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

patagonia · Post #1041 » by **patagonia** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:33 pm

caribbean_cool wrote:Lakers to sign Jordan Farmar. Another team that we can scratch from the list.

Looks like a lot of teams don't rate Robinson that highly if they are offering guys like Famar min deals and paying a buyout for him.

samwana · Post #1042 » by **samwana** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:35 pm

GetSeven wrote:Can we use the TPE on Nate. I doubt they use it at all since there aren't a lot of options out there.

Nope the TPE can only be used to trade for a player, not to sign him. We should have done a sign and trade for Dunleavy into the TPE with Milwaukee if we wanted to do that. OTOH I think we couldn't do a S&T b/c we are over the cap. Not sure about the latter though.

pylb · Post #1043 » by **pylb** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:38 pm

We can do an out-going SnT but not an incoming one.

Post #1044 » by **Ben** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:42 pm

Aaron Brooks is still out there, isn't he? More competition for Nate. And if Nate's possibly going to get his MMLE from someone, I sure as hope that we're talking to Brooks. He's probably the best moderately-priced backup PG still available. If he agrees to play for the minimum, that is. I could see him getting something higher. We're just not hearing his name in media reports, which makes it seem to us as if no one wants him.

League Circles · Post #1045 » by **League Circles** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:49 pm

AAU Teammate wrote:I cant believe the narrative that has come about...'Sign Nate and we're championship worthy. Don't - and we're not.'

Maybe no one has come out and said it but that is the vibe I get from some bulls fans (ok, at least from a few of those GarPaxdorf posts)

I never stated that. For the record, I think we're title favorites this year with or without Nate. I just think if we add Nate and a quality big like Elton Brand, we might go from title favorites this year to possibly having a historically good team, vs having 2 more total scrubs or not signing anybody at all.

KissedByaRose1 · Post #1046 » by **KissedByaRose1** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:56 pm

Gar Paxdorf wrote:
AAU Teammate wrote:I cant believe the narrative that has come about...'Sign Nate and we're championship worthy. Don't - and we're not.'

Maybe no one has come out and said it but that is the vibe I get from some bulls fans (ok, at least from a few of those GarPaxdorf posts)

I never stated that. For the record, I think we're title favorites this year with or without Nate. I just think if we add Nate and a quality big like Elton Brand, we might go from title favorites this year to possibly having a historically good team, vs having 2 more total scrubs or not signing anybody at all.

I am in the boat of sign Nate and we are championship worthy. He's a dynamic scorer and exactly what we need to get over the team that has been standing in our way.

Does Dallas beat Miami without Barea? I don't think so and in a million years no one before 2011 was considering Barea a piece that would get the Mavericks over the hump to beat the best team on paper.

Give me Nate and we got this.

Chitownbulls · Post #1047 » by **Chitownbulls** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:05 pm

Give me Nate and I feel pretty good about the Bulls getting 1 of these bigs...

Wright
Dalembert
Oden
Brand
Kenyon Martin

AAU Teammate · Post #1048 » by **AAU Teammate** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:16 pm

Gar Paxdorf wrote:
AAU Teammate wrote:I cant believe the narrative that has come about...'Sign Nate and we're championship worthy. Don't - and we're not.'

Maybe no one has come out and said it but that is the vibe I get from some bulls fans (ok, at least from a few of those GarPaxdorf posts)

I never stated that. For the record, I think we're title favorites this year with or without Nate. I just think if we add Nate and a quality big like Elton Brand, we might go from title favorites this year to possibly having a historically good team, vs having 2 more total scrubs or not signing anybody at all.

I guess you never stated it, although I thought for sure no one would think of us as the title favorites right now. So, in a sense, I apologize. Since you meant your statements in a fashion i didnt think possible

I mean, just to give you an idea how poor a scoring bunch we are....Mike Dunleavy comes in and instantly becomes the favorite to lead the team in eFG%. Possibly by a wide margin

dice · Post #1049 » by **dice** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:32 pm

KissedByaRose1 wrote:Give me Nate and we got this.

he would only be playing 5 minutes a game, dude. and even if he played big minutes it wouldn't necessarily make us a better team, let alone favorites to win the title. this is silly

KissedByaRose1 · Post #1050 » by **KissedByaRose1** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:41 pm

dice wrote:
KissedByaRose1 wrote:Give me Nate and we got this.

he would only be playing 5 minutes a game, dude. and even if he played big minutes it wouldn't necessarily make us a better team, let alone favorites to win the title. this is silly

I just won't ever understand this line of thinking. You watch the games correct? Thibs rides the hot hand and always has. Making these mock depth charts of who is and isn't going to get minutes is completely pointless as our HC has shown time and time again he doesn't simply play people to get them minutes or because they have big names and will always go with the better basketball player.

