trade nate?

[bucknersrevenge]

Well, first do we have to wait until mid-December since we just re-signed him?  Or does the fact that he's our own player mitigate that?

Second, I wouldn't do anything quite yet.  Nate might be the second most reliable player on the bench given Daniel's injury history, West's head, Wafer's generally unproven game, and Shaq's age.  If West, Wafer, and Daniels all prove to be great, then we can think about trading him.  But then again, if all three of those guys prove themselves, do we really need to? 

For the first time, given the team's age and the strength of the bench, I think we can have a full second unit.  I don't see any reason why we can play Nate at the 1 and West at the 2. 

Jon the last part here I totally agree with. I've been saying this same thing for a while now. Play these two together! Nate at one Delonte at two. To me this would help to balloon leads out of reach while also giving much needed rest to our core starters. These two are perfect to play together because they are both scrappy on D and are equally capable of hitting big shots. They both have great experience and a never back down mentality. This combo has blowout written all over it to me.

co-sign

I'm wary of Delonte because he's an UZI away from the nuthouse but if he can get his head on straight I actually like the pairing in short minutes as both are combo guards capable of making plays in the fullcourt or in the half as well. They can run the pick n roll pretty effectively and get the ball into Shaq. And they will at least hustle out there defensively so there's some reason to think this group(add in Daniels) can work together pretty well handling the offense off the bench for 15-20mpg.  I think Nate and Delonte actually complement each other's game pretty well.

[CelticHooligan3]

My opinion is that Nate has good trade value because he is good player. People don't forget how much he was scoring in New York and how good minutes he played in the playoff. But let's not guest how big his trade value is is he is on the trade block we will know. there are teams who will want him

I don't forget how well he played for the Knicks or his playoff contributions. But my question is why are we gonna get on the bandwagon to trade him when as you just stated he showed potential and promise last year. The reason his stock was so down last year and probably still is was due to his run ins with teammates and coaches. Here he doesn't have those issues cause quite frankly who's gonna listen or take his side if a battle were to arise? I think the big three and the coaching staff put him in his place and role as soon as he got here. And I think he needs older mentor types honestly. So I see this as the ideal place and situation for him. Why get rid of him? Avery most likely isn't getting many mins. Wafer is a huge question mark who knows if he even plays any one. Delonte tho I love the kid and his play seems to be a ticking time bomb. I mean no disrespect by that phrase either. So why do we trade him for pennies on the dollar when he hasn't even gotten a real chance yet either.  

[Chris]

I think the Delonte signing, along with the possibility that Bradley could surprise people absolutely opens the door to Nate being a possible trade chip midseason to fill a hole.  The simple fact that he is one of the few guys with a mid-range contract makes him a valuable piece to match salaries with.  But at this point, I think it is too early to speculate too much, before we see how the position battles, and injuries play themselves out.

But I would put Nate in that same group with Davis, Daniels, and even Perk, of guys who could be used at the deadline, in order to match salaries to bring in someone who better balances the roster.

[xmuscularghandix]

Why does everyone think that having extra players is bad, it’s ok to have a stock pile at one position. It’s called depth and we’re going to need it.

[Chris]

Why does everyone think that having extra players is bad, it’s ok to have a stock pile at one position. It’s called depth and we’re going to need it.

Absolutely.  But later in the season, when the position battles start playing themselves out, and you find that you have a surplus of depth at one position, and a need at another position, that is when you would look at making a trade that balances things out a little better.  And that is the possibility Nate brings.

[BballTim]

My opinion is that Nate has good trade value because he is good player. People don't forget how much he was scoring in New York and how good minutes he played in the playoff. But let's not guest how big his trade value is is he is on the trade block we will know. there are teams who will want him

I don't forget how well he played for the Knicks or his playoff contributions. But my question is why are we gonna get on the bandwagon to trade him when as you just stated he showed potential and promise last year.

  The thing is, even if Nate plays well for us, he's a 8-10 minute a game guy in the playoffs. a somewhat equal player at sf could make a bigger contribution because he could end up playing more minutes.

[CelticHooligan3]

My opinion is that Nate has good trade value because he is good player. People don't forget how much he was scoring in New York and how good minutes he played in the playoff. But let's not guest how big his trade value is is he is on the trade block we will know. there are teams who will want him

I don't forget how well he played for the Knicks or his playoff contributions. But my question is why are we gonna get on the bandwagon to trade him when as you just stated he
showed potential and promise last year.

  The thing is, even if Nate plays well for us, he's a 8-10 minute a game guy in the playoffs. a somewhat equal player at sf could make a bigger contribution because he could end up playing more minutes.

I don't deny this altho I certainly do see his minutes in the playoffs increasing from last year. But your
right about the point with an equal small forward making a bigger impact because it's more of a hole we
 need to address and for that reason alone it could garner more
minutes. But I think your missing my point. I'm not saying hang onto Nate by any
 means neccasary. To the contrary I certainly beleive you'd
have to pull the trigger on a trade of his if it brought back an equal value at our sf spot. Because we desperatley need  one.
But I just say give the kid a chance here before you go calling for a trade that brings a scrub/subgrade sf just because that's a hole we need to address. Look into other possiblities first. But if a deal comes along you can't deny then pull the trigger. To me Jared Dudley would not be that deal. Just my own opinion based on what I've seen Nate bring to the table as opposed to what I've seen of Jared Dudley.

[ThaPreacher]

Why would we want to trade a guy who's so much better than Rondo?   


Nate is definitely expendable and I'm sure Danny will look into trading him over the course of the season.  Just depends what's out there.

Rondo +  Big Baby  + Perkins   for Carmelo Anthony   ??

[KCattheStripe]

Why would we want to trade a guy who's so much better than Rondo?   


Nate is definitely expendable and I'm sure Danny will look into trading him over the course of the season.  Just depends what's out there.

Rondo +  Big Baby  + Perkins   for Carmelo Anthony   ??

Overpay.

[Ebenezer]

Wednesday's game against the Jazz (5pm) is a MUST WIN, in the same sense
that LA was a must win. With the recent losses to both LA and Chicago,
Wednesday's game is even more important.

A common sentiment in Seattle (although wisely, not too much in this NG)
is that the regular season doesn't mean anything. While this is true in
terms of overall record (see Houston Rockets, NBA champs as 6th seed), you
MUST show the ability to beat good teams.

People like to say that the Sonics will just "turn it on" come playoff
time. There is only so much to this theory--how can a team expect to beat
top-notch teams in the playoffs when they can't beat them during the
season? Surely the Sonics confidence cannot be that high. If they lose to
Utah, what could they possibly think other than "we can't be good teams"?
One or two games, you can chalk that up to a couple of bad games. 0-8, not
so much. There is no reasonable excuse for that.

If the playoffs started today, the Sonics would have Minnesota in the
first round. Minnesota is a good, young, up and coming team, similar to
Denver in 1993-94, or LA in 1994-95. Anything can happen in a five game
series. Assuming they beat Minnesota (I think they should), they'd have LA
(or Sacramento, not likely) in the second round. Just doesn't look good.

The biggest problem right now is poor shooting--something that CAN
improve. They shot 35% against Chicago, and haven't shot 50% in 7 games.
Perhaps the All-Star break will help.

by (Jason )

[snively]

My opinion is that Nate has good trade value because he is good player. People don't forget how much he was scoring in New York and how good minutes he played in the playoff. But let's not guest how big his trade value is is he is on the trade block we will know. there are teams who will want him

I don't forget how well he played for the Knicks or his playoff contributions. But my question is why are we gonna get on the bandwagon to trade him when as you just stated he showed potential and promise last year.

  The thing is, even if Nate plays well for us, he's a 8-10 minute a game guy in the playoffs. a somewhat equal player at sf could make a bigger contribution because he could end up playing more minutes.

And unlike West and Bradley, Nate can't play with Rondo, which will hurt him when Doc starts to cut down his rotation for the playoffs. 

My hope is for Danny to trade Nate and an asset or two for JR Smith.  Smith brings Nate's game in a more appropriately sized NBA body. 

[MBz]

If we could trade Nate for Jared Dudley I would absolutely pull the trigger, but the suns wouldn't make that move.  Dudley would be a great fit for this team.  He can play defense, he's a good outside shooter and he would be a better fit to back Pierce up then Marquis Daniels.  Pheonix would never make this trade though.  Dragic is a better back up point then Nate is.  The suns also just signed Dudley to an extension.

[kg is king]

Sure why don't we trade away any player that is slumping? Heck, trade Ray after he has an ice-cold game? Why is everyone failing to realize when Delonte comes back Nate can slide to the two and we would have the best back-up backcourt in the league? Marquis is doing a decent job spelling Pierce, we're fine the way we are now. Give Nate a few more games and he'll snap out of it.

My prediction is that Nate will have a good game tonight.

[KungPoweChicken]

I'd be willing to trade Nate, along with anyone else not named Rondo, Pierce, Allen, and Garnett, for Tayshaun Prince. Nate for a small forward, who may not be a difference maker, doesn't interest me much.


Robinson and Perkins for Tayshaun Prince would be a title for the Celtics.

However, if we just trade Nate for a mediocre player, I'd be indifferent about it.

[FatjohnReturns]

Sure why not. I would offer Denver Nate and Baby for Carmelo.
If Baby keeps up his stellar play will he command close to 10mil per season? If Melo was getting 15mil per could that work?
I dont think Denver has been offered anything better so far?