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

[coldfish]

I'll go out on a limb and say Kirk is the best defender at his position than anyone on the Bulls. And thats saying a lot and I believe it. When he's not banged up by injuries, he can lock down most players who are around his size. I think he also was more effective on Deron than JimmyB was too.

So Kirk is better than Butler, Deng, Gibson and Noah at performing the defense required of their position? Now? Today?

I take some against the grain positions on this board from time to time, but that's a good one there. That took some guts to say that. Kudos to you sir.

Yes today. Maybe his body wont hold up as well for an entire season for him to sustain that level of defense but for a playoff series, just like in the Nets series, he was giving Dwill the bidness.

Hinrich can guard PG's better than Deng or Butler can guard 3's or Taj/Noah defending 5's.

Hinrich has a lot of trouble with speed. He has for quite some time. He does a great job with pick and rolls though. He isn't a good help defender at all. Guys like Butler, Taj and Noah are defensive threats when they are off ball and have no issues with quick players.

If you narrow the criteria to medium and slower perimeter players who like to use pick and roll, then I agree that Hinrich is awesome. If you start to include help defense, players who are quick for their position, etc., I don't think Hinrich is the lead guy by any stretch.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

@AlexKennedyNBA

The Warriors have started reaching out to reserve point guards to find Jarrett Jack's replacement. They offered minimum to a few players.

Our min offer vs. Golden State's min offer. Which would Nate take?

Our min is bigger than their min, but I don't know that the difference is meaningful.

We're the better team, but the Warriors are right there.

He established a real locker room connection in Chicago, but one of his closest compadres, RIP Hamilton, is now gone.

If the W's make no other backcourt additions, there should be more minutes available in Golden State.

Our minimum is 20% higher than Warriors (1.1 million versus 1.33 million - or close to it).

Not sure how much playing time he'd get in GSW, but I think the Bulls backcourt is starting to get crowded.

[AAU Teammate]

We hear about Nate destroying the Nets but not Boozer destroying the Nets. We hear about Boozer's bad series in Miami but not Nate's series in Miami.

The things that are likeable about Nate are so easy to like (and again, couple in the $1M contract) that we can go on liking them endlessly, past the sea of reason....on into the horizon of irrationality.

He's a little guard that not only wouldnt defend as a SG, but frankly I dont see him scoring this way next to Derrick either. (1) last year was above his career norms...he's not an elite three point shooter historically (2) you'd see him guarded by non-point guards

That can have massively bad effects for him, depending on who we're facing that night. It's not as easy as assuming Derrick sees the opposing SG because he's the bigger guard. Most teams would be glad to keep their PG on Derrick since they're committed to doubling him anyway.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

@AlexKennedyNBA

The Warriors have started reaching out to reserve point guards to find Jarrett Jack's replacement. They offered minimum to a few players.

Our min offer vs. Golden State's min offer. Which would Nate take?

Our min is bigger than their min, but I don't know that the difference is meaningful.

We're the better team, but the Warriors are right there.

He established a real locker room connection in Chicago, but one of his closest compadres, RIP Hamilton, is now gone.

If the W's make no other backcourt additions, there should be more minutes available in Golden State.

Our minimum is 20% higher than Warriors (1.1 million versus 1.33 million - or close to it).

Not sure how much playing time he'd get in GSW, but I think the Bulls backcourt is starting to get crowded.

Yeah I know, I meant I don't know what that 20% means to a guy in Nate's position.

I could see this one going either way. Both are great situations. I'd give the slight advantage to CHI because he's already here.

That said, I think there's still a good chance that Nate gets an offer above the minimum. The PG market is saturated, but he's too good to overlook.

[BahamaBull]

I think our little Nate will end up in Oakland...

[coldfish]

We hear about Nate destroying the Nets but not Boozer destroying the Nets. We hear about Boozer's bad series in Miami but not Nate's series in Miami.

The things that are likeable about Nate are so easy to like (and again, couple in the $1M contract) that we can go on liking them endlessly, past the sea of reason....on into the horizon of irrationality.

He's a little guard that not only wouldnt defend as a SG, but frankly I dont see him scoring this way next to Derrick either. (1) last year was above his career norms...he's not an elite three point shooter historically (2) you'd see him guarded by non-point guards

That can have massively bad effects for him, depending on who we're facing that night. It's not as easy as assuming Derrick sees the opposing SG because he's the bigger guard. Most teams would be glad to keep their PG on Derrick since they're committed to doubling him anyway.

I think you are bypassing Nate's biggest positive. He is cheap.

If Boozer was making $3M or less, he would be one of the most loved guys on this board and one of the best value contracts in the NBA.

In the situations where Nate is off or its a bad match up, just sit him. No big deal. When you have a favorable match up or the team is struggling and he is hot, he is a positive. There really are very few downsides to bringing back nate. He brings a skill that the team doesn't have in abundance, he adds depth and gives the coach more options. Its all good.

If we were talking about making Nate a core component of the team going forward with a contract that would reduce the team's flexibility, I think you would have somewhere between zero and nada supporters of it.

