The Celtics want Nate and we should give them what they want
by 732jerseyP on Jan 20, 2010 6:54 AM EST
Email
Print
According to this report: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/2010/01/19/2010-01-19_celts_said_to_eye_nate.html
The celtics want Nate Robinson. Doc Rivers believes he can really connect with the dynamic guard and bring out the best in him as a player. Although doing this deal would be a big blow to the Knicks hopes of getting to the playoffs I think they should do it. I personally believe the Knicks roster will be totally blown up after this season. Also I feel that Nate will NOT be back next year, whether the Knicks do this deal or not. So when another team gives you an opportunity to make a deal we should just do it and help ourselves for the future.
The only way I see the Knicks doing this is if somehow they can unload either Cuttino Mobleys or Eddy Currys contract along with shipping Nate over to Boston. OR I would simply take Boston's first round draft pick for Nate. I would not want the Knicks to do this deal just to get an expiring contract from Boston. This 3rd option does not give the Knicks enough value for this transaction. I seriously doubt Boston would be willing to eat Mobley's or Curry's salary so I really don't think that would happen.
BOTTOM LINE: Get Boston's first round pick for a player we won't even bring back next year...let's keep adding young pieces to the puzzle for next year's overhaul of the roster.
83 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
the only other option might be a sign and trade at the end of the season but that will eat up cap space we need, especially if it can’t be worked out quickly. given the market this year where nobody gave him a second look it might take a while
as you say he’s highly unlikely to be here next year so we might as well get something for him, rather than lose him for nothing. obviously if we can get jeffries in there then that’s even better.
Only if they take Curry....
I’d also rather not give Nate to a team in the division.
Also..F Boston.
It gets late real early out here....
mobley is expiring, not a contract we are trying to unload
curry and jeffries are the contracts we are trying to move
so many issues in trying to trade nate under the cba
because both teams are over the cap and Nate is a base year comp player you are going to need a third team with cap space to get involved.
cant do a draft pick and an expiring straight up with the Celts.
(copied from a biggiesmalls post over at theknicksblog cause I am lazy)
Not impossible to do straight trade with the Celts
What you say about BYC is true but since Nate’s salary is only 4 million, adding some additional players in can make it work.
For example, Nate + Landry + Jeffries for Eddie House, Kendrick Perkins and Shelden Williams works under the cap. I’m not saying that’s an ideal trade but it’s something that works and actually creates about 1.7 million in 2010 cap space for us.
Yeah, I would swap Nate in a package for Kendrick Perkins in a heartbeat
but like you said, “it’s not an ideal trade”… for Boston. But again…f@#k Bahston.
I wish they we could pull off a huge steal of a trade. We seem to be on the other end of them though, lol.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 20, 2010 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
Another trade that works
would be Nate + Landry + Jeffries for House, Scalabrine, J.R. Giddens, Shelden Williams, and Bill Walker. The Knicks would knock 5.7 million of their 2010 cap, and they’d probably have to waive at least one of those 5 guys.
This trade actually might help the Celtics – I’m not sure how important those 5 guys are to their rotation or how badly they need cap space in 2010 as opposed to 2011.
yeah, see, these trades "work"
but in reality, pass.
As much as we are setting up for next season, we are looking for playoffs this year, so if Nate goes, AND Jefferies, we need guys who can not just tank us. Eddie House is mediumly okay and the rest of those guys are just extra weight on the bench.
I’m definitely okay with moving Jefferies and Nate and anyone else really, but I have a problem with getting shitty guys with expiring contracts in return. I dont want Brian Scalabrine or Shelden Williams in a damn orange and blue jersey. And JR Giddens?!?! yeah, lets not help Boston get better as we get much worse. Given them Duhon though….
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 20, 2010 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
The above trade
Gets us salary cap space and little else. Yeah, this team tanks without Nate and Jeffries and all those Celtics doubtfully help us. But if your goal is signing HHSNBN and retaining Lee, it would help.
I really like Nate
but I have to say that trading him is looking like it’s making some sense. I don’t think he’s our point guard of the future, and though it’s fun to root for him, overall I think he’s a good, not great player. They may not have any room to sign him next year even if they did want to keep him, so it might make sense to trade him for a bit more cap room or a 1st round draft pick.
First round draft pick or bust
Personally I don’t want any of the scrubs that Boston has. If we can get a 1st round pick out of this then that is a STEAL. We would be getting something significant for a player who won’t even be back next year! It would be a big time move.
