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

Post #1281 » by **HomoSapien** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:09 pm

If we lose Nate, I would be pretty fearful hat this year's bench mob would be the worst we've had.

Spimothy Leary · Post #1282 » by **Spimothy Leary** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:10 pm

Doom wrote:posted 14 hours ago by nate

http://instagram.com/p/brJMqygr_z/

does he have a bunch of tatoo's or is it a horrible disease ?
gosh, if its the latter, I hope he gets better soon, because that looks nasty

League Circles · Post #1283 » by **League Circles** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:13 pm

I do think that the #1 reason that the Bulls might not bring Nate back is simply because of size. I mean, they're NOT going to add TWO more perimeter players - just one at most. And currently they have not one player who can create offense by dribbling and playmaking AND be big enough to defend SGs. Belinelli frankly would fit what they need now. There are very, very few guys that can fit that one hole we have right now. I of course want TMac for that role, but Nate can never fit that role, nor can Kirk IMO. Snell would be our best hope or Jimmy.

Looking at the NBA.com free agent tracker, there literally seem to be ZERO big guards who can create left except for TMac. ZERO. If I'm wrong please point one out.

And if we don't bring back Nate, I don't think we'll add another PG regardless of what the rumors have said about interest in Mo or Bynum or whatever. 4 PGs without a real true SG at all is kinda weird.

cubbiefan009 · Post #1284 » by **cubbiefan009** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:14 pm

He did so much for this team last season its unfortunate things aren't working out like they should be. He gained my respect, that's for sure.

BIGGIEsmalls 23 · Post #1285 » by **BIGGIEsmalls 23** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:15 pm

Chi wrote:I really wish people would get over this Nate height thing. It's almost like no one even saw that epic season he had just last year.

We've all seen him dominate players with the so called "size" that everyone seems to want. Nate proves that the "size" of his heart is much more valuable then the physical size of his competition in most cases.

Ask 6'2 CJ Watson. Or would you actually prefer him? He has size.

Nate's positive impact on this team, with his big buckets and the way he fuels our entire team with energy, far outweighs any negative impact he may have on the defensive end. Especially on such a strong defensive team like ours. His offensive impact and energy are undeniable!

I know that he's an inspiration to all the little guys posting on this board, but how many players his size are currently in the NBA?

With all of the great things you mentioned about him above, you have to understand that his size & decision-making outweigh the good. It is the main reason that coming off a great post-season, he's praying for a team to offer him more than the minimum. If he was taller, he would be signed already.

I don't want it to appear that I'm trashing the little fella because I actually became a fan of his last season. I didn't agree with the signing last off-season, but he completely won me over late in the season. I like the guy.

Post #1286 » by **Payt10** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:20 pm

I was under the impression that Thibs was the guy who wanted Nate in the first place. Now Marc Stein says he has reservations about him. What?

And I agree with Homo Sapien. This year's bench mob, minus Nate, is probably the worst bench we've had in the Thibideau era. Teague, Hinrich, Dunleavy, Gibson, Nazr. Who knows about whether Snell will be in there somewhere.. That is one of the least athletic/most offensively challenged benches you can think of.

Spimothy Leary · Post #1287 » by **Spimothy Leary** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:27 pm

my thought process is this:

If we had signed him under a 2 year deal with the 20% raise, I would be thrilled to know he's going to be around one more year, therefore I'd like to see him back, but I understand the tax ramifications too, when you factor in the tax we'll be paying in much more than just the 20%.

however....

I think he's earned a spot, and i'm also surprised he hasn't received a better offer to this point. So obviously what passes the eye test for me doesn't pass the eye test for gm's around the league.

kdapiton · Post #1288 » by **kdapiton** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:31 pm

stay away Denver!

ChiCitySPORTS#1 · Post #1289 » by **ChiCitySPORTS#1** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:44 pm

We really need someone who can score off the bench. Kirk/Nazr/Dun/Taj is terrible offensively. Someone as trigger happy as Nate would actually be good for the 2nd unit.

JackFinn · Post #1290 » by **JackFinn** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:47 pm

Gar Paxdorf wrote:
-Illmatic- wrote:How can the Bulls drive up his price?

The Bulls can offer him 20% above the vet minimum. If another interested team believes he's going to sign with the Bulls for that amount, they may offer him a little bit more, like the BAE of about 1.9 mil or something like that.

In other words, the Bulls can't drive up his price by more than a nothing amount, and that's assuming they didn't offer him that already(though you made an interesting point earlier on why they might hold out on the extra 20% until Nate gets a better offer.) And the fact that they did extend him an offer, together with Thibs' quotes about Nate, conflicts with Stein's tweet.

If Rose doesn't play 82 games and we don't sign Nate, our offense is going to be weird. Like, 60's weird(sooo weird.)

I know that he's an inspiration to all the little guys posting on this board,

Much like Biggie Smalls is an inspiration to all the fatties ooooooh snap. haha, because fat.

bullsnewdynasty · Post #1291 » by **bullsnewdynasty** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:52 pm

Well, I guess back to the high 30s in minutes for the starters.

BIGGIEsmalls 23 · Post #1292 » by **BIGGIEsmalls 23** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:04 pm

JackFinn wrote:
I know that he's an inspiration to all the little guys posting on this board,

Much like Biggie Smalls is an inspiration to all the fatties ooooooh snap. haha, because fat.

My Avatar's feelings are hurt

.

MalcolmXing · Post #1293 » by **MalcolmXing** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:04 pm

You know we been complaining that the FO needs to get creative.

So why not kidnap Nate & let him go once all the other teams fill up their rosters?

You can thank me now.

Stratmaster · Post #1294 » by **Stratmaster** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:09 pm

Thibs doesn't hate Nate. Thibs is why Nate ended up on the team last season, at least the way I understand it (he had played for Thibs before). But there is a reason no one wanted him before, and no one is all that interested now. It is a it perplexing to me to watch all the Bulls fans talk about him like he would be an asset this season. Nate is a journeyman PG volume shooter who is barely hanging onto a spot in the league. Meanwhile many of us Bulls fans talk like he is a borderline star. It is amazing what a couple great games in the regular season and one epic game in the playoffs will do for your reputation with the home crowd.

Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums mobile app

JackFinn · Post #1295 » by **JackFinn** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:12 pm

BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote:My Avatar's feelings are hurt .

Hey, a lot of chicks dig bears. You hit 'em with that cuddly **** and they're all awwww and you're all 8-)

pylb · Post #1296 » by **pylb** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:13 pm

While I agree with you Stratmaster and won't care too much if Nate doesn't come back, he has a skill-set that no one else (but Rose) on the team has. And compared to the other options at the vet min, he's certainly one of the best.

Jordan45822 · Post #1297 » by **Jordan45822** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:13 pm

how much does Nate want anyways?

chitownsalesmen · Post #1298 » by **chitownsalesmen** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:16 pm

Gar Paxdorf wrote:
BIGGIEsmalls 23 wrote:Have you guys ever thought about the possibility that the Bulls simply do not even want Nate back?

I always viewed him as nothing more than a stopgap for last season. That's all.

Yeah. Nate played the role of Derrick Rose last year. Derrick Rose is now back. It's potentially awkward. Derrick already has/had mental roadblocks to playing. Personally, I think part of that had to do with the fact that Nate was often lighting it up. Not that Nate is as good as Rose of course, even offensively, but he certainly capable of better individual offensive games on occasion (MJ-esque 4th qtr and OT vs Brooklyn) and Nate is such a "star" and garners so much attention when he's on that maybe the Bulls secretly think it's better if Nate isn't back. Rose was filled with doubt and having an unreal athlete with a better shot and maybe even bigger balls backing him up might potentially lead to a less than perfect team.

The thing is, we really are short on offensive creation if Nate isn't back. That is unless Teague takes a big step up and can be the primary backup PG with Kirk playing the 2. Because Kirk trying to feed Taj in the post and Dunleavy and Snell for jumpers is not going to be pretty.

If Rose can't handle a 5'9 point guard, who for his faults is a decent player, backing him up than I have to wonder if Rose can ever handle crunch time playoff basketball versus LeBron or Durant, Kobe etc.

MalcolmXing · Post #1299 » by **MalcolmXing** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:16 pm

Jordan45822 wrote:@AlexKennedyNBA: Following up on @ESPNSteinLine's Nuggets tweet, I'm told Nate Robinson has also received interest from the Wizards, Bucks, Mavs and Lakers.

Son of a $@#%!

mostek · Post #1300 » by **mostek** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:18 pm

Alex Kennedy ‏@AlexKennedyNBA 8m
The Lakers and Mavericks may have moved on from Nate Robinson after signing a few guards, but they were among the teams interested