If Teague sucks again (likely, I'm projecting this season to be what Jimmy had has rookie year) and Hinrich has games where he can't hit anything (also likely) Nate is absolutely going to play big minutes and would be well worth his contract and roster spot.

This coupled with the fact that Thibs has already come out and said he thinks Nate and Hinrich played well together (Meaning he probably wouldn't be opposed to a Rose/Nate lineup in small stretches) shows that he absolutely has a place on the team.

Trm3 · Post #1051 » by **Trm3** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:44 pm

dice wrote:
KissedByaRose1 wrote:Give me Nate and we got this.

he would only be playing 5 minutes a game, dude. and even if he played big minutes it wouldn't necessarily make us a better team, let alone favorites to win the title. this is silly

Sorry, he'd be playing more than 5 minutes..him and Kirk would be the anchors of the second unit..which if u remember with CJ in 2011 they played until the 6 minute mark and then Rose would check back in the 2nd quarter.

A little shorter leash starting the 4th, maybe 9 or 8 minute mark. That's 10 minutes a game..add to it considering how close the game is Nate could and will be out there to finish games with Rose.

Also add..they'll probably shorten Rose's minutes..and well all know Kirk will get hurt eventually.

dice · Post #1052 » by **dice** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:45 pm

KissedByaRose1 wrote:
dice wrote:
KissedByaRose1 wrote:Give me Nate and we got this.

he would only be playing 5 minutes a game, dude. and even if he played big minutes it wouldn't necessarily make us a better team, let alone favorites to win the title. this is silly

I just won't ever understand this line of thinking. You watch the games correct? Thibs rides the hot hand and always has. Making these mock depth charts of who is and isn't going to get minutes is completely pointless as our HC has shown time and time again he doesn't simply play people to get them minutes or because they have big names and will always go with the better basketball player

didn't thibs start keith bogans for an entire season regardless of his play? didn't hinrich get significant minutes as starter despite some of the worst shooting you've ever seen the first half of last season?

thibs is stubborn with his rotations. you watch the games, correct?

This coupled with the fact that Thibs has already come out and said he thinks Nate and Hinrich played well together (Meaning he probably wouldn't be opposed to a Rose/Nate lineup in small stretches)

doesn't mean that at all

dice · Post #1053 » by **dice** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:46 pm

Trm3 wrote:
dice wrote:
KissedByaRose1 wrote:Give me Nate and we got this.

he would only be playing 5 minutes a game, dude. and even if he played big minutes it wouldn't necessarily make us a better team, let alone favorites to win the title. this is silly

Sorry, he'd be playing more than 5 minutes..him and Kirk would be the anchors of the second unit

mike. dunleavy.

he was not signed to spell deng for 10 minutes a night

bad knees · Post #1054 » by **bad knees** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:50 pm

Nate would be better than Teague or Snell. So second string would be:

Hinrich
Nate
Dunleavy
Gibson
Nazr or other vet min

Nate would be the third guard/wing off the bench. He might get 5 mins in some games, in other games he would get more. The bigger point is that a reasonable person is going to assume that Rose and Hinrich are going to be hurt for significant stretches based on their recent past, which would create a bigger opportunity and need for someone with Nate's skills.

KissedByaRose1 · Post #1055 » by **KissedByaRose1** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:51 pm

dice wrote:
KissedByaRose1 wrote:
dice wrote:he would only be playing 5 minutes a game, dude. and even if he played big minutes it wouldn't necessarily make us a better team, let alone favorites to win the title. this is silly

I just won't ever understand this line of thinking. You watch the games correct? Thibs rides the hot hand and always has. Making these mock depth charts of who is and isn't going to get minutes is completely pointless as our HC has shown time and time again he doesn't simply play people to get them minutes or because they have big names and will always go with the better basketball player

didn't thibs start keith bogans for an entire season regardless of his play? didn't hinrich get significant minutes as starter despite some of the worst shooting you've ever seen the first half of last season?

you watch the games, correct?