Great
Now I’m conflicted.
"Dishin' and swishin' in transition"
by Serious Garbage Time on Jan 20, 2010 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
I know the Knicks have no pick...
but is a late first rounder really worth Nate?
Cuz that’s what the Celtics are give them..25 or higher.
It gets late real early out here....
by FreeBradshaw on Jan 20, 2010 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
We got Toney Douglas with a late round pick
Douglas has potential. You never know who will slip right into our hands in the late 1st round either. Frankly a first rouder is better then nothing…Nate is NOT coming back next year whether we trade him or not…let’s get something for him.
I don't think there's anyone outside of the Knicks staff
or at least Walsh and Pringles that know whether Nate’s back next year.
It they are sure he’s not coming back..then sure get something for him (and..TD is good..but DWTDD is not as good as Nate….).
But I dunno how you can be so sure he’s not gonna be a Knick next season.
It gets late real early out here....
by FreeBradshaw on Jan 20, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
I dont know for sure but...
He is not the kind of guy who you can build a true team around or with. He is a circus act and has too much baggage. Sure he goes off on scoring spurts but he doesn’t fit as the ideal team player. Could you see Nate fitting in with Ewing and company on that NYK team? We come to tolerate his existance because the Knicks are terrible. Next year, when we get some high caliber players on this team we won’t need him. Lets get something for him now.
I say do it
Nate is thrilling to watch. His 41 point return had us all wetting ourselves. Unfortunately his negatives happen more often than his positives. Maybe we’ll get a less spectacular player back, but it will be a player who doesn’t jump in the air and throw the ball away during crunch time. He’s a scorer, and scorers can be replaced.
by StarksMiddleFinger on Jan 20, 2010 12:38 PM EST reply actions
trade him...but take curry too
the only way the knicks should trade away our most explosive guard, is if and only if we ship curry out too…and only for expiring contracts…we dont need a draft pick from boston, how will the #27 pick help us nxt year, when its proven that dantoni doesnt trust rookies…if they for some reason or another give us ray allen(expiring contract, they wont sign him this offseason) brian scalabriene(misspelled his name) and eddie house…we give them nate, and curry, i’d be ecstatic…not only would we be improving (ray allen would kill in dantoni’s system) the celtics would be worse off..bcuz nate might average 25 ppg for the remainder of the season but he wont co-exist with pierce and especially rondo….wishful thinking i guess
<follow me @theinfamousazad
Guys
If you were a GM, would you take Eddy Curry just so you could get your hands on Nate Robinson who might not even re-sign with you? I doubt it. And including Ray Allen? I say that’s not happening because they’re title contenders and that totally screws them up. They might let Allen walk or do a sign and trade after the season but I’d be shocked if they’d give up Allen now.
But heck, it they wanted to do it I’d bite.
right. Boston isn't interested in Curry
They are trying to tweak their squad. Not move major pieces.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 20, 2010 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, we arent good enough to pluck a steal late in the 1st round
No one is gonna take Curry though. We either buy him out, or suck it up for next year when his expiring contract gives itself some value. I think the only pieces we have a chance to move are Robinson, Harrington, and Jefferies. I personally think Nate belongs in NY. But there has to be some value we can get or a Jefferies/Harrington package. I’d rather not just sacrifice guys though. We aren’t handcuffed financially enough were Walsh wouldn’t allow us to bring back a valuable piece. We aren’t confined to ONLY getting expiring contracts back.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 20, 2010 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
The only way this makes sense is if we package Nate with Jeffries.
Brian Scalabrine, Eddie House, Marquis Daniels and Shelden Williams for Nate, Jeffries and Landry works under the cap. Upside – we have enough room for two max guys this summer. It doesn’t seem like we want to keep Nate around anyway. Also, Jordan Hill seems more prepared for playing time now and the starting 4 spot would be all his. Downside – we almost definitely don’t make the playoffs this year. But lets be honest, even if we did make it, we’d just be swept out of the first round anyway.
we may not make it past the first round
but i dont want utah in the lottery. And we dont want any of the celtics garbage for one of our best players.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 20, 2010 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
I also wouldn't want Utah in the lottery.
