Final words on Nate Robinson, the best one year wonder in the history of the Chicago Bulls

There's some thought that a team can pick up a Nate Robinson at the minimum at any point. Guys who are undersized and score are simply a dime a dozen, but that's not really true. There's a huge gap between Robinson and John Lucas III or C.J. Watson. In fact Nate Robinson was the best one year player to ever suit up for the Chicago Bulls.

Mike McGraw posted a list of the top scorers to only play one season for the Bulls. Robinson comes second on the list, but he's first in assists per game and PER. Statistically, it seems clear Robinson is the best.

Going beyond the stats, he also had tons of big moments for Chicago. He effectively won game four against the Brooklyn Nets single-handedly. His performance in that game is easily on the list of all time great Bulls playoff performances. A case could be made that it's the best playoff performance by any player outside of Michael Jordan in a Bulls uniform, and that includes Derrick Rose.

Robinson almost broke the record for fourth quarter points in a playoff game (one shy of Jordan if memory serves me correctly) and his flurry of points at the end to erase a 14 point deficit over roughly a four minute stretch was one of the more remarkable things you'll ever see in the NBA.

Robinson scored on five straight possessions before assisting on the final one, hitting all four of his shots, knocking down all three of his free throws (fouled on a three), and then finding Carlos Boozer for a wide open layup to tie the game after Brooklyn finally double teamed him hard to get the ball out of his hands. Over that stretch he scored 12 and had the assist on the game tying field goal.

No one will forget his toughness as he played through the flu, throwing up in a bucket on the sideline during game six of the series. For a team decimated with injuries, Robinson came through. There's no stat about how well the Bulls played without Robinson, because they never had to. He suited up in all 82 games and every playoff game.

Beyond what he did for the Bulls on the floor both objectively and subjectively, I think Robinson meant even more for the fans. I don't know if there's a Bulls fan I talked to over the year who didn't fall in love with little Nate during the season. He brought the energy and excitement to a team that was about as interesting as watching paint dry.

From his scoring bursts to his wild dunk attempt over Ibaka that fell about two feet short, Nate Robinson never failed to entertain. He was what made tuning into a game of defensive rotations and poor offensive execution watchable. He gave you that "what's going to happen next" feeling, pumped up the crowd, and lifted you out of your seat.

Nate Robinson signed with Denver for two years and four million. I'm not quite sure whether the Bulls are better off with Dunleavy or Robinson. I understand that Nate's role won't be needed so much with Derrick back. I understand the Bulls have three PGs on the roster already and likely couldn't have dumped Hinrich for cap room (not that I think they tried).

However, the team will definitely be a little sadder without Nate, a little less fun, possibly quite a bit worse. Will Dunleavy create a shot when the Bulls need him to? Will Hinrich stay health or generate any offense for the second team? Maybe the Bulls are better off with the roster they put together. Once they used the MMLE they had no money to offer, and if they did there still wasn't any room left. I get it.

However, I'm still going to miss Nate Robinson. Thank you for that amazing season.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Some fans understand why the Bulls should've retained Nate while others ride the coattails of the Bulls FO being as loyal to the tee. Any GM or owner that has a competitve drive would've kept Nate on the team and appreciated what he brought to the roster as a player. I'm sorry but in my opinion u don't let players like Nate go even with his faults that didn't outweigh his good plays, but hey...the Bulls did let Asik walk for nothing so this comes as no surprise. And with all due respect to Hinrich and Teague if I had to choose, Nate would be my second point guard.

  • In reply to Reese1:

    And that hot garbage of a story that said Thibs didn't want him back is just another Bulls FO PR blunder to throw their coach under the bus. No wonder Ron Adams isn't with the team anymore.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Reese1:

    I definitely agree bro. Nate was a big factor for the bulls, and it doesn't make any sense why they did not resign him. Dunleavy gets 2 years for 6 mill and they couldn't match that with Nate?? I truthfully do not see anyone coming off the bench other than Taj that will create that spark this year. Nate didn't even just bring his skill to the bulls last year, he also brought heart and fire to Chicago as well. You need someone like that on your team, and that will fight to the last second, and get the team and the fans going... Nate definitely brought that element to the city.

