Get Nate Robinson Before the Celtics

Patterns · Post #1 » by **Patterns** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:19 pm

Come on Mitch.

Nate Robinson is a top 5 or 6 6th man in the NBA. He's absolutely perfect to come off the bench with his energy, speed, scoring and mismatch. Our bench can't get any worse than now.

Trade Sasha, Farmar, or even Brown for him. Throw in a pick.

Get it done before the Celtics do. It was really the midseason pickups that the Celtics had that gave them the championship. Sam Cassell abused Fisher in the Finals. Who could forget the shots that PJ Brown made in the 4th quarter of the 7th game in the Cavs series? And the defense he played against the Lakers.

It's these tiny mid season pick ups that can make a huge difference.

The_Commish · Post #2 » by **The_Commish** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:23 pm

Morrison, farmar, knicks 2nd round pick, grizzlies 2nd round pick, for kryptoNate

fareweatherfan · Post #3 » by **fareweatherfan** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:29 pm

a deal centered around Farmar for Nate would benefit both teams greatly. Farmar would have the chance to be something special in D'Antoni's system and Nate could be our solution to defending quick PG's.

TonyMontana · Post #4 » by **TonyMontana** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:10 pm

Good for the Cs, I just love to see how they are going to give up House and filler for Nate. I can only imagine how great Rondo and Nate are going to play along side each other.

Huge mistake for the Cs if they do this trade.

Edrees · Post #5 » by **Edrees** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:17 pm

Give up Shannon are you crazy? Shannon has the potential to be the PG of the future for the lakers..big strong pg, atheltic, plays good D, can shoot the 3...he'll keep developing. i'd really like nate but i'd never give up shannon for him

CeltsfanSinceBirth · Post #6 » by **CeltsfanSinceBirth** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:36 pm

Patterns wrote: Sam Cassell abused Fisher in the Finals.

Really?

And don't fret Laker fans - he's not coming to Boston at this point, because apparently, the Knicks want a lot for him. We probably don't have the assets to appease Walsh.

TonyMontana · Post #7 » by **TonyMontana** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:46 pm

Edrees wrote:Give up Shannon are you crazy? Shannon has the potential to be the PG of the future for the lakers..big strong pg, atheltic, plays good D, can shoot the 3...he'll keep developing. i'd really like nate but i'd never give up shannon for him

No kidding, 4 teams since he was drafted by the Cavs and let me know which team he has improved the most. People need to realize we picked up Shannon for NOTHING and he has brought so much more than both Ammo and Rad did when he was in LA. Now why go and trade this young talented point guard that give his all when he steps on the court for this team.

The way he has adapted and grown into our team is only the begining, he has a lot more to offer and trading him at this point and time for an IMMATURE LITTLE KID like Nate is just plain dumb if you ask me.

I see a great future with Shannon and you can quote me on this, the minute Fish goes down, Shannon will not only start over him but he will dominate his position.

CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:
Patterns wrote: Sam Cassell abused Fisher in the Finals.

Really?

And don't fret Laker fans - he's not coming to Boston at this point, because apparently, the Knicks want a lot for him. We probably don't have the assets to appease Walsh.

Trust me you guys are so much better without him. If Nate was such a good pick then why is it that nobody is showing any interest for him since he's been on the block?

That Nicka · Post #8 » by **That Nicka** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:19 am

Nate Robinson sucks

Speedlot · Post #9 » by **Speedlot** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:46 am

That Nicka wrote:Nate Robinson sucks

CITYOFANGELSX3 · Post #10 » by **CITYOFANGELSX3** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:46 am

They have rondo... are they gonna give up rondo for nate? That's stupid.

Magicontinues · Post #11 » by **Magicontinues** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:51 am

Speedlot wrote:
That Nicka wrote:Nate Robinson sucks

Sofa King · Post #12 » by **Sofa King** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:56 am

Good, I'm not the only one hoping Nate goes to the Celtics. :lol:

laduane1 · Post #13 » by **laduane1** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:24 am

I would only do a Nate for Morrison and or Sasha. Not sure about the money, let the stat geeks go into that area. Morris and Sasha only play when it is junk time. Sasha has been playing more minutes of late, so he might be getting his game back.

Post #14 » by **snaquille oatmeal** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:04 am

D'antoni would actually like Sasha. pretend defense + below average 3 point specialist.

Asianiac_24 · Post #15 » by **Asianiac_24** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:33 am

Shannon > Nate. No thanks

DEEP3CL · Post #16 » by **DEEP3CL** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:51 am

I agree with my boy Tony, it would be catastrophic for the Celtics to get him. People get excited because they think of the "explosive" Nate, but the Nate that the Celtics would get would be a passive one because he wouldn't want to mess up what's going on.

We saw this whack song last year when they went ga ga goo goo over Starbury, and look how that turned out. They thought Steph would come in doing what he was known to do but he flamed out, any guy that's had a questionable career and he goes there will never perform up to his caliber.

Because they're intimidated by the Three Stooges.

Luffy · Post #17 » by **Luffy** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:55 am

I'd rather have Mitch trade the contracts of Ammo and Sasha for Kirk "Defense" Hinrich rather than Nate Robinson, even though I do like Robinson's scoring talents.

Patterns · Post #18 » by **Patterns** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:20 pm

Argument 1: There is a reason why Nate is benched.
Answer: Nate, for whatever reason, does not fit into D'antoni's plan. It does not mean that Nate is a cancer or a bad player.

Argument 2: Cassell did not abuse Fisher.
Answer: No need to argue. Yes he did abuse Fisher.

Argument 3: Brown is a better player than Nate.
Answer: No he's not. Nate is more explosive as a bench scorer by far. He had a PER of 16, then 19 last season and 17 this season despite being benched. Brown's career high PER is 13.5 which is this year. Contrary to everyone's believe, Brown isn't good enough to be our PG of the future just like how Crittenton wasn't.

Argument 4: Nate will get passive with the Celtics.
Answer: The Celtics have found great use for their midseason pick ups and Nate is a very good player who can post a PER of 16+ on any given season. Even Marbury contributed somewhat in the Orlando series and the only reason why the Celtics lost was because they didn't have KG not because they had Marbury.

Argument 5: It doesn't matter to the Lakers if the Celtics get Nate.
Answer: Yes it does. If we meet them in the Finals, we will have to deal with their 2 quick PGs. Nate's PER is 17 this season. You can basically multiply that production by 2 if he's being guarded by Fisher, Farmar, or Brown. Nate will kill us because he's a quick, strong, and a scoring PG. Haven't you all learned that even scrubs with those 3 attributes will put up 30/15 against our PGs?

Nuff said.