WT- Nate unlikely to be back (WAIT! + instagram pic pg 81!)

Ctownbulls · Post #481 » by **Ctownbulls** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 1:17 pm

Tenchi Ryu wrote:
Ralphb07 wrote:Good teams that had MMLE and were looking at him have went other directions. We offered him the veteran minimum. Basically Nate has a tough decision IMO. Does he go for the money on a sucky team or does he take less for a winner.

Nate comes off as the kind of dude who plays basketball because he has the passion to win compared to guys who only see the opportunity of their god given talents to make money.

Then he can use his championship ring and get paid like Barrea did for being that championship spark guy.

Thing is he has been in the league a while and has never been paid. His value wont even increase THAT much if he wins a ring here.

He is at a point where if he is offered any money and security he needs to take it for his life and family. This could be his last chance.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

BIGGIEsmalls 23 · Post #482 » by **BIGGIEsmalls 23** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 1:32 pm

Red8911 wrote:Guys I know nate was amazing last season and we all love him but lets not over rate him..He was fantastic at scoring/shooting,making big shots in crunch time,and bringing energy but he wasnt great in controlling the team as a point to get guys like boozer involved and he just cant defend because hes too short.So in a game he may have scored 30 but maybe gave up just as much at the same time on the Defensive end...Thats why bulls are not going all out to pay Nate,especially cause position is filled..

This sums up my thoughts.

There is a reason we got him for the minimum last off-season & there is a reason other teams are not beating his door down this off-season.

Post #483 » by **RedBulls23** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 1:41 pm

BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote:
Red8911 wrote:Guys I know nate was amazing last season and we all love him but lets not over rate him..He was fantastic at scoring/shooting,making big shots in crunch time,and bringing energy but he wasnt great in controlling the team as a point to get guys like boozer involved and he just cant defend because hes too short.So in a game he may have scored 30 but maybe gave up just as much at the same time on the Defensive end...Thats why bulls are not going all out to pay Nate,especially cause position is filled..

This sums up my thoughts.

There is a reason we got him for the minimum last off-season & there is a reason other teams are not beating his door down this off-season.

I don't see anyone overrating him really.

With Rose back, Nate can just primarily play off the ball. He is a spark plug off the bench offensively. And bringing him back for the vet minimum would be a great move yet again.

BIGGIEsmalls 23 · Post #484 » by **BIGGIEsmalls 23** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 1:48 pm

Red-Bulls83 wrote:
BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote:
Red8911 wrote:Guys I know nate was amazing last season and we all love him but lets not over rate him..He was fantastic at scoring/shooting,making big shots in crunch time,and bringing energy but he wasnt great in controlling the team as a point to get guys like boozer involved and he just cant defend because hes too short.So in a game he may have scored 30 but maybe gave up just as much at the same time on the Defensive end...Thats why bulls are not going all out to pay Nate,especially cause position is filled..

This sums up my thoughts.

There is a reason we got him for the minimum last off-season & there is a reason other teams are not beating his door down this off-season.

I don't see anyone overrating him really.

With Rose back, Nate can just primarily play off the ball. He is a spark plug off the bench offensively. And bringing him back for the vet minimum would be a great move yet again.

I don't know about that, my brother.

I've read a ton of posts that have declared Nate being the difference between us winning a title next season or not. He's the be-all end-all for a lot of our fellow posters, which is fine. Everyone is entitled to have a favorite player....Just like my constant defense of Rose & Noah :lol:

.

Regarding Nate & Rose on the floor together, I see it as a bad thing. I can't wrap my arms around a 5' 6" & 6' 3" backcourt.

blumeany · Post #485 » by **blumeany** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 2:00 pm

Biggest problem we've had in the past when Derrick leaves the floor is that the offense usually grinds to a halt. Now, maybe after a year off from Derrick and with Hinrich running point when Rose isn't, that might be different. With Nate though, he's instant energy and offense off the bench. He'd allow Rose to sit a little more. My thought is you'd usually have Kirk out there with him to play point on offense and then cover the SG on defense. As for Rose/Nate, not sure how that would work.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2

Post #486 » by **RedBulls23** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 2:29 pm

BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote:I don't know about that, my brother.

I've read a ton of posts that have declared Nate being the difference between us winning a title next season or not. He's the be-all end-all for a lot of our fellow posters, which is fine. Everyone is entitled to have a favorite player....Just like my constant defense of Rose & Noah .

Regarding Nate & Rose on the floor together, I see it as a bad thing. I can't wrap my arms around a 5' 6" & 6' 3" backcourt.

Maybe you're right.

Nate wouldn't be playing extended minutes, but if he could play about 15 or so and he gives us some good offense, that is a difference maker. I just look at him in that JJ Berra role for us.

Mr Funk · Post #487 » by **Mr Funk** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 2:55 pm

Superhuman wrote:I have mad respect for nate. Anyone remember him puking in game 6 against the nets? And he still gave it his all. I'm surprised we haven't heard anything about the offers he's receiving. Here's to hoping he takes a discount and stays with the bulls next year!