But I think it’s a question of priorities. I’d rather have space for two max guys + Utah in the lottery (probably in the 9-12 range) than have only space for one max guy and Utah getting the 15th pick.
if we barely have enough for 2 max contracts
what do we do with the other spots on our team that would need to be filled? We have 12 roster spots. Chandler, Gallo, Hill, Douglas, Landry, Curry*, Jefferies*. We dump Jefferies, then its 6. 4 more roster spots to fill after we blow our entire load on 2 guys. (PAUSE!!) Trading Nate Robinson doesn’t create enough space. Jefferies or Curry have to go.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 21, 2010 9:42 AM EST up reply actions
Right
That’s why nate definitely shouldn’t be traded unless Jeffries and/or Curry are part of the deal. If we can get our main rotation under contract, the rest of the bench can be filled in with minimum contracts.
Also
The Celtics can’t actually trade their 2010 first round pick anyway because they traded away their 2009 (or their 2011, Not sure which) and you can’t trade two first round picks in a row.
Is that an official NBA rule?
That doesn’t make any sense. A team should have the power to do whatever they want with their picks. The Celtics are built to “win now”. They are trying to add another scorer on their squad before the playoffs. I doubt they care enough about their first round pick.
Yeah it's an official NBA rule.
If you’re a knicks fan, you should thank God it’s an official NBA rule. Isiah would have traded away more first rounders than you could count if he could have. We would be without Gallo if it wasn’t a rule. It’s in place as damage control for GMs who can’t even tie their shoes.
"I'll probably go get lifted right now with Greg. Hey, and come back tomorrow and try to get another win."
-Renaldo
by solanumbrella on Jan 20, 2010 6:04 PM EST up reply actions
we need nate
What are they going to give up for Nate? Zero. This trade will never happen.They aren’t going to revamp their entire team to get Nate Robinson. Please stop bringing up Isiah. The Knicks’ problems started before he came to the Knicks. Like the guy who drafted Fredric Weiss or Majec Lampe. Or the guy who traded for Rolando Blackmon or Kiki Vanderweigh. Like all of them, they do some good moves and some bad moves.
yo homey..
If your comment is directed at me, I’ ll answer your question. I’m very educated, unlike your response. And this ain’t english class, we talking basketball. This @$#! aint being graded.
fellas
if ya’ll got beef stroganoff it off
4 i beat you in basketball.
twitter.com/aighttho
http://aightthen.tumblr.com/
yo stingy
Sorry man, but I still got good game left in these aging knees. You’ll need to be pretty fast to beat me in ball..lol!
i am fast.
and i’m 6’5". and i’ve played basketball competitvely since i was 6. and i’m 19. and i routinely beat lance stephenson’s aau squad for the past 3 summers here in brooklyn. and i also have on my shine blockas.
twitter.com/aighttho
http://aightthen.tumblr.com/
Ok, the 19 hurts
Experience is the best teacher, and I’m only 6’4" and out of shape, but one on one I’m good. Your gonna have to get taller. Oh yea, I’m 305 lbs. wit skills. (for the english teacher!) That means I’ll have to muscle ya, kid.
Wow.
"I'll probably go get lifted right now with Greg. Hey, and come back tomorrow and try to get another win."
-Renaldo
by solanumbrella on Jan 21, 2010 12:24 AM EST up reply actions
My all time least favorite Knick trade
was the Mark Jackson for Charles Smith. To this day, I think it cost them a championship.
YOU THINK?!!
how many times?
but honestly, i knew these past few years were gonna hit us one day, and it came after we traded pat for glen rice. we managed to stay interesting for a lot longer than i expected. but still, from that moment forward, you just knew something was fundamentally wrong with our intentions.
twitter.com/aighttho
http://aightthen.tumblr.com/
true
it did seem dirty to watch Ewing play in other uniforms.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 29, 2010 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
Hmm
No one fucking wants Curry, deal with it. If we trade Nate and Jefrries to Boston, they win a championship this year, and we give Utah a potential top 10 pick., and we still wouldn’t have enough space for 2 max contracts.
You guys are buggin...
