Kings Passed On Nate
“Nate Robinson is signing with the Knicks for one year $5 million. That’s it. They get away with having him for a year at next to no real cost and nothing against their long-term plans of grabbing LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and Wilt Chamberlain at age 23 thanks to a Bill and Ted type of occurrence. Why didn’t the Kings grab this guy? He’d be perfect for us!!! – Disgruntled Dave
I received this email over the weekend from a reader (and apparently, a disgruntled one at that) and felt like I immediately needed to talk Dave off of the ledge.
My favorite line in the movie Super Troopers is “desperation is a stinky cologne.”
It’s a great line to drop at many different instances in life and you can even replace desperation with virtually ANY other word and it still works at a high level (much like Denver running backs under Mike Shanahan or shooters in a Mike D’Antoni offense). And desperation gets NBA franchises in trouble when it comes to signing players because you fear your team isn’t good enough. You feel like you need someone because your roster either feels incomplete or lacking a certain “umph” to make games in January entertaining.
And perhaps that’s where Dave was with the Nate Robinson signing. Trust me, Kings fans; you DON’T want Nate Robinson on this team. Not that he isn’t a nice guy or a good basketball player but I’m not sure he would fill in the need off the bench that we assume he would. Signing Nate Robinson means that you’re probably hoping for best-case scenario, a poor version of Ben Gordon, and worst-case scenario, a wealthy Eddie House. But I don’t think you’re getting either player.
His scoring and made three-point field goals have risen in each of his four seasons. In fact, he enjoyed such a fantastic scoring season in the 2008-09 campaign (17.2 per) that he finished third in Sixth Man of the Year voting and was the third leading scorer amongst those receiving votes for the award. He also won the NBA’s first WWE style of All-Star Weekend Slam Dunk Contest when he was scriptedly (made it up) given the dunk title. So his value couldn’t be higher right now.
But I have no idea how he’d fit into the Kings and complement the other guards on the roster. One of the reasons he played so well is that he fits in nicely with D’Antoni’s chaotic schemes. He was asked to catch the defense off-guard on most possessions, which is shown by 57% of his shots coming in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock last season. He was easily set up by Chris Duhon’s distributor role and became one of more than a dozen players (Quentin Richardson, James Jones, Raja Bell) to have a career year in their first season under Mike D. He was allowed to jack a ton of three-point shots and in turn made over 100 for the first time in career.
Now, if you throw him out of D’Antoni’s system (and it’s easy to because he’s small and shaped perfectly for tossing) can he still be as effective? Before his season in a Pringles canister, he never had a PER over 15.3. Sure, he was only three years into his career at that point and still learning how to play the game at the NBA level but he still played with the same reckless abandon that he does now.
If you put him on the Kings roster and give him the reigns of instant offense off the bench, it severely cuts into your rotation and what you’re trying to build. As we’ve heard and I’ve mentioned roughly a thousand times, Tyreke Evans isn’t your traditional point guard. He’ll be a scoring style point guard, looking to get the free throw line and find guys when the defense collapses. He isn’t exactly going to create like Steve Nash did for D’Antoni and will look more like what Kevin Johnson did for the Suns. I don’t think that necessarily benefits a guy like Nate who will make his living on the perimeter.
Then you throw in the fact that Sergio Rodriguez’s minutes will have to be slashed, Cisco will then be playing almost exclusively at shooting guard when he’s on the floor and either Donte Greene, Omri Casspi, or Jon Brockman get shafted on minutes throughout the season because there’s a new guy getting 25-30 minutes every night and you have yourself too many players you’re trying to develop without any minutes.
Nate Robinson is a player you pick up if you’re the Kings on the verge of challenging for a playoff spot. Aside from the Kings making a huge acquisition of a veteran coupled with an explosion from Evans in his rookie season that puts him on that Kevin Durant list of players who are soon to take over this league at a young age, the Kings aren’t in position to gamble with giving a contract to a player like Nate Robinson. The Kings are following a plan here and roster patience like passing up on Nate Robinson will pay off down the road.
Rest easy, Disgruntled Dave.
I’m a knicks fan, and I agree with you. The Knicks need Nate this year b/c 1.) they need to make the playoffs, 2.) They are not deep with other guards who can score.. Larry Hughes is the teams other shooting guard, and Morris Almond needs to prove he can be a big time contributor, and 3.) The knicks couldn’t find a replacement for Nate that wouldn’t break their 2010 bank.