  • Yeah it really is sad to see Nate go considering what he brought to this team. What's even sadder is they let him go without putting much thought into keeping him. Honestly if it wasn't for Nate the Bulls would have been almost un-watchable because at times it seemed he was the only guy that knew how to put the ball in the hole, while guys like Boozer, Hinrich, etc. are getting paid millions more but at times become liabilities because per se Hinrich can't shoot the ball or Boozer has defense. Yet when it comes to Nate he's not a keeper because he's streaky? But when you count the number of games he's won for the Bulls in one season alone it adds up to more than Boozer and Hinrich both combined. The fact that he single handily won the Nets series for us says a lot. He may not have great value throughout the league but there should have at least been some value for the Bulls. Sure Derrick Rose is coming back and we need to develop Teague but given a choice between Hinrich and Nate I would have chose Nate for if nothing else to play a 6th man role or to be a spark guy off the bench which clearly he can do. Some may argue Hinrich is more consistent and has better court vision, but that's more of a role for your starting pg which Rose has on lock. When the Heat are triple teaming Rose in the playoffs Nate is a guy that could have taken away some pressure. Whereas if Hinrich is wide open I'll let him take that shot all day because he's not a threat. At some point while Rose is still young the Bulls have to get out of this rebuilding team mind set or we're never going to get anywhere.

  • I totally agree. Nate added a different element to the Bulls that I haven't seen in a long time. If it wasn't for nate I wouldn't have been able to watch the Bulls last season because they were too horrible on offense. In my personal opinion the Bulls front office feels a lot like a corporation; Where they don't care about the workers or even the customers, all that matters is the bottom line and the profits. The only way to get ahead is not by the work you put in, but who you know and if they like you.

    Nate Robinson is a prime example of that. If you were a GM serious about competing for a title those are the kind of guys you keep. There's a name for players like Nate, they're called difference makers. Not to be mistaken with Role players, anyone can play a role but not everyone can really make a difference. Boozer is a role player but doesn't make a difference. Nate on the other hand is a wild card that can come out and explode on any give night and no one can stop him. Those are the kind of guys you need to win a championship. Robert horry was a player like that. On the surface he was nothing special but an average shooting gaurd, but he was clutch and came through at times when it counted the most and won championships. Those kind of things will never show up on paper but people have witnessed it. The Bulls front office just don't seem to have an eye for those sort of players, either that or they're just ignorant. It's more to the game of basketball than only politics.

  • In reply to ajaychitown:

    Agree on the Robert Horry comment, the man has more rings than Jordan cause he was that wild card player like Nate. Just thinking about it...BIG SHOT BOB has 7 chchampionships, one more than Jordan that he earned and played a big role on every team that he was on is very impressive. Hard to find guys like that and I think eventually Nate will get a championship maybe before the Bulls get another with what he brings to a team.

  • In reply to ajaychitown:

    Worth noting that the most anyone in the NBA thought Robinson was worth was 2 years 4 million. Unless everyone in the NBA isn't serious about competing for a title, it would appear your line of thinking is somewhat flawed there.

    I loved Nate, thought he was amazing, but let's not get too over the top on what he can do to help someone win a championship. He was on the Thunder/Celtics while they were seriously competing for the title and barely played on either team.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    Sorry Doug but Nate and Glen Davis a.k.a. Big Baby played a big role with the Celtics when they were in Boston especially during the playoffs and as far as Nate with OKC, he was just part of the Kendrick Perkins deal, a team that he didn't need to be traded to that's why he barely played there. Again, Nate just needs a chance with a bigger role on a team. It's like the NBA is trying to black ball him out of the league because of his immaturity when he first came into the league which he has improved on immensely. But hey that's how the NBA is today and its politics. Nate was a perfect player for the Bulls off the bench to continue to build this Bullz roster to a championship contender but a lot of people will disagree because once again... the fans will think the FO knows best but it's just basketball common sense.