This coupled with the fact that Thibs has already come out and said he thinks Nate and Hinrich played well together (Meaning he probably wouldn't be opposed to a Rose/Nate lineup in small stretches)

doesn't mean that at all

Bogans played 17 minutes a game in 2011. You shouldn't get hung up on the whole "Starter" title because it doesn't really mean anything. Thibs knew that he sucked and the majority of minutes when to Korver and Brewer (depending on who was hot). This further proves my point that he feels 0 obligation to play anyone. Hinrich started last year because it was a better basketball strategy to couple his awful shooting with our better Offensive players as opposed to our abysmal bench where he would have hurt us even more. What else was he going to do? We had absolutely 0 depth last year and no options.

Why would he be opposed to a Rose/Nate lineup? Minus like 15 games he's never had another good ball handler out there with Derrick(Rip) and Nate is a better 3P shooter than him and is good spotting up.

dice · Post #1056 » by **dice** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:00 pm

KissedByaRose1 wrote:Bogans played 17 minutes a game in 2011. You shouldn't get hung up on the whole "Starter" title because it doesn't really mean anything

i'm not. bogans should've been a 3rd stringer and he instead played 17 minutes a game

Hinrich started last year because it was a better basketball strategy to couple his awful shooting with our better Offensive players as opposed to our abysmal bench where he would have hurt us even more

as long as you're admitting hinrich was more valuable to thibs because he got more minutes than nate

Why would he be opposed to a Rose/Nate lineup?

D-

Trm3 · Post #1057 » by **Trm3** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:05 pm

dice wrote:
Trm3 wrote:
dice wrote:he would only be playing 5 minutes a game, dude. and even if he played big minutes it wouldn't necessarily make us a better team, let alone favorites to win the title. this is silly

Sorry, he'd be playing more than 5 minutes..him and Kirk would be the anchors of the second unit

mike. dunleavy.

he was not signed to spell deng for 10 minutes a night

I don't know, Thibs will probably still play Deng 43 minutes.

KissedByaRose1 · Post #1058 » by **KissedByaRose1** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:21 pm

dice wrote:
KissedByaRose1 wrote:Bogans played 17 minutes a game in 2011. You shouldn't get hung up on the whole "Starter" title because it doesn't really mean anything

i'm not. bogans should've been a 3rd stringer and he instead played 17 minutes a game

Hinrich started last year because it was a better basketball strategy to couple his awful shooting with our better Offensive players as opposed to our abysmal bench where he would have hurt us even more

as long as you're admitting hinrich was more valuable to thibs because he got more minutes than nate

Why would he be opposed to a Rose/Nate lineup?

D-

Rose is better against defending speedy PGs (About half the league right now) than Hinrich is and thibs was already OK with a Kirk/Nate lineup that was obviously giving something up Defensively with Nate on the court. He's obvious.

To your Bogans comment

2011-
Bogans 17.8 MPG
Korver 20.1 MPG
Brewer 22 MPG

He was a 3rd stringer. Played the fewest minutes of all our SGs and almost never finished games. Thibs knows what he is doing.

The Explorer · Post #1059 » by **The Explorer** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:34 pm

dice wrote:
KissedByaRose1 wrote:Give me Nate and we got this.

he would only be playing 5 minutes a game, dude. and even if he played big minutes it wouldn't necessarily make us a better team, let alone favorites to win the title. this is silly

Hinrich and rose have proven to be injury prone players. If they miss time again, you are stuck with Teague. Robinson is almost a must on this team.

JackFinn · Post #1060 » by **JackFinn** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:40 pm

The main reason we need depth isn't for covering the team's deficiencies, but rather for covering the team's injuries. We thought that the cost of re-signing Asik wouldn't have been worth the 10-12 minutes we'd get out of him. With Noah's health last year, Asik would have played far more than that.