Welcome Back Nate!

[MBunge]

I agree.  However, I don't see backup PG as an especially "key" role on this team.  We got by with Eddie House for two years, who essentially was a shooting guard who just happened to guard the opposition's point guard. 

It's not that PG is necessarily key, it's the need for more offensive firepower coming off the bench.  Nate has the tools to get his own offense and score 10-15 points in a quarter, 20+ for a game.  I actually think this team needs that more at this point than TA's defensive prowess.

Mike

[nickagneta]

Nate is a better player than Chris Duhon, who got 4 years, $15 million from Orlando.  I'm not sure if he's better than Kyle Lowry, who got 4 years, $24 million, but Lowry is probably better suited to starting than Robinson.  I'd say Robinson is a better talent who deserves more money than Big Baby on the bench.  I think the negotiations probably centered around two vs three years.

The point in drafting Avery Bradley is to get a potential SG of the future.  Why do people keep assuming that most of Bradley's potential value is backing up Rondo?

People assume his position is backing up Rondo because the kid is a PG. When Rick Barnes recruited him to Texas he already had two PGs in place so he moved him to shooting guard. But Bradley has played PG his whole life except last year at Texas. This is very similar to Russell Westbrook's situation at UCLA where he played SG alongside Jrue Holiday, I believe. Westbrook was switched back to his natural PG position once he hit OKC.

You do bring up an excellent point about why Robinson got the money per year he did. Lowry, Duhon and Ridnour set the market for backup PGs so Nate got market money. I personally don't think he's worth that much but, whatever. I kind of thought either Nate or Tony would be back but not both. I guess I prefer Nate out of the two of them.

As I said on the front page, there are a bunch of teams that are in desperate need for a good PG. Teams like Miami, Sacramento, Indiana, Charlotte, Atlanta, Portland and the like and it would not surprise me that if Bradley shows some immediate game to see Nate gone before the trade deadline.

[Mike-Dub]

Nate is a better player than Chris Duhon, who got 4 years, $15 million from Orlando.  I'm not sure if he's better than Kyle Lowry, who got 4 years, $24 million, but Lowry is probably better suited to starting than Robinson.  I'd say Robinson is a better talent who deserves more money than Big Baby on the bench.  I think the negotiations probably centered around two vs three years.

The point in drafting Avery Bradley is to get a potential SG of the future.  Why do people keep assuming that most of Bradley's potential value is backing up Rondo?

This is very similar to Russell Westbrook's situation at UCLA where he played SG alongside Jrue Holiday, I believe. Westbrook was switched back to his natural PG position once he hit OKC.

Westbrook played alongside Deron Collison, but over wise you are right.

[Mike-Dub]

Nate is a better player than Chris Duhon, who got 4 years, $15 million from Orlando.  I'm not sure if he's better than Kyle Lowry, who got 4 years, $24 million, but Lowry is probably better suited to starting than Robinson.  I'd say Robinson is a better talent who deserves more money than Big Baby on the bench.  I think the negotiations probably centered around two vs three years.

The point in drafting Avery Bradley is to get a potential SG of the future.  Why do people keep assuming that most of Bradley's potential value is backing up Rondo?

You do bring up an excellent point about why Robinson got the money per year he did. Lowry, Duhon and Ridnour set the market for backup PGs so Nate got market money.

With how much teams are paying for PG's, the Lakers getting Steve Blake for 4 years 16 mill is a steal in price terms.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'd be curious to know if the timing of this signing was in any way related to the Ronnie Brewer decision.  If Brewer signs with the Celts, do they pass on Nate, going with Bradley as the backup point?

[Mr October]

I'd be curious to know if the timing of this signing was in any way related to the Ronnie Brewer decision.  If Brewer signs with the Celts, do they pass on Nate, going with Bradley as the backup point?

I think you still sign Nate. He's now proven as backup PG on this team. He brings speed, handle, passing, range, mig range, penetration, pesky defense, energy, and is cool with playing 12 minutes per game for the sake of a title run.