  • In reply to Reese1:

    He may have not played for the celtics or thunder but lets give credit to Thibbs for getting the most out of nate robinson. I really feel that nate can give something crucial to a championship team. His energy alone could carry a team through certain dog days of an 82 game season. Playing along side a derrick rose may allow him to provide scoring spurts in a Ben Gordon role and he's fearless. I dont care about his height but if I'm going into a fight I would love nate right there with me. He's enthusiasm and heart will be missed. Doug search nate robinson and ambition on YouTube. It's a great highlight reel. Unfortunately it can't be seen on a smartphone but a desktop should be fine.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to argie2333:

    I couldn't agree anymore with you. Height means nothing. If you can ball you can ball. Nate Robinson is one those players that don't come around too often. Bulls made a big mistake not resigning him.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    Like I said earlier, Nate's value around the league may have been minimal, but there should have been some value for him here in Chicago considering what he's done for the Bulls. 2 years 4 million is much better than the 2 years 10 million we're paying Hinrich who for the most part doesn't do anything special. Say what you will about Hinrich but he's not better than Nate. Heck, he was never better than Gordon but the Bulls favored Hinrich anyway.

  • In reply to ajaychitown:

    Robert Horry was never a shooting guard. He was 6'9". He came into the league as an athletic SF who couldn't shoot. The reason he hit the shots you remember him hitting is because he was smart enough to work on his jumper as he lost all of his athleticism. At the end he was basically a stretch 4 and he was hitting those shots because he was wide open because the PF he was matched up with always left him to go hang around the basket.

  • In reply to bullshooter:

    Robert Horry being a shooting gaurd was a typo. Yes he was a small foward but you know what saying. Your assessment of Robert Horry is just wrong. Of course he's going to be a stretch 4 at the end because that's when ball players are getting past their prime so they have to find other ways to be useful. I'm talking about Horry before he started aging back on the Houston Rockets when they won the Championship with Hakeem the Dream, Otis Thorp, Sam Cassell, Vernon Maxwell ( another guy that was clutch ) and Robert Horry. I'm not saying Horry was some legendary scoring or shooting threat, but he was a clutch player, just like Nate.

  • In reply to ajaychitown:

    UH, you might argue whether Horry played small forward, or stretch 4 before there really was such a thing, but he was never a shooting guard.

  • Nate had an amazing season, one that I will never forget. While I would have liked to have him back, I think the front office knows what they are doing. Over the past 3 years the bench has exceeded expectations and every year people complain about how they screw up. They have one of the best regular season records over the past 3 years. While I would have liked to see them do better in the playoffs, injuries have limited the opportunities. It amazes me how many people who post are smarter than the front office, just wondering when they start their new jobs as GM's.

  • In reply to BullsFan231:

    Well Reese1 has openly stated that he thinks he could be a NBA GM so there you go.

  • In reply to Roman F:

    Never said I was a GM...but if i were in the position as your Bulls owner, i would guarantee the Bulls would be competitive every year with the right players that it would take to win a championship at damn near every position with ASIK and Nate on todays team. Lets see what else...oh yeah, the Jordan, Pippin, and Jackson era wouldnt have come to a end after the second 3 peat either. So again never said i was trying to play GM but if given the opportunity I'd be willing to bet i could do a much better job than the two stooges GarPax. So there you go sir since you want to throw my name out there...HOMER ALERT...LOL...

  • In reply to Reese1:

    Apologies. Not that anyone else here does, but I should do a better job of citing sources especially with Google around. It was BigWay.

  • I agree with everything you said about Nate and will miss him, but just to quibble a bit, Rose has at least two playoff performances that arguably equal what he did against the Nets.

    Game 1 against the Celtics where he tied Kareem's scoring record for a rookie playoff debut, all while matched up against the great defender (heh) Rondo. That's one hell of a coming out party in the best first round series ever.

    The other would be Game 1 against the Pacers, where the Bulls were trailing by as much as 9 in the 4th and were looking at a stunning upset until D Rose happened.

  • In reply to Tyler Soze:

    I said "arguably". I think coming back from 14 down in 5 minutes while scoring on five straight possessions and making the assist on the sixth to lead your team from certain defeat to victory is more impressive than Rose's first game (by far).

    The second one against Indiana is a tough call, but the Bulls were the heavy favorite in that game, and I felt Brooklyn was a better team than the Bulls.

    I don't think it's a slam dunk that it was the best non Jordan game, but it's easy to make the case.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    Ben Gordon had some monster games against the Celts as well, but Nate's performance is certainly the most exciting non-Jordan playoff performance I can remember.

  • In reply to Roman F:

    Gordon's big games against the Celtics were all losses, so you can't equate those with Nate's. If I remember correctly, Gordon average 30 points in the Bulls losses and 18 and the wins, and he barely shot over 30%.

