It's just a passing mention, and one in a publication not noted for it's 100% success rate at reporting rumours, but Marc Berman of the New York Post today mentions that the Bulls have inquired about free agent Knicks point guard, Nate Robinson.
Other teams who have made inquiries [about Robinson] are the Blazers, where Robinson is beloved by Nate McMillan and Brandon Roy, Miami and the Bulls, who are in need of bench scoring after Ben Gordon's defection to Detroit. Last season, Robinson proved to be one of the league's best sixth men and had a Player Efficiency Rating that ranked sixth among point guards, ahead of Kidd and Bucks point guard Ramon Sessions
[more at link, albeit not Bulls related].
The wording of the article specifically describes the Bulls interest as a reported fact, and not as an idea of Berman's, and as such it must raise our intrigue. But why would the Bulls be interested in Robinson, a team often informed of its size deficiency in the backcourt in pursuit of the smallest player in the league today? It's a poser.
Nate's lack of height is the first thing you think of about him as a player. It's certainly the first thing I thought of, which is why I wrote it first. He is listed at 5'9, making him one of the shortest players in the league's history, yet his height is the only thing that makes him a point guard. He has a scorer's skillset and a scorer's mentality, playing point guard only by default, and particularly struggling in a half court system. His defense is about as rugged and effective as you can find in a 5'9 player, where his combination of strength and supreme athleticism allow him to stay in front of players far bigger than he. Unfortuantely, they'll always be able to shoot over him.
Robinson's jumpshot is also temperamental, and he takes more three pointers than the 33% 3PT-FG that he's shot over these last two seasons suggests that he should. The fact that he's so unrelentingly confident in himself is both a blessing and a curse; it allows him to achieve at the level that he does despite God forgetting to give him six inches (giggidy), but it also causes him to play above his station at times. For those reasons, Nate Robinson will probably always be best served as a bench player.
There's a plus side, though. Whether they had kept Gordon or not, the Bulls needed to acquire more quality players. They were a .500 team with a first round exit last season, and a long way out of contention for a title. So taking any opportunity to pursue good quality players is something to be noted, appreciated, and perhaps commended.
That's what Nate Robinson is - a quality player. He's not as good as he thinks he is (no one's as good as Nate thinks he is) but he is good nonetheless. Even in a Mike D'Antoni system, it's hard to score 17 points per game in 30 minutes over a full NBA season. But Nate Robinson did that last season, and even if his size worries you, his efficiency alarms you, and his swagger outright annoys you, you'd be hard pushed to deny the man's talent level. He can flat out score in this league.
And, since he was the man drafted with the future pick that the Bulls gave up to acquire Luol Deng from Phoenix, the Bulls can complete the circle of life by pairing the two up. Bonus.
To acquire Nate, a restricted free agent, the Bulls would presumably have to use their full mid level exception (which the Knicks might match anyway), or work out a sign and trade deal. Any such acquisition affects the Bulls' free agency plans in 2010 (something that Sam Smith reports the Bulls are now fully committed to), and the Knicks would prioritise giving up Jared Jeffries or Eddy Curry in any sign and trade deal, their only non-2010 friendly big contracts remaining.
Those won't be especially desirable for the Bulls, if their own fledgling 2010 plans are to be believed; Jeffries is a fairly talentless player whose defensive versatility is nothing that the Bulls can't get elsewhere, and while a return of Curry would be a little bit hilarious, it's also probably not a good idea. (No, scratch that; it's definitely not a good idea.) But Robinson, a player nearly traded to Sacramento at the deadline, is surely available, with a skillset that this team suddenly needs. His strenghts nullify his flaws, and if you think he can make an effective pairing with Kirk Hinrich, Derrick Rose or both, then you can hopefully see an upside here.
Then again, maybe Berman's merely thinking outloud.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Tags: chicago bulls, derrick rose, Eddy Curry, Jared Jeffries, kirk hinrich, Nate Robinson, Rumours, Sign And Trade
Nate sure he will bring scoring off the bench which the Bulls could use but I rather look other option and Nate should be the last option to consider pick him up.
I say this before Nate's position is "undefined position." meaning he is short size of a point guard but he is not a point guard and doesn't play one. He is also way to under size for a shooting guard that's what I meant by "undefined position."
I really like that cat!
You're not going to find many high energy guys at that size and ability. He's a perfect backup point guard. He makes Hinrich slide to the backup SG.
Rose Robinson
Salmons Hinrich
Deng Johnson
Thomas Johnson Gibson
Noah Miller
I also see they like Jannero Pargo, that's pitiful. You gave up one of the best shooters - already inscribed in history with a early start - just for a borderline backup. Now if this isn't cheap, then I don't know what is. Seriously, why would you drop a guy with solidarity at SG. I don't get it, Derrick Rose played with a Center at Simeon that was the same size as Ben Gordon. It isn't like Derrick couldn't adapt.
Pargo isn't a borderline backup. He's a genuine bench contributor. And regardless of who was on the roster, the Bulls needed to pursue genuine bench contributors.
Well, Bulls are at 0, they lost a better player and replaced him with a undrafted contributor. As it stands:
PG: Rose Hinrich
SG: Salmons ?
SF: Deng Johnson
PF: Thomas Gibson
C: Noah Miller
That roster don't look appealing when you remove BG7. I don't buy into the notion that Salmons can replace a younger BG7. Salmons is not young and he'll be on decline this upcoming year. Him and Jamison are in the same boat. Besides, Salmons really isn't a 2, more of a 3 if you ask me.
I agree with that, and said as much here:
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bulls-confidential/2009/06/can-we-please-trade-john-salmons.html
But look at your projected depth chart there, and you'll notice the lack of shooting on it. Kirk and Salmons are the only three point shooters on it. That lineup projects to shoot worse from three than the Sixers, the worst three point shooting team in the league last year. And that's why there's a need for Pargo, and out-and-out shooter.
To add on, Jannero Pargo really isn't a guy I would stop and say, "no more signings, we've found the guy whom can replace Gordon." It sounds absurd when you hear it. Look, Bulls have to sign Rodney Carney to backup the old guy, Salmons. Simple as that, and I would also think about signing ZaZa to backup Ty.Thomas. I'm not sure why Bulls would give up on a guy that has a reputation for being instant offense. You're not going to find a shooter and scorer of his ability through the draft. Gordon almost hits all his shots at a 80% rate during the approach of 5mins into the first quarter of games.
The Bulls are not looking to, nor are they financially able to replace Gordon this year.
They will "replace" him either at the 2010 trade deadline in a blockbuster deal, or in next summers free agency.
This team was going nowhere in 2009 with or without Gordon. With the improvement of many teams in the east, as well as the return to health of several, the Bulls will struggle to even make the playoffs. Toronto and Washington are likely to knock the Bulls and Pistons out.
How the roster looks in going into 2010 is all that matters, and it will be radically different, and almost certainly much closer to competing for a title than the team with Gordon with competed for a .500 record and first round elimanation. Even if we have to "settle" for Joe Johnson we will have a significant upgrade to Gordon.
Retaining Gordon would have cost the Bulls over $20 million this season, and elimanted them from the free agent sweepstakes next summer. Not worth it on either count.
This losing Gordon hysteria is assinine, as it will all be forgotten a little over a year from now, except of course by those sychophants over at DucheBagaBull.