[nickagneta]

I'd be curious to know if the timing of this signing was in any way related to the Ronnie Brewer decision.  If Brewer signs with the Celts, do they pass on Nate, going with Bradley as the backup point?

I think you still sign Nate. He's now proven as backup PG on this team. He brings speed, handle, passing, range, mig range, penetration, pesky defense, energy, and is cool with playing 12 minutes per game for the sake of a title run.

Call me a Debbie Downer in the Welcome Back Nate thread but I don't think he has proven a thing. He had a couple of good games in the playoffs but overall, I have yet to see him consistently show he can be a playmaker for this team of the bench, run an offense and when he has to play with the starters be the guy that sets them up and gets them the ball where they need it to be most effective.

I think he could be in for a major push from Avery Bradley at the backup PG position, especially if Bradley shows an even decent shot because I think Bradley will show that he is CLEARLY the superior defender at the point. And if Bradley shows  that shot and an ability to grasp the offense and defense, his size and length at the backup point guard position is going to mean a lot to the Celtics.

Personally, I don't see him finishing the year here.

[Mr October]

I'd be curious to know if the timing of this signing was in any way related to the Ronnie Brewer decision.  If Brewer signs with the Celts, do they pass on Nate, going with Bradley as the backup point?

I think you still sign Nate. He's now proven as backup PG on this team. He brings speed, handle, passing, range, mig range, penetration, pesky defense, energy, and is cool with playing 12 minutes per game for the sake of a title run.

Call me a Debbie Downer in the Welcome Back Nate thread but I don't think he has proven a thing. He had a couple of good games in the playoffs but overall, I have yet to see him consistently show he can be a playmaker for this team of the bench, run an offense and when he has to play with the starters be the guy that sets them up and gets them the ball where they need it to be most effective.

I think he could be in for a major push from Avery Bradley at the backup PG position, especially if Bradley shows an even decent shot because I think Bradley will show that he is CLEARLY the superior defender at the point. And if Bradley shows  that shot and an ability to grasp the offense and defense, his size and length at the backup point guard position is going to mean a lot to the Celtics.

Personally, I don't see him finishing the year here.

Compared to other starters in the NBA, Nate is definitely below average. However compared to other bench PG's, how many out there are better than him?

[nickagneta]

Back up PGs I would want on the Celtics before Nate Robinson

Darren Collison
George Hill
Steve Blake
Luke Ridnour
Kirk Hinrich
Goran Dragic
Kyle Lowry
Rodrique Beaubois
Ty Lawson
Jose Calderon
Will Bynum

That's 11 guys. So to me, he's kind of a middle of the road back up PG. But then again, I guess it all depends in what you are looking for at the position. All the guys above I think would be much better back up PGs for this team for a variety of reasons.

[Jon]

I agree.  However, I don't see backup PG as an especially "key" role on this team.  We got by with Eddie House for two years, who essentially was a shooting guard who just happened to guard the opposition's point guard. 

It's not that PG is necessarily key, it's the need for more offensive firepower coming off the bench.  Nate has the tools to get his own offense and score 10-15 points in a quarter, 20+ for a game.  I actually think this team needs that more at this point than TA's defensive prowess.

Mike

I agree.  He's certainly capable of doing that.  However, can he do that when Rondo is going to play 36+ during the regular season and 40+ during the playoffs? 

And while I think we can play him with Rondo during the regular season, it becomes much harder to do that when we're matched up with teams like the Lakers and Heat where we'll need legitimate wings to guard their superstars. 

As I've said before, I think this is a net gain for the team.  I like Nate.  I was in favor of the trade that brought him here and still am.  I just don't know who was even going to offer him half of what Danny gave him.  But that's Wyc's problem, not mine. 

