffs? He has frustrated both Lebron and Kobe.

And Nate is instant energy/offense off the bench. You can tell he loves being on a winning team and has already helped win 2 games in the playoffs (game 6 against orl + game 4 vs LAL)

I don't like them and I don't like their games. I think the C's could improve the team with better players but, unfortunately, those better players will probably mean not using the MLE in other areas and it would make more sense to re-sign these guys not using the MLE and then using the MLE to sure up the back up spots at the SF and PF positions.

This is where I come down.

Both TA and Nate are flawed players.  In fact, they're both *very* flawed players, and on certain nights, they cost a team wins.

There are better players available than each of them in free agency, and in an ideal world, I'd prefer to see us sign those players.  However, we can't really afford to sign a new PG, a new SG, and still find an athletic SF for our bench.

That means the team has to prioritize.  I can live with both Nate and Tony -- they're competent players who will be net positives -- if it means we can upgrade at backup SF.

By the way, my opinion of Nate and Tony overall doesn't mean I don't respect the heck out of the job they're both currently doing, in terms of giving the team a lift.

In his current role, I really don't think Nate is flawed.  His defense has been great, his playmaking and passing have been much improved, and he's always been instant offense.  I'm not sure what else we could expect from a backup point guard.

[Ed Teach]

At this point I hope both. 
TA has shown more than I expected going into the season.  After last year I was ready to trade him for a bag of pratice balls, but he has shown to be a good rotation player for this team.  He has his flaws but as far as value and ability to sign within the salary cap he is a great fit.  I don't ever expect TA to be a great offensive player, but if he could improve his mid-range game some in the off-season he could keep the defense from cheating so blatently when he is on the court.

Nate also could fill the back up PG gap that this team has been trying to fill since 2008.  I was unsure how he would accept his role, but watching him through out this playoff run I don't think he will be a locker room problem.  He seems to have the same kind of attitude that BBD takes.  I am not sure what happened in New York, but it doesn't seem to match with what I am seeing from Nate in Boston.

I also agree that the MLE needs to be used elsewhere to improve this team.  My biggest concerns are that Sheed may drop off in production and that we still haven't found a wing to reduce Pierce's min during the regular season.

[Drucci]

I hope both players are resigned, I think it's realistic to expect it.

But if had to choose I would choose Nate because he can shoot, plays good D, and doesn't have a history of injuries.

[Mr October]

Yeah, you've gotta try to keep both - but only at a movable price tag. If the C's ever want to make a big free agent splash, their going to have to clear space.

At this point I wouldn't go above $3 mil per for each guy.

[Roy Hobbs]

I hope neither will be back but probably both will be re-signed and at numbers nowhere near where the OP is suggesting. I think the C's will probably bring both back on two year deals at a combined $5-$5.5 million per year.

Why wouldn't you want them back? Have you been watching the D TA has been playing in the playoffs? He has frustrated both Lebron and Kobe.

And Nate is instant energy/offense off the bench. You can tell he loves being on a winning team and has already helped win 2 games in the playoffs (game 6 against orl + game 4 vs LAL)

I don't like them and I don't like their games. I think the C's could improve the team with better players but, unfortunately, those better players will probably mean not using the MLE in other areas and it would make more sense to re-sign these guys not using the MLE and then using the MLE to sure up the back up spots at the SF and PF positions.

This is where I come down.

Both TA and Nate are flawed players.  In fact, they're both *very* flawed players, and on certain nights, they cost a team wins.

There are better players available than each of them in free agency, and in an ideal world, I'd prefer to see us sign those players.  However, we can't really afford to sign a new PG, a new SG, and still find an athletic SF for our bench.

That means the team has to prioritize.  I can live with both Nate and Tony -- they're competent players who will be net positives -- if it means we can upgrade at backup SF.

By the way, my opinion of Nate and Tony overall doesn't mean I don't respect the heck out of the job they're both currently doing, in terms of giving the team a lift.

In his current role, I really don't think Nate is flawed.  His defense has been great, his playmaking and passing have been much improved, and he's always been instant offense.  I'm not sure what else we could expect from a backup point guard.

Here are Nate's major flaws:

1.  He's a liability on defense, even when he's trying hard (which has been an issue with him, as well).  The Lakers don't have the point guards to really abuse him via post-ups, etc., but other teams can.

2.  He's not a distributor.  In Game 6 against Orlando he made some decent passes, but otherwise, he hasn't been much of a creator for his teammates.

3.  He doesn't get the team into its offense consistently, and often puts up bad shots.  Sometimes these bad shots go in, but often times they don't, which hurts our transition defense.

So, those are the flaws.  The positives are that he's a very talented scorer and shooter, he knows how to push the ball, and he brings noticeable energy.

[shookones99]

3.  He doesn't get the team into its offense consistently, and often puts up bad shots.  Sometimes these bad shots go in, but often times they don't, which hurts our transition defense.

