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

[jambr380]

I guess in answering the original question, I think Tony has a better chance at being re-signed than Nate, just based on the financial status of both. I mean Nate could fall into the same trap Baby did last year, where everyone thought he would get more money and Danny just waited. But he really seemed to be able to turn his image around and if he wants 4+ mill, Danny will probably pass and I really don't think that is a ridiculous number for him.

Tony, on the other hand, is a very specialized player in the Celtics system. Another GM would be taking a big risk bringing him in. I really don't see more than 2.5 mill for Tony.

[Witch-King]

I wouldn't mind it if we kept both of them but obviously that isn't my decision to make. As far as who I prefer, leaning towards Nate because of his energy and the fact that Rondo needs a true back up in his position, thought Tony Allen has been with us longer and was there when we won it all in 2008. It will be interesting to see what becomes of our bench this off-season, to say the least...

[tenn_smoothie]

how in the world do you see either of these guys as $4-5 million players ?

i appreciate them both and want them to stay with the Celts - i'm happy that tony allen is being effective and is getting some recognition for all the tough times he's been thru ........ also happy for nate robinson who seems to be flourishing in this enviornment of playing for a winner and having veterans around to keep him pointed in the right direction.

but i don't see anyone paying either of them that kind of money.

[tenn_smoothie]

one other thing related to this topic .........

i'm a long-time fan, but not being in a pro city or whatever .......... i am still figuring out the nba salary rules.

so my question - even though we signed Wallace using the MLE to a 3-year contract, what i am hearing is that that money is available for a new free agent addition every season ??

so despite being over the salary cap, we can keep adding a new MLE free agent ever season ?

given that the MLE is approx. a $5 mill+ per season salary, which equates to a pretty good player, we can just keep adding a new guy every year as long as we are willing to spend the money ? how does it impact our salary cap ?

one other item for next season - i think a great draft pick for the Celts could be wayne chism, 6-9 senior power forward from tennessee. i think he would still be available when we draft ........... very good kid, strong, very good inside scorer and can shoot the three well, also a very good rebounder and defender, had some huge rebounding nights for the vols at times. could provide some help right away - i think. never know how someone's talents will translate to the pro game, but i'm sure chism would be a much better player right now than sheldon williams (and i like williams but he's looked in over his head in the playoffs). for that matter, chism might be an improvement over regular-season Sheed, tho he of course couldn't produce what Sheed has brought in these playoffs.

[incoherent]

The more I see of this series, the worse Tony is looking, as the Lakers have completely figured out what to do when he is in the game: Leave him open 15-20 feet from the basket, and have his man play help defense on everybody else.

It's well known that TA simply can't shoot.  If I was a coach, I would gladly take his man and play 5 on 4 defensively and let him take open jumpers 20 times a game, as he hasn't done anything to show me he can hit them.  For a guard, he has no range whatsoever.

The Lakers specifically benefit from this when Gasol and Bynum are on the court together.  It takes the one thing he is decent at (slashing to the basket) and completely neutralizes it.  Since he can't handle the ball and can't shoot, they've made him effectively useless on offense.

In rare cases like the one you've stated Tony is somewhat ineffective on offense in the half court set.

That being said when Tony is in the game he creates a lot of turnovers that lead to fast break where he thrives and this has been displayed throughout the playoffs.

I think the call between Tony and Nate is very close but Tony can guard Lebron and Kobe as well as anyone and that's too rare to give up.

[wiley]

Maybe I am missing something here or just do not know the NBA as well as some of you other experts but to me this is a no brainer. It's Tony Allen. People seem to think it would be so easy to replace a lock down defender that has slowed down and given fits to some of the best offensive players in the league. Really?? The NBA is full of scorers but not defenders like T A. Would you want to see him coming off the Laker's bench to guard Pierce or Ray Allen?? How do you think that would work out for us?? Not well. Defensive players the quality of Allen are the premium in this league. Scorers are a dime a dozen. Just my two cents.

Completely agree....people are underrating defense when they cast off Tony.  Also underrating steals.  Tony is a major disruptor.  Even those who argue his defense is overrated, cannot claim he doesn't disprupt the other team and get steals at a clip second only to Rondo in the entire league, I believe....I realize he has no outside shot, but how many shots from the outside has he taken in the playoffs....I can live with a few misses......He's very Rondo-like in that manner, a complete freak of a player who can get it done in other ways....He and Nate together in the backcourt is a very nice option of the bench imo.  Both energy guys, one who shoots and one who steals, defends and drives.....I've never wanted Tony as the backup PG, so Nate solves that.....