    Also, I would think that Pippen had some amazing games that have just been overshadowed by Jordan

  • In reply to BigWay:

    Double over time win in game four where he hit the clutch three to send it to the second overtime and some other big shots was a big game. Not as big as Nates, but still big.

  • One fact about Nate: he was in better shape than almost everybody he played against and he went HARD all the f'ing time. That's why us Bulls fans will always love the guy. It's also why he may be extra dangerous in the Mile High City, as opponents get gassed playing at a normal pace ... and now will have to try and cover Lawson and Nate for 48 minutes ... should be fun NBA TV ...

  • Always liked Nate and he usually steps up when given a chance. Sure he has flaws but that is why he doesn't make the big bucks. I think for his price he is still a bargain. I knew last summer when they overpaid Hinrich that Nate would have the better season because he fit the Bulls PG role. Him and Belli where the only signings I liked and I am so glad they got Nate because he brought some fire and scoring and wildness to a team of deffensive grinders with little emotion. It would have been painful season to watch without a little Captain KryptoNate.

    Figured with their 3 PG's they wouldn't bring him back but if it was me would have dumped Kirk and rolled with Nate. Kirks a solid player and a great guy but just doesn't fit our team and it shows badly in his stats.

    It is going to be interesting to see what role Duneleavy plays as far as more of a SG or SF. Doesn't seem like he has the quicks to gaurd most SGs anymore and the SF spot is deep.

  • Nate was the perfect player for energy/6th man scorer off the bench but the Bulls want to develop Teague and have Hinrich for one more year so it was pretty much known this would happen. It does make you think what kind of second unit lineup does Thibs go with? Does he go with Teague and Hinrich backcourt or does he cut Teague out completely and use him as a 3rd emergency point guard. Teague for all his faults did look like an improved 3pt shooter and scorer in summerleague. Of course this means nothing until he can prove he can do it in real games. Dunleavy is not just a shooter as he can playmake off the screens with excellent passing so we have to wait and see how this new "Bench Mob 3.0" plays but without the Asik role filled, the defense part is still missing.

  • I think there are people who confuse being exciting with being good, plus there are folks here who would rather see a good offensive team than a good team.

    That stated, when you factor in price, I'd take Nate over Hinrich and I don't think it's close. I'm not sure what the team sees in Hinrich. I mean he's a steady player and all and filled in admirably as a starting PG during Rose's absence, but he's not very dynamic and when you add in the injuries, I really don't get it. Considering there were even better offers for Kirk than the Bulls' offer, and considering Nate only got 2 for $4MM, Kirk has much more value around the league than Nate which again leaves me perplexed.

    Always hate to play this card but I do think race plays a role here. White players are more popular and Hinrich is a good PR guy. Same player in black skin isn't nearly as valuable IMO. (I'm a white guy btw).

  • In reply to Roman F:

    C'mon, white players are more popular.

    Name the top 5, 10 NBA players in popularity/jersey sales. They are nearly all, if not all black and probably have been since Larry Bird retired.

    My favorite Bulls last season were, Noah, Butler and Nate. and I'd guess that would be the case for many if not a majority of Bulls fans.

  • In reply to BigWay:

    Noah is 1/2 Swedish, 1/4 French and 1/4 Cameroonian, seems pretty white to me.

  • In reply to Shakes:

    Right or wrong, do you think anyone looks at Noah as a white guy?

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    Well I thought the smiley wasn't required because it was pretty obviously a joke but not so. :/

  • In reply to Shakes:

    Well then you need to open your eyes, or ask Noah himself how he identifies himself.

    I've never heard anyone suggest that our president is anything other than black, when he is factually a white african american. Even the president sees himself as Travon Martin, not Dean Martin.

  • In reply to Shakes:

    Can you please look up the ethnic backgrounds of the following players for me, Jordan, Pippen, Charles Oakley, Bob Love, Chet Walker, and Norm Van Lier, just to name a few of my previous favorite Bulls.

    My eyes might have been deceiving me all these years. They certainly wouldn't have been my favorite players if they weren't all black.

    Before anyone goes nuts, my tongue is fimly implanted in my cheek.

    Doug, obviously put if more sucintly. Really does anyone actually give a crap these days, or when it comes to sports ever since the leagues integrated.

