RealGM

The Boston Celtics have acquired guard Nate Robinson from the Denver Nuggets for veteran point guard Jameer Nelson, according to Yahoo! Sports' Marc Spears.

The deal brings Robinson back to Boston for a second tour of duty, though he isn't expected to stay for long. Spears reports that he's expected to negotiate a buyout so he can be free to join a contender. The Clippers are a likely candidate, according to Yahoo! Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski.

http://www.sbnation.com/2015/1/13/75409 ... eer-nelson

We don't need him but I'd love to have him back on the bench.

Imagine a backcourt of Nate and Brooks....they will not stop shooting even after the game is over

I would love to see him back with the Bulls.

I feel bad for him though, bouncing around the league all the time, never getting a nice long deal which he deserves imho. I wish he could have gotten a 3-4 year deal worth 14-20 million.

Honestly i dont think they would ever bring him back with rose here. He's just too much of a personality and spark plug. Might overshadow rose in key moments and i don't think anyone wants that. It's silly but I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

Would love to have him back as long as he takes all of Kirk's minutes.

Gar Paxdorf wrote:Honestly i dont think they would ever bring him back with rose here. He's just too much of a personality and spark plug. Might overshadow rose in key moments and i don't think anyone wants that. It's silly but I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

But he was brought in during a season where we thought Rose would play.

If i were the Bulls though I'd prob try to package brooks with other cheap/young guys like snell, doug, kings pick and prob a salary of Kirk or mdj in a trade, then sign nate to save us in the playoffs.

How crazy is it that this guy on the open market has EASILY had the best playoff performance of any Bull since Michael Jordan?

Think About THAT.

Would you trade Brooks for Robinson given a choice? The Bulls definitely wouldn't need both, so that's really the only question.

Worth noting that he hasn't played nearly so well in Denver as he did for us. Maybe in our situation he comes back and plays better, but it's two years later and Robinson's over 30 now so it could also be he lost a bit of athleticism.

Of the three microguards we've had recently, Augustin was the one I liked the most, though he has also struggled considerably in Detroit.

Personally I'd like to see him back in a Chicago uniform and I'd give him all of Aaron Brooks minutes of the bench.

dougthonus wrote:Would you trade Brooks for Robinson given a choice? The Bulls definitely wouldn't need both, so that's really the only question.

Straight up? No. Robinson isn't having a good season, and it remains to be seen if he can overcome his injuries. That said, it sort of depends on what we can get for Brooks? It wouldn't be Brooks for Robinson, it'd be Brooks for Robinson + Something Else.

HomoSapien wrote:

dougthonus wrote:Would you trade Brooks for Robinson given a choice? The Bulls definitely wouldn't need both, so that's really the only question.

Straight up? No. Robinson isn't having a good season, and it remains to be seen if he can overcome his injuries. That said, it sort of depends on what we can get for Brooks? It wouldn't be Brooks for Robinson, it'd be Brooks for Robinson + Something Else.

Robinson and Crowder for Brooks? I dont say I would do but it's something.

Love Nate. I bought his Bulls jersey and still wear it, but we don't need him at all. Brooks is doing fine. Every player struggles at some point during an 82 game season.

Cut kurt, sign nate

If we did sign him, it would allow us to include Brooks in other trades. I.E., we should sign him if we plan to make a trade.

Leto wrote:If we did sign him, it would allow us to include Brooks in other trades. I.E., we should sign him if we plan to make a trade.

Agreed. Part of the issue with us is that we don't have enough contractual pieces to facilitate a trade. As currently constructed we're not trading Dunleavy or Brooks, and Hinrich can veto any trade. I don't think we'd trade McDermott this early in the process after being so high on him. That leaves Snell. If you could include Brooks, that at least broadens the scope of players you could target.

The other thing you could do is just keep Robinson for insurance in case Rose goes down again.

Our back court is already miniture as it is, we don't need another miniature guard. Heck, even Kirk as an undersized shooting guard could make up for it on the defensive end, but this season more than ever he has struggled, not only against shooting guards but also with point guards.

I can't imagine a guard rotation of Jimmy, Nate, Derrick, and Brooks. If Jimmy's load on the defensive end wasn't hard enough as it is already, playing with those other three would kill him.

If the Bulls didn't have Brooks, I'd love them to try and go after Nate. But they do, and there's no way they are going to have two tiny, shoot-first, defensively deficient guards on the roster.

For Nate's sake, I hope the Celtics waive him and he goes to a playoff-bound team. He's not having a good season...in fact, he hasn't played all that well since he left Chicago, but he can still help a team that needs scoring off the bench

Gar Paxdorf wrote:If i were the Bulls though I'd prob try to package brooks with other cheap/young guys like snell, doug, kings pick and prob a salary of Kirk or mdj in a trade, then sign nate to save us in the playoffs.

How crazy is it that this guy on the open market has EASILY had the best playoff performance of any Bull since Michael Jordan?

Think About THAT.

Better than the game Derrick had in game 3 of the ECSF against the Hawks when he dropped 44 points? Come to think of it he was a damn monster in that series, dropping 30 points and 10 assists on average.

I'd also put Noah's performance in game 7 of that same series where Nate had that crazy game as probably being slightly better, simply due to him playing on one leg and it being a game 7 to boot. Noah was absolutely amazing that game.

dougthonus wrote:Would you trade Brooks for Robinson given a choice? The Bulls definitely wouldn't need both, so that's really the only question.

Worth noting that he hasn't played nearly so well in Denver as he did for us. Maybe in our situation he comes back and plays better, but it's two years later and Robinson's over 30 now so it could also be he lost a bit of athleticism.

Of the three microguards we've had recently, Augustin was the one I liked the most, though he has also struggled considerably in Detroit.

I loved Nate here, just loved him. But it seemed to me that his major ACL injury, at his age, affected his play after he returned. At any rate, he was very good for Denver before the injury and has been poor since returning. It'd be a real risk to assume that he can play at his Chicago level again.

I want to like the strategy of acquiring him cheaply and then being able to trade Brooks' as part of a package deal to bring back a bigger contract. But I'm not sure that he (Nate) could replace Brooks right now, and that's an important role for us.

I Love Nate. However Brooks has been very good.