The shock to me was that other contenders didn’t go after Nate with their midlevel. If Ben Gordon is worth 11m, Nate is worth half that. Yes, inflated stats do occur under coach D’s system, but Nate is instant offense both as a shooter, a guy who can get into the lane and hit floaters, and who can finish. Nate is an excellent shooter, though his % in 08-09 was low, playing on a better team with a few more spot ups each game, I can see Nate getting to 38% 3pt%. He improved his assists #’s, and is close to being a solid pick and roll point, though he looks to score more than not. He has gotten better year after year in HOW he plays as much as numbers. As a knick fan, I’m glad we have him back for this year. Loosing him would lead to a no playoffs year, and handing a lottery pick to utah, not to mention crushing any chance of landing free agents.
If you watched LBJ in the playoffs, he would have loved to have a guy with Nates scoring chops on the court with him in order to take a little pressure off.
@paul
I was also surprised that he didn’t get more attention. I’m not a big Nate fan but until the Cavs signed Anthony Parker, I thought he’d be a lock to eventually go there.
The Knicks definitely need him this year and would probably love to keep him at a long-term contract with moderate pay ($4 million per year?). I was impressed with his play-making ability this season as well. I don’t think he’ll ever be a great shooter but his percentages could easily go up in D’Antoni’s system if you give them a good, athletic post presence.
Zach,
You’re not being fair to Ben Gordon. Nate Robinson on his very best day is nowhere near a poor man’s Ben Gordon. Ben Gordon is so much better than Robinson you might as well be comparing Robinson to Kobe Bryant.
josh, nyc
@joshua pearl
Both are scorers who shoot a lot from the perimeter and are best utilized off the bench as scorers rather than point guards. If they both fit the prototype then why couldn’t he on his BEST DAY be Ben Gordon. Why can’t he progress into that? I’m not saying he will but that’s the best-case scenario.
Much like Joe Dumars, I think you’ve inflated exactly how valuable Ben Gordon is.
Another Knicks devotee here — you make a good case that Sacto isn’t the right place for Nate. (As an aside, I feel sorry for anyone whose team passed on Ricky Rubio to take Tyreke Evans…) But I’m also surprised more teams didn’t offer Nate. He’s a good player, a lot closer to Gordon than to Eddie House. This past year he just got more minutes; he didn’t really play dramatically better. His shooting percentages were career-lows this year, partly owing to a bad hammy that led to an horrific mid-season slump. He did improve his playmaking to a level where he’s a passable point guard. He was also better on D, though he still gambles way too much. Despite his height he was the 4th best rebounding PG in the league! (by rate) Plus he’s a lot of fun to watch.
All in all, he’s a weird player – a freakish athlete who will do some great things but is also a 5’7 shooting guard who can’t play D. Still, for $5 million you could do a lot worse. It was bittersweet to see him sign the one-year offer, because it probably means he’s a goner next summer.
“What would we do with Willie McGee?” – Former Red Sox GM, Lou Gorman.
For those of you old enough to get that quote, that should be the title of this post. I mean, Jon Brockman’s minutes would get cut? That’s a reason not to pursue Nate? The fact is that you have a bad team and an economic climate that has real talent coming cheap. This was a missed opportunity to upgrade the overall talent on the team. And to do it on the cheap.
@Chris
Kings were the worst rebounding team in the NBA last year. Jon Brockman is a good rebounder. Can probably get 5 or 6 per game off the bench in 20 or so minutes. How does adding Nate Robinson help the Kings rebound? It doesn’t fill a need for them. So why pay $5 million or more to add him?
Especially with as poorly as the Kings did economically last season, adding payroll for a player of little consequence to their overall team success when it won’t get them into the playoffs would be as bad of a move as signing Beno Udrih for the full MLE.
If Jon Brockman grabbed 6 rebounds off the bench in 20 minutes per game, he would rank as the 13th best rebounder in the NBA on a per minute basis. Somewhat unlikely, no?
Nate Robinson’s Reb/48 last year was 6.3, placing him 5th among PG’s (or, if you prefer, he was 12th among SG’s, ahead of Wade and Roy). KevMart’s career Reb/48 is 5.7, same as Nate’s. So yes, you have upgraded your rebounding. Maybe that says something about how poorly the King’s rebounded last year, but there’s no doubting that Nate’s one of the best backcourt rebounders in the league, so let’s just let that strawman die.