  • In reply to BigWay:

    I'm sure there are individuals like yourself that don't care, but I remember hearing during the Bulls third championship run that the most popular player on the Suns was in fact Dan Majerle. When it comes to popularity, talent and attitude trump race but I don't believe for a moment that race isn't a factor.

    In trying to determine why Hinrich's value > Nate's value, I think your idea that Fundamental Basketball > Playground Basketball probably has more to do with it than PR. Certainly makes much more sense than my theory about PR or the theory that "Hinrich is Reinsdorf's boy" which has been thrown around here.

  • In reply to BigWay:

    Geez, someone needs to look up joke in the dictionary.

  • In reply to Roman F:

    That's absolutely brilliant, I was just saying that the Bulls dumped Asik and Korver because the weren't quite white enough. (I'm shy and loved to be held btw).

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I'm just theorizing as to why Hinrich has so much more value around the league than Nate. Size has something to do with it too obviously and most teams would rather have a steady player than an all-or-nothing player, but Kirk's injury history is a big deal too so I still don't get it, leaving me to guess that it's PR.

  • In reply to Roman F:

    It clearly has to do with playing fundamentally sound basketball versus being a playground type player. Now that too may play to a stereotype, but if any league is the most colorblind it has to be the NBA.

    Look. I like watching Nate a heck of a lot better than I ever liked watching Hangdog, but that still doesn't make him a better or more desirable NBA player. We caught lightening in a bottle with Nate last season, who knows if it will ever happen for him again, obviously the league wasn't so sure that it would.

  • Would have loved to keep Nate, but there was just not room on the roster. It would have been a luxury to keep him and with the Bulls in the tax it just didn't make sense.

    Nate is a scorer, but that's about it. You don't want to rely on him consistently to run an offense. (Why do you think the Bulls record was so bad when Hinrich did not play?) He's much to small for SG unless you playing a team with short guards.

    So, unless the Bulls were to trade Teague or Hinrich, it made no sense to keep Nate. I'd rather have Hinrich's consistency and leadership. (hopefully he can stay healthy)

    I'm not in love with Teague, but I think his upside and favorable contract out-weigh signing Nate. Now, take out the financial decision, I'd much rather have Nate any day over Teague. But, I'd rather roll with Dunleavy/Teague combo than just Nate. Dunleavy has size and we can play him many more minutes than Nate.

  • In reply to Granby:

    Your comment as to why the Bulls didn't keep Nate over Teague or Hinrich is purely a financial comment and that's the very reason as to why Asik or Nate and even Korver are no longer with the Bulls. Just imagine for a minute if these three guys were a part of the Bulls bench. Take out all of the financial crap and think from a competitive stance. Chicago is the third biggest market in the league and they can't afford a bench with these 3 guys on it. This takes me back to what Jeff Van Gundy said about the Bulls, is the owner trying to win a championship, just be competitive or what??? I mean this bench mob 1.0 2.0 and now 3.0 is getting ridiculous, there has to be some stability with the starters and the bench imo if they are serious about contending for a championship. What the Bulls FO is doing is just stupid and probably the reason why Ron Adams was fired cause he questioned the Bulls shuffling the Bulls bench every year.

  • In reply to Reese1:

    It's very rare for a team to keep its top 8-9 guys every year. The Bulls did it for two seasons with the original bench mob. They've kept the primary core together since then. I wouldn't say they lack continuity relative to the rest of the league by any stretch.

    As for paying more money, it's always nice if ownership wants to spend more, but the Bulls are a good ways into the tax now, to the point that if they had Asik and Korver here soaking up another 11 million on the payroll it'd cost them something like 35 million total.

    I don't think any reasonable fan complains about them not going that far into the tax. Granted, they'd probably not keep Dunleavy in those circumstances which would maybe lower the hit to 20-25 million or so, but it'd still be awfully tough to justify.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    Rational points all, however while;

    I can easily live with the trade off of Dunleavy for Korver, with Korver being the better(maybe only slightly) 3 point shooter and Dunleavy being the superior(maybe vastly) over all player, even though he got half of Korvers contract. In fact, I can easily see Dunleavy making everybody forget about Korver, Belli and maybe even Nate.

    However, not having Asik could easily be the difference between winning the title this season and not. He may have been that difference 3 years ago against the Heat when he wasn't even a player yet, we just didn't get to find out because he got hurt in that series.