But isn't that why his current role is perfect for him?   When the shots aren't falling, he can get yanked.  And when they are, we're generally outscoring our opponent.

I don't think you will find many bench players that don't have some sort of flaw.  If he were a starter somewhere, or a more relied-upon role player, then that flaw would be a much bigger issue.

[moiso]

We won a title with House, and Nate is a huge upgrade with far fewer flaws.

[Roy Hobbs]

3.  He doesn't get the team into its offense consistently, and often puts up bad shots.  Sometimes these bad shots go in, but often times they don't, which hurts our transition defense.

But isn't that why his current role is perfect for him?   When the shots aren't falling, he can get yanked.  And when they are, we're generally outscoring our opponent.

I don't think you will find many bench players that don't have some sort of flaw.  If he were a starter somewhere, or a more relied-upon role player, then that flaw would be a much bigger issue.

I didn't argue that bench players should be flawless.  I simply said that both Tony and Nate have flaws that sometimes cost us games, and that there are bench players available in free agency who are better than both.  However, I advocated bringing both back, because overall they've been net positives.

I don't think anybody can really argue with any of that (including Doc, which is why Nate didn't see much playing time).  Nate Robinson is a very hit-or-miss player.  I'd personally rather have a guy like Steve Blake, but if the difference between Blake and Robinson means that we have to give up on a SF, then I'm fine with Nate coming back.

[Ed Teach]

With the elvation of Rondo to superstar this season and Rondo's durability/ youth means that he can be expected to play more min than KG, Sheed, Pierce, or Ray should be playing during the regular season next year.  Therefore back up PG is not the most critical need for the off-season.  If Nate can be signed early the Celtics can focus on the critcal needs like insuring Pierce and KG do not have to play heavy min during the Reg season.

[SCBirdman]

My off season plan would be to resign both TA and Nate. I would use the MLE to sign Travis Outlaw or Mike Miller.

I would then use my top pick to draft either Daniel Orton, Solomon Alabi, or Hassan Whiteside if he falls to us at 19.

We have our first legit backup PG in Nate, we keep our lock down defender in an athletic and improving Tony Allen, we add length and shooting to our wing position in Outlaw or Miller, and we get a young big at 19. 

BBD is back, and I would re-sign Shelden Williams for the Minimum. I really like him and he played well until BBD returned. I think he is a reliable and intelligent 5th big.

[nickagneta]

If we win the title, which I think is a given, I would have no problem whatsoever with Danny starting the transition of this team from a Big Three team to a team of the future. What that would entail is keeping the core here for a run again next year but sacrificing bench depth for positions of youth and the development of that youth.

So first off, I would buy a second 1st round pick.

Second, I would trade up in the second round of the draft.

Third, I would draft a SF(Damion James, Quincy Pondexter) that I would put right behind Pierce and stick with him as a backup with the first 1st rounder.

Fourth, I would draft a SG(James Anderson or Avery Bradley, Jordan Crawford or Lance Stephenson) with big upside that could be brought along slower with the second 1st rounder.

Fifth, I would draft a big with potential(Craig Brackins or Dexter Pittman) in the second round and make him the sixth big, third center and bring him along slowly as well.

Sixth, I would not sign one free  agent until after seeing what Wade and Lebron sign for. If they sign max deals for max years, I would limit bringing back our free agents to two year deals. If any of them sign three year deals, I would think about giving certain players three year deals and position the team to be able to pursue Ware or LeBron in 2013.

Seventh, I would re-sign Ray and Nate and let Tony go. 2 or 3 year deals depending on what the big free agents of 2010 do.

Eighth, I would try to sign Ronnie Brewer(3 years/$9 million or 4 years/$12 million) as the defensive wing to pair in the backcourt with Nate and hope Memphis doesn't match and then with what is left of the MLE I would try to secure Travis Outlaw, if there is enough left. If not, Louis Amundson.

[Marqui]

My off season plan would be to resign both TA and Nate. I would use the MLE to sign Travis Outlaw or Mike Miller.

I would then use my top pick to draft either Daniel Orton, Solomon Alabi, or Hassan Whiteside if he falls to us at 19.

We have our first legit backup PG in Nate, we keep our lock down defender in an athletic and improving Tony Allen, we add length and shooting to our wing position in Outlaw or Miller, and we get a young big at 19. 

BBD is back, and I would re-sign Shelden Williams for the Minimum. I really like him and he played well until BBD returned. I think he is a reliable and intelligent 5th big.

I 100% agree with all of this.

[jdub1660]

Definitely think both will be resigned. Ray will take a pay cut, Pierce will opt out and resign for longer contract with a cut, and we will use the MLE again for a big man or wing. At the same time, I think we need to use Marquis as a sign/trade option for us to bring in another piece for us. Maybe it could be a disgruntled player like Rudy Fernandez

Rondo - Nate
Ray - Rudy
Pierce - Tony/Outlaw
KG - BBD - 1st round pick
Perk - Sheed - 2nd round pick