Nate's minutes though....that's what worries me....So, despite the defensive liabilty of Nate at the 2, isn't there a way to get him minutes there?  What if we got ahold of some athletic shot blocking big men at some point....can you play Nate at the 2 when you've got some vacuum cleaners down low to back him up?   Or is it more about sharpshooting SG's shooting over him?  I would tend not to worry about this too much, or find a way to make it possible....make sure when he's at the 2 that he's playing alongside some good to great defenders....We played Eddie at the 2 plenty of times....surely Nate's athleticism can at least negate some of the height disadvantage.....?

I still think if you have to choose, however, you bring back Tony and sign a vet backup PG for  low minutes....(if Tony were going to be more expensive than Nate I might reverse it...but for now Nate's seen as higher priced...)

[Rondo_is_better]

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.

:S 

[nickagneta]

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.

:S 

Was there something I said that is hard to understand?

[Rondo_is_better]

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.

:S 

Was there something I said that is hard to understand?

I just totally don't understand why you don't want them back?? Who are we gonna get that's better?

[Yakmanev]

I'd like to resign both. Tony Allen's defense has been very well and he has handled some tough assignments very satisfactory.

Nate with a training camp and a full season could be a very valuable asset in next years run.

General rule is keep what you got till something better comes along. For the money we have to spend and what they have contributed I don't see anything better coming along.

[nickagneta]

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.

:S 

Was there something I said that is hard to understand?

I just totally don't understand why you don't want them back?? Who are we gonna get that's better?

There are dozens of players that are available and better than these two. But at what price?

They have played admirably in these playoffs and I thank them for that. But that doesn't mean that replacing them with better players would not be out of the realm of possibility.

I would like Luke Ridnour, Steve Blake, Earl Watson, C.J. Watson, Raymond Felton, Rafer Alston and Chris Duhon more than I would Nate Robinson for this team over the next two years. And I would rather have Mike Miller, Randy Foye, Wes Matthews, Roger Mason, Matt Barnes, J.J. Redick, John Salmons, Dorrell Wright, Ronnie Brewer, Rudy Gay, Rasual Butler, Anthony Morrow or Larry Hughes rather than Tony Allen.

But the financial ramifications of things probably means we will be stuck with re-signing one and/or both of these guys and I don't like that. I think either can lose a game, any game, for you just as easily as they can win a game for you because so much of their game deals in emotion rather than intelligence.

[Brendan]

Nick,

I think you are conflating available - as in not under contract, with attainable. The question is are those guys attainable? I mean LBJ is available - he'd be a great starting small forward, and let us move Pierce to the bench to back up the 2 and 3. What do you mean LeBron won't sign for the MLE? /sarcasm

I mean Salmons (for example) was the best scorer on a pretty good MIL team... what are the chances the C's could get him as a backup player to replace Tony? Meaning with the MLE or by trading bit players? Probably zero.

I don't think either guy is a great fit with the current starting 5, primarily because neither can play next to Rondo without exposing the C's to a pretty big tactical advantage. Tony and Rondo really lets the defense sag and cause problems. Nate and Rondo really cause a size mismatch. However Tony also lacks the size I'd like to see in the backup wing so Pierce can take the easier defensive assignment when he's in the game. Right now there are a decent number of bigger wings in the game that are bad matchups for TA (Wade and Kobe - good, Lebron and Melo - bad.)

That being said Nate is also insurance for losing Rondo - something we haven't been able to find in many years. I'd be fine going into the season with Daniels and an MLE signing or draft pick as the backup wings, plus Nate behind Rondo.

[nickagneta]

I'm not confusing anything. I know who is attainable and who is available. But the question asked was who could we get that was better than Tony and Nate? I never said that the players were both attainable or that only one was attainable or that even any of them were likely to be attained. Just that I felt they were better and that we could get them, even if it was extremely unlikely.

Honestly, as I later followed up with, I think the team would be better off keeping Nate and trying to replace Tony and draft young players to fill backup SF, SG and big positions. Also, I think Nate makes better trade bait than Tony does as well.

[Yakmanev]

I'm not confusing anything. I know who is attainable and who is available. But the question asked was who could we get that was better than Tony and Nate? I never said that the players were both attainable or that only was attainable or even likely to be attained. Just that I felt they were better and that we could get them.

Honestly, as I later followed up with, I think the team would be better off keeping Nate and trying to replace Tony and draft young players to fill backup SF, SG and big positions. Also, I think Nate makes better trade bait than Tony does as well.

Isn't saying we could get them the same as saying they are attainable?

[nickagneta]

I'm not confusing anything. I know who is attainable and who is available. But the question asked was who could we get that was better than Tony and Nate? I never said that the players were both attainable or that only was attainable or even likely to be attained. Just that I felt they were better and that we could get them.

Honestly, as I later followed up with, I think the team would be better off keeping Nate and trying to replace Tony and draft young players to fill backup SF, SG and big positions. Also, I think Nate makes better trade bait than Tony does as well.

Isn't saying we could get them the same as saying they are attainable?

I edited it. I guess my thoughts went faster than my typing.