[Mr October]

Back up PGs I would want on the Celtics before Nate Robinson

Darren Collison
George Hill
Steve Blake
Luke Ridnour
Kirk Hinrich
Goran Dragic
Kyle Lowry
Rodrique Beaubois
Ty Lawson
Jose Calderon
Will Bynum

That's 11 guys. So to me, he's kind of a middle of the road back up PG. But then again, I guess it all depends in what you are looking for at the position. All the guys above I think would be much better back up PGs for this team for a variety of reasons.

And then you ask, how many of those guys are actually available for the Celtics? Then the retention of Nate looks quite good.

I pretty much agree with you though. Nate is a stop gap while Bradley develops.

[GreenEnvy]

Like i already posted I love the signing.

But Im interested to see how many people on here would have rather had Tony at 2 years 4.5 mil a year over Nate...? If anybody at all.

Depending what we do with Rasheed's contract, I may want Nate over TA for $4.5 million. If we get a better backup wing, it's the right move.

But of course it doesn't matter because money wasn't the issue with TA, [sarcasm] he is looking to do it big in Memphis [/sarcasm]

[nickagneta]

Back up PGs I would want on the Celtics before Nate Robinson

Darren Collison
George Hill
Steve Blake
Luke Ridnour
Kirk Hinrich
Goran Dragic
Kyle Lowry
Rodrique Beaubois
Ty Lawson
Jose Calderon
Will Bynum

That's 11 guys. So to me, he's kind of a middle of the road back up PG. But then again, I guess it all depends in what you are looking for at the position. All the guys above I think would be much better back up PGs for this team for a variety of reasons.

And then you ask, how many of those guys are actually available for the Celtics? Then the retention of Nate looks quite good.

I pretty much agree with you though. Nate is a stop gap while Bradley develops.

Well, you asked who was better than Nate was, not who could the Celtics get.

But Nate got paid what the market is paying for a good backup PG. Personally, when a team has a star PG, I would rather save money at the backup PG position and spend it elsewhere and give the back up role to a young developing PG or a low cost vet. I think when you have a middle of the road, okay starting PG, it's smarter to spend the type of money the C's did on Nate for a backup PG then. That way you have a consistency at the position.

The C's didn't really have a choice though regarding spending the money for Nate elsewhere because of the way free agency went so the C's did what they did.

[CelticHooligan3]

Mates gonna open some eyes this year. Mark my words. And I think he might change your mind a lil bit Nick. Or at least knock a few guys off that list of yours Nick. Simply put the guy is dynamite. And were gonna need his offense next year. I'm very excited to have him back. With a full training camp under his belt I expect much bigger things. And I'm not being nieve. I truly feel this kid will deliver. So here's to you Nate! Salude! Welcome back Donkey!

[Bankshot]

Back up PGs I would want on the Celtics before Nate Robinson

Darren Collison
George Hill
Steve Blake
Luke Ridnour
Kirk Hinrich
Goran Dragic
Kyle Lowry
Rodrique Beaubois
Ty Lawson
Jose Calderon
Will Bynum

That's 11 guys. So to me, he's kind of a middle of the road back up PG. But then again, I guess it all depends in what you are looking for at the position. All the guys above I think would be much better back up PGs for this team for a variety of reasons.

And then you ask, how many of those guys are actually available for the Celtics? Then the retention of Nate looks quite good.

I pretty much agree with you though. Nate is a stop gap while Bradley develops.

Well, you asked who was better than Nate was, not who could the Celtics get.

But Nate got paid what the market is paying for a good backup PG. Personally, when a team has a star PG, I would rather save money at the backup PG position and spend it elsewhere and give the back up role to a young developing PG or a low cost vet. I think when you have a middle of the road, okay starting PG, it's smarter to spend the type of money the C's did on Nate for a backup PG then. That way you have a consistency at the position.

The C's didn't really have a choice though regarding spending the money for Nate elsewhere because of the way free agency went so the C's did what they did.

Nate's not just a backup point guard, he's going to be relied upon to score.  He's a scorer and what we paid him is cheap for a scorer.