[AAU Teammate]

If Boozer was making $3M or less, he would be one of the most loved guys on this board and one of the best value contracts in the NBA.

I guess my whole focus on it is purely taking into consideration the positions we still have to fill. I dont have to love a player to want him on the team. I can want a good backup center right now over Nate because that's what we need.

I can want a 6'5"-ish guard over Nate because that's what we need (unless Snell is ready during inevitable injury time for a rotation guy).

The opportunity cost of Nate is one of those two roles, or both. That's how up against it we are. I dont want Nazr for anything more than the emergency QB role.

[Chitownbulls]

Nate Robinson can drop 20pts on you any given night and your only paying him 1mil to do so. That's why you keep him. Plus when has a bulls team been healthy? Someone will go down with a injury an Nate will step right in.

Kirk Hinrich signing is killing us right now. I bet no other team in the NBA would have gave Kirk 4mil. Bad signing by the front office. Probably could have got him for 1-2mil.

[awaxndau]

Nate Robinson can drop 20pts on you any given night and your only paying him 1mil to do so. That's why you keep him. Plus when has a bulls team been healthy? Someone will go down with a injury an Nate will step right in.

Kirk Hinrich signing is killing us right now. I bet no other team in the NBA would have gave Kirk 4mil. Bad signing by the front office. Probably could have got him for 1-2mil.

How is the Kirk signing killing us when they value Kirk way more than they do Nate???
There's more to basketball than just scoring

[AAU Teammate]

Nate Robinson can drop 20pts on you any given night and your only paying him 1mil to do so. That's why you keep him.

Just as far as your point about $1M, agreed. But the whole thing about 'he can drop 20pts on you any given night'..........we played that way last year because we had to. I dont want to play that way anymore. The 2013-14 Bulls are going to be really, really good (something no one here really seems to want to say, or at least not that often).

Whether he signs here or not, that isn't going to be because of him. It'll be because of the return of Rose and the continued elite defense we put out there year in year out.

The Warriors had Nate in 11-12. They found a way to survive without him. They made the team better, and the team dynamic better. Meanwhile they are just now getting their Deng, as AI is going to be that uber-supporting-cast guy now (which is what he's supposed to be). These two teams are building towards the same thing in different ways.

[Ben]

If Boozer was making $3M or less, he would be one of the most loved guys on this board and one of the best value contracts in the NBA.

I guess my whole focus on it is purely taking into consideration the positions we still have to fill. I dont have to love a player to want him on the team. I can want a good backup center right now over Nate because that's what we need.

I can want a 6'5"-ish guard over Nate because that's what we need (unless Snell is ready during inevitable injury time for a rotation guy).

The opportunity cost of Nate is one of those two roles, or both. That's how up against it we are. I dont want Nazr for anything more than the emergency QB role.

There's no reason to think that Nate signing with us would mean that we couldn't get another backup center. There should be guys available for the vet minimum. Although given that we have Noah, Nazr, Taj, Boozer, and Malcolm all able to play the 5, and Deng who can play the 4 for spurts, it's not as if we're currently desperate for a backup C. But we ARE going to be desperate for scoring/ playmaking in the 2nd and 3rd units.

Re: the 6'5"-ish guard: right now we have Butler (who's bigger than that), Kirk, Dunleavy (who can play 2-guard and is bigger than 6'5"), and Snell. I never cared for Snell as a draft pick but if you're just talking about someone who's supposed to be able to defend b/c of his size, which I assume to be your meaning (since otherwise size wouldn't matter), he should be able to fill in during a pinch.

Scoring doesn't take size into account. If a guy can score 18.5 points per 36 minutes, as Nate did, it doesn't matter if he's a mite. We don't have that bench scoring. We didn't have it during the "bench mob" days that you love, and we wanted it then. Why should we prefer a guard who happens to be 6'5"-ish if he can't initiate and score when no one else is doing it, given that we have a bunch of guys who can play guard already?

[AAU Teammate]

We didn't have it during the "bench mob" days that you love, and we wanted it then.

I can only speak for myself, but the bench mob gave me the hardest of ons. I had zero problem with that bench mob.

[Ben]

Nate Robinson can drop 20pts on you any given night and your only paying him 1mil to do so. That's why you keep him. Plus when has a bulls team been healthy? Someone will go down with a injury an Nate will step right in.

Kirk Hinrich signing is killing us right now. I bet no other team in the NBA would have gave Kirk 4mil. Bad signing by the front office. Probably could have got him for 1-2mil.

How is the Kirk signing killing us when they value Kirk way more than they do Nate???
There's more to basketball than just scoring

Seriously? Your point is that because the front office valued Kirk at $8 mil over 2 years, therefore his contract can't be bad and it can't be hurting us?

Kirk's was a bad signing. We way overpaid. You can get 2 or 3 players for the same amount of money, guys who can fill the various roles that Kirk does but in a better and more efficient fashion. He's here now, so we may as well make the best possible use of him, but we don't need to pretend that he's on a value contract.