I want to sex your avatar.

Ctownbulls wrote:
Thing is he has been in the league a while and has never been paid. His value wont even increase THAT much if he wins a ring here.

He is at a point where if he is offered any money and security he needs to take it for his life and family. This could be his last chance.

Nate signed a 3 year, $12.7 million contract in the summer of 2009 with New York.

BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote:I don't know about that, my brother.

I've read a ton of posts that have declared Nate being the difference between us winning a title next season or not. He's the be-all end-all for a lot of our fellow posters, which is fine. Everyone is entitled to have a favorite player....

blumeany wrote:Biggest problem we've had in the past when Derrick leaves the floor is that the offense usually grinds to a halt. Now, maybe after a year off from Derrick and with Hinrich running point when Rose isn't, that might be different. With Nate though, he's instant energy and offense off the bench. He'd allow Rose to sit a little more. My thought is you'd usually have Kirk out there with him to play point on offense and then cover the SG on defense. As for Rose/Nate, not sure how that would work.

Also, with Nate being the second shot and offensive creator, Miami will no longer be able to trap or double team Rose, and when Rose sits or is hurt, we're not screwed for offensive creation etc.

xpmar9x · Post #488 » by **xpmar9x** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 4:09 pm

BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote: Regarding Nate & Rose on the floor together, I see it as a bad thing. I can't wrap my arms around a 5' 6" & 6' 3" backcourt.

How's it any different have 6'3 Kirk & Nate on the floor together last year... closing every game.

biggestbullsfan · Post #489 » by **biggestbullsfan** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 4:13 pm

xpmar9x wrote:
BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote: Regarding Nate & Rose on the floor together, I see it as a bad thing. I can't wrap my arms around a 5' 6" & 6' 3" backcourt.

How's it any different have 6'3 Kirk & Nate on the floor together last year... closing every game.

Exactly. Offensivly, Nate and Rose could compliment each other very well. Both can create, drive the lane and dish and Nate is a very good shooter.

But in reality, we wouldnt see them together much. We would have Jimmy/Deng and then Kirk andDunleavy backing up the wing spots. Nate wouldnt see nearly as many minutes as he previously did.

Also, it would pretty much kill any PT for Teague this year.

Post #490 » by **HomoSapien** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 4:19 pm

Alex Kennedy ‏@AlexKennedyNBA 4 Jul
Source says the Indiana Pacers had expressed interest in Nate Robinson, but ultimately decided to sign C.J. Watson.

PHEW. That's a mistake for the offensively starved Pacers.

xpmar9x · Post #491 » by **xpmar9x** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 4:23 pm

biggestbullsfan wrote:
xpmar9x wrote:
BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote: Regarding Nate & Rose on the floor together, I see it as a bad thing. I can't wrap my arms around a 5' 6" & 6' 3" backcourt.

How's it any different have 6'3 Kirk & Nate on the floor together last year... closing every game.

Exactly. Offensivly, Nate and Rose could compliment each other very well. Both can create, drive the lane and dish and Nate is a very good shooter.

But in reality, we wouldnt see them together much. We would have Jimmy/Deng and then Kirk andDunleavy backing up the wing spots. Nate wouldnt see nearly as many minutes as he previously did.

Also, it would pretty much kill any PT for Teague this year.

I have no hopes for Teague, that's just being honest. He's a good guy and works hard, but you're an NBA point and can't even dribble to half court. Our rotation could be:

Rose (33) - Robinson (15) - Teague (0)
Butler (20) - Hinrich (18) - Dunleavy (10) - Snell (0)
Deng (30) - Butler (10) - Dunleavy (8)
Boozer (30) - Taj (16) - Deng (2)
Noah (33) - Taj (10) - Nazr (5)

Keep the bench deep, keep the legs fresh, win a championship.

Post #492 » by **HomoSapien** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 4:23 pm

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AlexKennedyNBA/status/352807194615492609[/tweet]

PHEW. That's a mistake for the offensively starved Pacers.

bearadonisdna · Post #493 » by **bearadonisdna** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 4:31 pm

xpmar9x wrote:
BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote: Regarding Nate & Rose on the floor together, I see it as a bad thing. I can't wrap my arms around a 5' 6" & 6' 3" backcourt.

How's it any different have 6'3 Kirk & Nate on the floor together last year... closing every game.

the biggest difference is that kirk defends sgs. Rose not really. Can sporadically but ur not gonna set ur watch to something like that. Especially coming off his injury.

xpmar9x · Post #494 » by **xpmar9x** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 4:38 pm

bearadonisdna wrote:
xpmar9x wrote:
BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote: Regarding Nate & Rose on the floor together, I see it as a bad thing. I can't wrap my arms around a 5' 6" & 6' 3" backcourt.

How's it any different have 6'3 Kirk & Nate on the floor together last year... closing every game.

the biggest difference is that kirk defends sgs. Rose not really. Can sporadically but ur not gonna set ur watch to something like that. Especially coming off his injury.