    To me, and it basically proves out every year no matter how great the offense stars are in the playoffs, DEFENSE wins championships, and we were the best defensive team in the league with Asik, without him I think that Miami is, at least whenever they decide that they want to be. and Indy and Memphis might have us beat also.

    Right now, the thing that will hold back the Bulls from winning a championship is lack of front court strength/depth.

    The BozoHole is worthless as a championship piece, he is nothing more than a space eating/minute wasting useless appendage who should be stealing a paycheck on the dregs of the league, you know like Ben Gordon went off to do.

    With a healthy Rose and the athleticism of the Bulls wings, you could win a championship with Noah, Asik and Taj playing insane defense and pounding the boards, Noah and Taj alone is not enough. Thats why Snell better be at least as good as Jimmy B, because we sure could have used Dieng this season.

    If you believe in this theory than the question is how much extra is winning a championship(or 2, or 3) worth to Reiny D, and I don't mean just extra money, how badly does he want it.

  • In reply to BigWay:

    I agree they should have kept Asik and not let money stand in the way, but it's a leap to say he's the difference between winning a championship and not winning a championship, let alone 2 or 3, when the Bulls haven't even been able to win more than 1 game against the Heat. You're talking about a 12-14 minute bench player taking us from 1 win to 4. I'm more frustrated that when the Bulls want a player like Aldridge, they have to give up Noah and Deng to get him. Lakers will probably get him for Nick Young and a pick or something.

    It's fun to say if only the owner had opened his wallet we'd win multiple championships but really, if the Bulls had Asik, they have maybe a 20% chance to beat the Heat whereas they have only a 10% chance without him -- and it's debatable that a bench player makes that much of a difference. Asik also developed more as a starter, getting starter minutes, than he ever would have on the Bulls' bench. Bulls had no chance last year. If they take Miami to 6 or 7 games this year, then you could postulate that Asik might be the difference.

    Bulls play great defense without Asik. Their offensive deficiencies are a much bigger obstacle to winning than lack of front court depth, something very few teams have including the Heat.

  • Nate was never coming back to the Bulls because he wanted to shop around for the best deal and the Bulls couldn't wait and risk missing out on everyone. If he'd said he'd take that deal a month ago then it would have been a different situation.

    I like Nate, as I said in one of the game threads he's a clown but sometimes you're glad he's your clown. But he's a tough player in terms of fit - a sub 6 foot shooting guard who wants to dominate the ball. The Bulls fit him last year with Rose out because it was like they'd built the ideal team around him by accident - kind of like the team Iverson went to the finals with where he could chuck shots and have a bunch of defense + rebound guys around him. But he's not good enough to fit pieces around him in any normal situation. Hence the small contract - he's a better player than that, but teams aren't prepared to pay too much for him.

  • In reply to Shakes:

    It's entirely false about Nate not wanting to be back because he wanted to shop around and the Bulls couldn't wait. The Bulls basically told Nate Robinson he wasn't coming back in the exit interview.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    Which doesn't in any way falsify what I said - it wasn't exactly a secret that he'd want to shop around for the best deal.

  • In reply to Shakes:

    Your implication is that the Bulls may have taken Robinson at 2 years 4 million if they knew that was his price, but they didn't want to wait.

    That's not true. The Bulls did not want him back on any contract at all outside of a minimum deal. Nate wanting to shop around was irrelevant to him coming back to Chicago. He'd have only come back if it was on a vet min deal.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    So the FO must have believed that Dunleavy would be worth more to the team than Nate. We will see if the FO was right about this.

    If the move was also about developing the young Gs the Bulls have, then I can see it -- but in that case, play the kids!

  • Wrong about the BEST one year wonder. That goes to Guy Rogers who's 17 points and nearly 11 assists per game led the expansion Bulls to the playoffs in their inaugural season, then was traded the next season for the younger Flynn Robinson. I did love Nate,he was a nice diversion in a frustrating year. But we needed Dunleavy more, and that left us with with only a minimum deal to offer Nate that he wasn't taking. It is as simple as that. Take Kirk and Teague off the team and the Bulls still can't offer Nate more than a minimum deal.Guess that makes me a FO a$$ kisser, but it just seems like logic to me.

Leave a comment