[Ben]

We didn't have it during the "bench mob" days that you love, and we wanted it then.

I can only speak for myself, but the bench mob gave me the hardest of ons. I had zero problem with that bench mob.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, and I really respect your basketball knowledge, but yes: you're speaking only for yourself.

Point being that you can't hearken back to the defense of Asik's days, b/c that can't possibly be recovered. Maybe his defense was so amazing that it lessened the impact of our need for bench scoring, but we needed it nonetheless. And we'll need it all the more now, given that we don't have Asik or anyone like him.

[Former Roy]

How could u not have problems with that bench??

Only one scorer in Korver and also NO ball handlers outside of Watson's weak ***

They were mighty but they also were flawed.

[TylerB]

Nate Robinson can drop 20pts on you any given night and your only paying him 1mil to do so. That's why you keep him. Plus when has a bulls team been healthy? Someone will go down with a injury an Nate will step right in.

Kirk Hinrich signing is killing us right now. I bet no other team in the NBA would have gave Kirk 4mil. Bad signing by the front office. Probably could have got him for 1-2mil.

How is the Kirk signing killing us when they value Kirk way more than they do Nate???
There's more to basketball than just scoring

Seriously? Your point is that because the front office valued Kirk at $8 mil over 2 years, therefore his contract can't be bad and it can't be hurting us?

Kirk's was a bad signing. We way overpaid. You can get 2 or 3 players for the same amount of money, guys who can fill the various roles that Kirk does but in a better and more efficient fashion. He's here now, so we may as well make the best possible use of him, but we don't need to pretend that he's on a value contract.

He isn't a value contract as a bench player making 4 million but he is certainly a fair contract. The guys is a useful and versatile guard. Can defend both guard spots, hit threes, run the offense.

[AAU Teammate]

We didn't have it during the "bench mob" days that you love, and we wanted it then.

I can only speak for myself, but the bench mob gave me the hardest of ons. I had zero problem with that bench mob.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, and I really respect your basketball knowledge, but yes: you're speaking only for yourself.

Point being that you can't hearken back to the defense of Asik's days, b/c that can't possibly be recovered. Maybe his defense was so amazing that it lessened the impact of our need for bench scoring, but we needed it nonetheless. And we'll need it all the more now, given that we don't have Asik or anyone like him.

I was firmly a believer that this team would fall off defensively without Asik - and Thibs of course answered that by playing Noah enough to keep the defense afloat. My hope this year would be we get someone who can play the position and, well, gets into games.

Either way, I think we're looking at 45 minutes a game for postseason 13-14 Noah......so I'm just kind of prepping myself for that sort of thing since paths to something different seem blocked.



Thibs seems willing to push all his chips in and bet his team won't be walking wounded by year's end. The fact that it just happened probably emboldens him to try it again.

[AAU Teammate]

How could u not have problems with that bench??

Only one scorer in Korver and also NO ball handlers outside of Watson's weak ***

They were mighty but they also were flawed.

If we can be an elite defensive unit that scores on fastbreaks (i actually prefer Hinrich on contested fastbreaks to Nate) I'm happy. This is a bench unit covering a few portions of the game. We all know the minutes load Rose/Deng/Noah are in for. I take that minutes load and base my thoughts off that as a starting point, even if i would like reality to be different.

[AAU Teammate]

Incidentally, lost in all this is Teague. but (1) he has already oddly enough earned Thibs trust on big defensive end-of-game plays (2) what he lacks in court vision is made up for by how his speed and pass-first mentality just instantly gets a shooter open looks. It's nothing revolutionary but he just steps in and gets (got) Marco open threes because he's penetrating defenses.

This year we'll be able to make threes. Teague will be of more value. Last year his skills were perfectly minimized by having one three point shooting off guard (who tried to avoid taking threes..) Beli.

[awaxndau]

Nate Robinson can drop 20pts on you any given night and your only paying him 1mil to do so. That's why you keep him. Plus when has a bulls team been healthy? Someone will go down with a injury an Nate will step right in.

Kirk Hinrich signing is killing us right now. I bet no other team in the NBA would have gave Kirk 4mil. Bad signing by the front office. Probably could have got him for 1-2mil.

How is the Kirk signing killing us when they value Kirk way more than they do Nate???
There's more to basketball than just scoring

Seriously? Your point is that because the front office valued Kirk at $8 mil over 2 years, therefore his contract can't be bad and it can't be hurting us?

Kirk's was a bad signing. We way overpaid. You can get 2 or 3 players for the same amount of money, guys who can fill the various roles that Kirk does but in a better and more efficient fashion. He's here now, so we may as well make the best possible use of him, but we don't need to pretend that he's on a value contract.

Not once did i mention anything about money

I believe they value Kirk more than Nate because of his defense, his ability to run the offence, the opportunity to play rose off the ball and his shooting. Add on that hes a very smart basketball player and is a leader in the locker room
You might not value those things much but i believe the bulls do
If you can show me a guy that can do all of that and was willing to take less then 4mil i would love to hear it

This love for Nate Robinson is getting crazy around here!!!!