More to the point, you said in your original post: “If you put him on the Kings roster and give him the reigns of instant offense off the bench, it severely cuts into your rotation and what you’re trying to build.” Your backcourt rotation would be Evans/Martin/Nate. The minutes Nate would get would come from Beno and Sergio. What exactly are you expecting to build around those two? And don’t tell me cutting into Cisco’s time at the 2 is a bad thing!
I get that the Kings have sunk all this money into Beno, but that’s just what it is: sunk. Nate would have upgraded the overall talent of the team at a very reasonable cost without cutting any backcourt minutes that don’t deserve cutting.
@Chris
Brockman’s best ability on the court is rebounding. He’s quick to the ball, smart at anticipating the carom off the rim and very good at fundamentally boxing his man out. I don’t think him being the 13th best rebounder in the NBA on a per minute basis is unlikely at all. That’s what he does. Now, will he be the next Dennis Rodman? God no. Not even close. But he’s basically a Jamie Feick clone. He’s not a guy you’re going to give 30-35 minutes per game but if he you play him 20-ish minutes, he’s going to rebound at the rate mentioned above.
Do you honestly think that Nate Robinson on this team improves their rebounding? That’s great that he’s the fifth best rebounding point guard in the NBA. But that doesn’t solve their issues inside. You’re not planting him in the paint and asking him to get rebounds. This is where the issue of basketball play vs. advanced stats comes into play. At a certain point, it’s about common sense. You’re not signing a 5’7″ point guard and improving your rebounding, even if he has the 5th best rate. But giving Brockman minutes if he’s your best option off the bench does improve your rebounding. Again, it’s common sense.
What they’re trying to build is a team in which Kevin Martin and Tyreke Evans can work together to form a dynamic backcourt. Unfortunately, both of those guys dominate the ball when they play. So they have to learn how to play more together. By keeping guys like Cisco (trust me, not sold on him but they owe him money of the next four years so they’re stuck) and Sergio in the mix with the rotation, it gives you a guy that can create plays for either Martin or Evans. If you add a ball-dominating player like Nate into the mix, then you’re trying to make three ball-dominating guys work together. That doesn’t work. Ever. Again, common sense.
Finally, with the money sunk into guys like Beno and Garcia it greatly inhibits what the Kings can do financially. To take Nate away from the Knicks, it would have taken overpaying him the market value for at least two years with an option for the third. Otherwise, the Knicks might match a reasonable offer sheet. The Kings are in relatively bad shape financially with this economy. They can’t afford to bring in someone like Nate who isn’t a homerun difference maker for more than market value. Not after tying up so much money in Beno and Garcia. It just doesn’t work for their books.
Nate’s a nice player. But the fact that he did all of this in D’Antoni’s system last year in New York’s market completely over inflates the perception about him. He’s a good role player to add if you play a conducive style and need a little something to push you to the next level. People aren’t buying season tickets because of him. The Kings can’t afford to take that risk. Simple as that.
How does it feel to bite your entire writing style from the SportsGuy?
Pathetic.
@Bill Simmons
I wouldn’t say I bite my “entire” writing style from the Sports Guy. I’d say it’s a solid 65% right now with room to grow. Thanks for reading
Again, I have no beef with Jon Brockman. He’s a slow, 6’7 PF with a motor and a real nose for the ball. He may well stick in the league and have a career. I hope he does. But how does signing Nate cut into his minutes? Nate plays the 1 or the 2. Brockman would play limited minutes at the 4. I don’t want to say “common sense” because people can disagree and both be using “common sense,” but I don’t see your Brockman point. Let’s just move on.
If you watch Nate on a nightly basis, you will see how much he could improve your overall team rebounding. Rondo does it. So does Rose. And the stats back it up. He is a better rebounder, both last year and over his career, than Martin, Sergio or Beno. That is just a fact. Not “common sense.” Fact. He is a better rebounder than any of those three. If he takes minutes from Beno and Sergio, which he would, then you will upgrade your overall rebounding. Fact.
If your argument against Nate is that he won’t fit with Martin or Evans, that’s fine. My counter is that:
a) it keeps Beno off the floor,
b) it keeps Cisco at the 3 and not the 2,
c) he would come at a great price relative to his talent,
d) if it didn’t work out from an on-court perspective (i.e., he doesn’t fit with Evans or Martin, which is entirely possible as you’ve argued), he’d have a very friendly and movable contract, and,
e) the team stinks… why not get a guy who brings it every night? He may not put butts in the seats, but he’ll get them up out of them!
I live in New York and I’d hate to see him go, but to say that he’s overhyped (and in the same post praise Sergio!) is just wrong. He’d be an upgrade any way that you look at it.
@Chris
First of all, I’m not trying to praise Sergio by any means. I think he has the potential to be a nice backup point guard in this league but isn’t there yet. I just think he’s a distributor that the Kings need more off the bench than they need a small shooting guard (I know he’s not a bad point but you’re maximizing his ability as an off-guard).
One last point on Brockman, then I agree let’s put that argument to rest. The key to Brockman getting minutes means that Donte Greene doesn’t play the 4 at all. And that’s where the rotation comes in. I think Garcia has to play the 2 more than the 3 this year because if you move him up to the three than Greene has to move inside and that could be disastrous. Garcia is what he is at this point and I don’t see him getting much better. So with the Kings rebuilding and trying to figure out what young talent they actually have, they’re going to have to see what Donte Greene has. You basically need someone at the 4 off the bench (Brock) so Greene can play the 3 more, which means that Garcia to get minutes has to be the 2 off the bench. Am I happy with that for the Kings? Not really. But they have to work on defining roles for the younger players and build them up to maximize their potential. That’s why I think bringing in Nate potentially takes the rebounding minutes away from Brockman. Maybe I’m off on that but that’s how I see it with the rotation.
I watched roughly 70 of the Knicks games last year and was very impressed with the progress (mostly with how efficient he played) that Nate made. I think his rebounding is much like Bobby Jackson’s rebounding was in the early part of the decade when he was with the Kings. It looks impressive to see him sky but at the same time, it feels like empty rebounds (this may not make sense). Above all, rebounds are rebounds I suppose. But I have the feeling that if you’re relying on your guard to rebound, you’re a bad rebounding team. This season, Evans will probably end up with 4 to 5 rebounds per game but I don’t know that it means the Kings have improved their interior presence. Does that make sense?
Now, let me attempt to address you’re last couple of points:
a) I think Beno is third on the depth chart by the first week of the season and I actually don’t mind him as a backup in a very limited role. However, I’d be shocked if he was on the court much this season, barring some injury to Evans, Martin, or Sergio. But I agree, keeping him off the floor is probably the best way to go.
b)I think I addressed this earlier but due to them figuring out if Donte Greene is worth the time and money, Garcia has to play the 2 more this season and while he’s not a great player, he can be a pretty good role player even as Martin’s backup.
c)I still hold that you have to overpay to pry him for the Knicks and the Kings’ franchise can’t afford to do so right now with season tickets taking a hit.
d) No argument there. If it didn’t work, you can probably move him and get close to fair value.
e) This team is pretty bad. But I think their core is chalked full of guys that will bring it every night. But everything starts with what Evans brings to the table in games that matter.
Finally, I think it is okay to say Nate is overhyped. Again, he’s a nice player and a good player. However, he’s a bit of a novelty act because of his height. If he was 6’0″ tall and doing the exact same things, he’s probably Bobby Jackson or Robert Pack. Not someone that would get nearly as much attention for doing similar things. Again, I think he’s good. But he’s a novelty at the same time.
Great discussion, by the way. You’re bringing some great points.
Yeah, I hear what you’re saying about Donte. I like him too. But I think you’re way off on Cisco. Not that he’s mediocre. I agree with you there. I disagree that he can play the 2. He has a negative net PER of 8.9 (!) at the 2. At the 3, he’s a nice facilitator and may play well with the Evans/Martin combo as a “point forward.” Unfortunately, Cisco is a below average rebounder at the 3. I’d much rather see what Donte (and especially Omri) can bring at the 3. Given the team’s overall lack of size, either Donte, Omri, or Andres is going to be logging some big minutes at the 4 in a small-ball lineup anyway.
The roster is an unbalanced mess as well. It looks like you have a core of Evans/Martin/Thompson. You don’t know what you have yet with Donte/Hawes/Casspi. Nocioni has his positive attributes, but his contract is awful. Same goes for Cisco. Beno has no positive attributes AND he has an awful contract. Sergio and Brockman will be lucky, if they work very hard and catch a break or two, to have NBA careers.
Nate is the best value on the market. If you have a bad team, the goal is upgrading the talent pool. Your original post should not have been “why we don’t need Nate,” but rather “why the Nocioni, Udrih, and Garcia contracts made it impossible to upgrade the talent level of this team.”
And for the record, I don’t think you write like SG. Good blog, I’ll definitely keep reading.