Great point, didn't even think of that. Honestly though, Nate will maybe play 15-20 mpg with our rotation... so it's not like they'd have to do is all the time. 13-15 of those minutes will come from when Rose is ont he bench, then 5ish with Rose on the floor together... it's worth it.

Gregnice33 · Post #495 » by **Gregnice33** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 4:55 pm

xpmar9x wrote:
biggestbullsfan wrote:
xpmar9x wrote:
How's it any different have 6'3 Kirk & Nate on the floor together last year... closing every game.

Exactly. Offensivly, Nate and Rose could compliment each other very well. Both can create, drive the lane and dish and Nate is a very good shooter.

But in reality, we wouldnt see them together much. We would have Jimmy/Deng and then Kirk andDunleavy backing up the wing spots. Nate wouldnt see nearly as many minutes as he previously did.

Also, it would pretty much kill any PT for Teague this year.

I have no hopes for Teague, that's just being honest. He's a good guy and works hard, but you're an NBA point and can't even dribble to half court. Our rotation could be:

Rose (33) - Robinson (15) - Teague (0)
Butler (20) - Hinrich (18) - Dunleavy (10) - Snell (0)
Deng (30) - Butler (10) - Dunleavy (8)
Boozer (30) - Taj (16) - Deng (2)
Noah (33) - Taj (10) - Nazr (5)

Keep the bench deep, keep the legs fresh, win a championship.

I agree with most of your minute distribution. However, mo way Thibs plays Deng and Butler under 36 minutes. Deng averaged around 39 the last 4 seasons, and Butler played 26 this season (as a bench player). Kirk will also get more minutes, Thibs loves him.

I don't think we are resigning Nate (I really hope I am wrong), I haven't read a single report even saying it's a possibility.

Rose (35) Kirk (13)
Jimmy (30) Kirk (10) MDJ (8)
Deng (36) MDJ (12)
Boozer (30) Taj (18)
Noah (33) Taj (10) Nazr (5)

8 1/2 man rotation, unless we sign Nate ( :pray:

) , Bynum ( :dontknow:

) , JLIII ( :roll:

), and/or a Big man (Brand). Rookies and sophomores only play in case of foul trouble, injuries and blowouts.

waffle · Post #496 » by **waffle** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 4:59 pm

jumping in late on Nate

If Rose is healthy I just cannot see nate seeing as many minutes as he would like/has earned. Just don't think the math is there

If he wants to come back cheap (cuz that is what we can afford?) would love to have him

Just seems unlikely on many levels

xpmar9x · Post #497 » by **xpmar9x** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 5:09 pm

Gregnice33 wrote:I agree with most of your minute distribution. However, mo way Thibs plays Deng and Butler under 36 minutes. Deng averaged around 39 the last 4 seasons, and Butler played 26 this season (as a bench player). Kirk will also get more minutes, Thibs loves him.

I don't think we are resigning Nate (I really hope I am wrong), I haven't read a single report even saying it's a possibility.

Rose (35) Kirk (13)
Jimmy (30) Kirk (10) MDJ (8)
Deng (36) MDJ (12)
Boozer (30) Taj (18)
Noah (33) Taj (10) Nazr (5)

8 1/2 man rotation, unless we sign Nate ( ) , Bynum ( ) , JLIII ( ), and/or a Big man (Brand). Rookies and sophomores only play in case of foul trouble, injuries and blowouts.

I'm hoping Thibs reduces minutes for our starters. Would love to see a 35 min cap, at most.

Trm3 · Post #498 » by **Trm3** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 5:43 pm

JackFinn wrote:
Polynice4Pippen wrote:he'd be an unbelievable insurance policy just in case Derrick went down for a stretch during the regular season.

Big time.

Seriously, I have a feeling from here on out Rose will take his time coming back from injuries now..ankle sprain, he'll take 2 weeks instead of 3 or 4 days. Every injury he gets now, he'll take precaution. We all know Hinrich will get hurt..we can't be stuck with just Teague. Nate is pretty much a must.

BIGGIEsmalls 23 · Post #499 » by **BIGGIEsmalls 23** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 6:06 pm

xpmar9x wrote:
BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote: Regarding Nate & Rose on the floor together, I see it as a bad thing. I can't wrap my arms around a 5' 6" & 6' 3" backcourt.

How's it any different have 6'3 Kirk & Nate on the floor together last year... closing every game.

Good point, XP.

I would love to see some numbers on how that combination fared together. I'm not too good at finding the different types of advanced stats that some of you are.

xpmar9x · Post #500 » by **xpmar9x** » Fri Jul 5, 2013 6:26 pm

BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote:
xpmar9x wrote:
BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote: Regarding Nate & Rose on the floor together, I see it as a bad thing. I can't wrap my arms around a 5' 6" & 6' 3" backcourt.

How's it any different have 6'3 Kirk & Nate on the floor together last year... closing every game.

Good point, XP.

I would love to see some numbers on how that combination fared together. I'm not too good at finding the different types of advanced stats that some of you are.

I'd love to see those numbers as well. Too bad I also suck at finding those type of advanced stats. :lol: