Is Nate at the Gate?

[CaptChris]

Seems that the Celtics have made a bid for Nate Robinson.

What's your take?

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/64132/20100119/celtics_trying_to_acquire_nate/

[ThroughThatDoor]

I think a trade could easily happen if the Celts agreed to take on Jeffries contract as well and give back expirings in return. Something like Robinson and Jeffries for House, Allen and Scal works numbers wise. Nate could work pretty well as kind of instant offense off the bench.

[apc]

he would be a great addition, not many players can come of the bench and score 20+ points.
i just hope we are not giving up to much.

[Bogg]

Nate Robinson's base year compensation status requires that he be paired with a second salary to make the numbers work, or sent to a team under the cap(obviously not applicable to us). I wouldn't have any objection to bringing back Jared Jefferies with Nate because he's a competent defender that we could use as a big body against the Hawks forwards/R. Lewis/Lebron/Odom/Artest in the playoffs. Worst case scenario he's an expiring contract to play with next season, it isn't like we're going to have cap room this summer anyway.

EDIT: The only issue is that, if ESPN's trade machine is to be trusted, Scal/TA/Eddie for Nate/Jefferies is the only trade that works. It becomes a question of whether Nate is a big enough upgrade over Eddie and TA to make the trade worthwhile.

[nighthob]

Nate's not a BYC player, he's on a termination deal. Essentially Boston would be dealing for a player they couldn't re-sign.

[Bogg]

Espn has him listed as a BYC player, and double-checking Larry Coon's salary cap faq it seems to make sense. You're usually on top of these things though, why isn't his contract a BYC situation?

[Celtics17]

I think a trade could easily happen if the Celts agreed to take on Jeffries contract as well and give back expirings in return. Something like Robinson and Jeffries for House, Allen and Scal works numbers wise. Nate could work pretty well as kind of instant offense off the bench.

I'd be into that deal. If the Knicks would take Baby instead of TA, that would be even better.

[nighthob]

Espn has him listed as a BYC player, and double-checking Larry Coon's salary cap faq it seems to make sense. You're usually on top of these things though, why isn't his contract a BYC situation?

As far as I know this is the last year of his rookie deal (though that might have changed in the last CBA). It used to be assumed that the complete loss of Bird Rights was punishment enough.

[Bogg]

As far as I know this is the last year of his rookie deal (though that might have changed in the last CBA). It used to be assumed that the complete loss of Bird Rights was punishment enough.

He played out the four years of his rookie deal and went into restricted free agency this past summer. They used his Bird rights to re-sign him to a one year deal that more or less doubled his salary from last year as opposed to making him sign a qualifying offer. I think that makes him a BYC player this year, as any raise greater than 20% places that into affect. It's possible that I'm understanding the situation incorrectly though, so I'm not 100% sure that I'm right.

[nighthob]

They didn't use his Bird Rights, they gave him the fifth year qualified offer. It's the termination deal, there're no Bird Rights on QO contracts, which is why no one ever trades for those players.

(To clarify rookie deals are four years and a mutual option, a team can either sign a player or they can extend the qualified offer, which is what New York did with Lee & Robinson. They in turn accepted the contracts in hopes of a payday this summer, but no one's trading for either player because there're no Bird Rights to either guy.)

[Bogg]

That doesn't sound right, because Robinson and Lee are making 4 and 7 million dollars this year, respectively. The qualifying offer for the 21st and 30th pick of the 2005 draft should be around 2.5 and 2.25 million dollars(using the numbers from the NBA Players Associations' web site).

Unless there's a stipulation I'm not aware of that allows a team to make qualifying offers as large as they want(and I'm sure that's not the case) the numbers indicate that Robinson and Lee signed one year extensions at largely increased amounts via their Bird rights.

[nighthob]

If Donnie Walsh did that then I have no idea what he's up to in New York. Frankly I'm not sure he is, either.

[Bogg]

That's why I doubt Nate winds up here. Jefferies is needed to make the numbers work, and that requires committing almost 14 million(including luxury tax) to Jeffries next year, when ownership is trying to re-sign Ray and (presumably) make a free-agent signing to help our bench. I can't see ownership viewing that as worth it for a 5-month rental of Robinson.

[nighthob]

My point was, why would you bother signing a one year deal (and that's new, it used to be that contracts involving Bird Rights had to be for a minimum of three years) for a guy that you can't trade? Why not simply let them leave in free agency? And there's something screwy because Nate Robinson has no-trade status due to termination of Bird Rights, which only happens with a QO contract.

[Bogg]

Oh, I realize that it's unusual and a bit illogical. My understanding is that money is meaningless for the Knicks this year so long as the contracts expire for this summer, and they have no incentive to tank because they don't have their first round pick this year. Donnie Walsh offered Lee and Robinson one year deals at more than anyone else was offering after they had trouble generating interest in free agency in an attempt to retain two of the more popular and productive members of last years' squad while not impacting this summers' cap situation.