# Nate Robinson



## TheTruth34 (Jul 22, 2006)

Anyone know if theres going to be an attempt to resign Nate?
He played great in the playoffs and seemed to accept his role as a dynamic off the bench scorer, he seemed really into games (unlike Marquis Daniels) and played his heart out. I'd LOVE to see him back, but i know the celtics get lazy when it comes to resigning quality bench players.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

It'd be completely fine with me if he found a new home. Kid torched us.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

How much of that can a team expect to see from him next year though. He didn't really turn it on for Boston until the playoffs.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> It'd be completely fine with me if he found a new home. Kid torched us.


In game 2 and game 4, yes.

But he was a liability in games 6 and 7.

Which was his knock in NY too. He's very inconsistent.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Boston has no Bird rights to Nate, so he's at the end of their priority list. If they can re-stock the roster without using the MLE, they'll talk to him. But if they have to use it elsewhere, then he'll need to take the minimum salary exception to come back.


----------



## TheTruth34 (Jul 22, 2006)

Posted to ESPN Today: Celtics and Robinson talking contract after Nate expressed his desire to return to Boston. :baseldance:


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Ron said:


> In game 2 and game 4, yes.
> 
> But he was a liability in games 6 and 7.
> 
> Which was his knock in NY too. He's very inconsistent.


But he's not a starter so being consistant isn't nearly as big of an issue. If you can come off the bench and single handidly win a game or two (or more) for your team in the playoffs then you're worth the money.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

That doesn't make sense. Just because you can dominate Derek Fisher for a couple games doesn't mean you get away with being a liability, even for a sixth man. 

And let's not forget he was in the dog house in New York of all needy places, plus Boston was disappointed at him for a long time before he finally showed up in the playoffs.

Especially a 6th man actually because if you don't win the second unit battle that doesn't bode well for you.

I hate to sound like one of those elitists but his inconsistency definitely is a caveat to his value. And it's not just inconsistency offensively, it's that if his shot isn't falling he has no way of being a positive impact otherwise.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Guys, he's talking to Boston about a league minimum deal. It's a zero risk proposition.


----------



## ajax25 (Jul 2, 2010)

nate rob for the min? damn thats a hell of steal


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I've no problem with paying Robinson the minimum. Really this is where the guy was last offseason, absolutely no interest from anyone until the knicks remembered his phone number. I don't hear anything about anyone chasing after him with a wheelbarrow full of money. If you pay him the minimum and get anything from him it's a win. You go give him a contract then you're sitting there expecting him to earn it and you know the guy will kill you some nights.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Boston can't pay him anything more than minimum. But he liked being here, apparently, and playing for Rivers in particular. So he's trying to work something out (probably a minimum deal this year with the assurance that they'll give him the LLE next year).


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

E.H. Munro said:


> Guys, he's talking to Boston about a league minimum deal. It's a zero risk proposition.


Thank you.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Scrunches eyebrows*

The minimum? He can't get more than what Shannon Brown is asking for? He can't get more than Tony Allen?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Dre™ said:


> *Scrunches eyebrows*
> 
> The minimum? He can't get more than what Shannon Brown is asking for? He can't get more than Tony Allen?


I'm guessing that he wants to play for a winner, and he's already comfortable in Boston.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

We'll see. Because Ehmunro's post was the first I've even heard of his market this summer.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Dre™ said:


> We'll see. Because Ehmunro's post was the first I've even heard of his market this summer.


It's been reported across the local media the last several days, and there's confirmation from his agent that he's talking with Boston about a deal. My guess is that he wants a chance to play for Rivers because Doc's pretty good with guards. On top of that he gets to play for a title, whereas in New Jersey he'd get to play for lottery balls.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Apparently the Celtics have non-Bird rights to Nate and can pay him up to 120% of last years salary. Reported today that Nate's reached an agreement on a two year deal worth 8-9 million. Since money doesn't really mean anything over the next two seasons(capped out to within an inch of our life, so to speak) anyway, I certainly can't complain. Rondo/Nate may be the most unique point guard duo in the league right now, and both are extremely entertaining.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Nate would help, except that Pierce & Allen will be finished come playoff time. So I'm not sure why they bothered. They desperately needed a swingman that can stay healthy all year. So, no, signing T-Mac off the scrap heap wouldn't really help.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Yeah I think the C's really need a perimeter player you can count on to get rest for your starters throughout the season. Without Perkins they're going to have ride their old guys way too much just to keep playoff position. You never know what you're going to get from Robinson, but you know that a lot of nights he just won't be a help to you.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> Nate would help, except that Pierce & Allen will be finished come playoff time. So I'm not sure why they bothered. They desperately needed a swingman that can stay healthy all year. So, no, signing T-Mac off the scrap heap wouldn't really help.


Signing Nate didn't prevent them from bringing on a swingman though, and his contract is in line with KG, Sheed(if he stays), O'neal, and Ray, so it doesn't cost us any flexibility. The issue was as soon as Danny used the entire MLE on Jermaine O'neal we really had to bring back Tony Allen(which I'm still baffled by) to fill out the roster on the wing. Nate makes us better, unless you really, really believe in Avery Bradley, so I'm a fan of the decision.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

My problem here is that Ronnie Brewer was Memphis property, if you're unwilling to give him a third year, why not work out a sign & trade with Memphis for Brewer to fill TA's role? He fits pretty well with Nate anyway, so it would have been a logical choice. The owners have been busy giving away flexibility at every turn.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

As I understand it the first thing Memphis did this summer was renounce Brewer's rights to sign Rudy Gay, which put them over the cap, so they couldn't ink Brewer to anything more than a minimum deal. My suspicion is that Ainge was unwilling to give Tony a third year, as the team is looking for max cap space two summers from now, and when Memphis stepped up to the plate Tony bolted, catching the C's off guard. Very poorly handled situation, as we needed to retain him due to a lack of other options.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Bogg said:


> As I understand it the first thing Memphis did this summer was renounce Brewer's rights to sign Rudy Gay, which put them over the cap, so they couldn't ink Brewer to anything more than a minimum deal. My suspicion is that Ainge was unwilling to give Tony a third year, as the team is looking for max cap space two summers from now, and when Memphis stepped up to the plate Tony bolted, catching the C's off guard. Very poorly handled situation, as we needed to retain him due to a lack of other options.


They might have renounced Brewer's rights, but it had nothing to do with Gay, who was their own player. And obviously they had room to sign him as they signed TA.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> They might have renounced Brewer's rights, but it had nothing to do with Gay, who was their own player. And obviously they had room to sign him as they signed TA.


You know, you're absolutely right. What I read was that they declined to extend the qualifying offer to Brewer, and I believe that in doing that they lost their rights to him. My mistake.


----------