Nate for a late first rounder? Nate for Eddie house, Scalabrine? I really don’t understand it Duhon stinks it up more often than not, even with Jeffries playing some D he still Sucks ass. why is Nate always looked at like the cancer on this team? Whatever team Nate goes to after New York is really gonna benefit off of him coming off of the bench. Who knows? He probably will win a chip. Then what will all you Nate haters say?
plus I hate Boston. Id probably throw up if Nate goes there and comes back and drops 30 on us.
by mightykingcrayon on Jan 21, 2010 12:01 PM EST reply actions
id give up nate if they take a jeffries or curry
i dont agree with giving our most explosive scorer to our archenemies for a late 1st round pick…but if they take jeffries or curry for and expiring contract(s) to match…then we can afford a chris bosh and lebron/wade/johnson
<follow me @theinfamousazad
Yea
No need to flog this horse any more than we already have. They want Nate? Take Jefferies or Curry. Don’t want those guys? No reason to trade
"But when he saw it, he just put his hands up and they couldn’t give it to him. It just fell to the ground, I-I don’t, you know … So, that showed me he had great experience..." - Jeff Van Gundy
by Anthony Bonner's Subpoena on Jan 21, 2010 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
This is it right here
1. David Lee gets a 1 million bonus if the Knicks make the playoffs.
2. David Lee’s value and stature are rising and it would be bad if the Knicks lost him. Other teams are likely going to offer him more money.
3. The Knicks are not going to do anything to piss David Lee off, and taking a million away from him by giving up on the playoffs is not going to sit well with him.
4. Trading Jeffries and a piece like Nate, merely for cap relief is probably going to ensure that they miss the playoffs.
I have a feeling the Knicks are not going to trade Jeffries. Sure, trading him would free up space to re-sign Lee. But trading him would probably also involve giving up another rotation player, and that would hurt their playoff chances and cost Lee 1 million.
The sad truth is
we lost Lee once Walsh decided to give him $7MM this year instead of the actual amount they owed him for a tender offer.
Yes, it was a classy move. But Lee’s cap hold is 150% of his salary and the Knicks will need to renounce him to get that $10MM off their cap. If his salary was under $4MM this year, maybe not.
"Dishin' and swishin' in transition"
by Serious Garbage Time on Jan 21, 2010 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
thats true
although there could have been a handshake agreement that Lee would take a couple mill off his salary if he chooses to stay here because DW gave him so much more then he needed to.
Prob not, but could be…
I hope not
I really like Lee, but that kind of agreement would subject the Knicks to massive penalties.
"Dishin' and swishin' in transition"
by Serious Garbage Time on Jan 21, 2010 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
Bird rights or not
Lee’s an unrestricted free agent at the end of the year. The bird rights don’t really help us if he wants to go to another team. We could renounce him and still sign him if the cap ends up high or if we are able to shed a few million in salary. We could also end up signing someone for less than the max and retain his bird rights and go over the cap to sign him.
Lets say that a certain free agent wants to sign here. He know what we can offer – the max. Let’s say he wants to sign but wants us to keep Lee too. Well, he could take less, or we could make a quick salary dumping move (Chandler or Hill) or Lee could take a little less so we could sign him first and eliminate the cap hold. Or, we could work out a sign and trade with the max free agent where we give them Chandler or something like that.
The way to keep Lee for sure was to sign him to a multiyear deal last offseason – but that would have made a 2010 max free agent signing dependent on getting rid of Jeffries or Curry. Walsh decided to take a shot at keeping Lee while keeping the 2010 max FA signing a possibility. And he decided to be as generous as possible to increase the possibility that Lee would decide to stay. If he had just paid the qualifiying offer, Lee may have bolted at the first offer like Ben Gordon.
There’s a lot of different ways this could work out. Walsh has taken risks, for sure, but I think there is good sense behind his moves. They may not work out but I don’t agree that he blundered there.
But
It would have been better for the Knicks if Lee was only a $5MM or less cap hold. Then the Knicks could have signed other players and overpaid Lee afterwards.
Lee wouldn’t have bolted because of the qualifying offer if the Knicks could and would pay him more than another team. If they don’t renounce him, they could do that. But now they have to renounce him because of Walsh’s generosity.
"Dishin' and swishin' in transition"
by Serious Garbage Time on Jan 21, 2010 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
Not necessarily.
Lee was pretty miffed that the Knicks didn’t give him a long term deal. Yes, if we his cap hold was 5 million, then we could sign a max free agent and then sign him to go over the cap. But if he was still pissed that we didn’t give him a big deal last year, he might have just gone to another team, and then what good does it do us? It think Walsh was attempting damage control with a show of loyalty that Lee needed after they didn’t give him a big deal. It may pay off, it may not, but I think it was a justifiable move.
I don't remember Lee being "miffed"
He had no other offers from other teams and his agent held his asking price too high. Lee also was well aware of NY looking to keep its cap very low before 2010. He knows the plan. He agrees with the plan. Walsh paid him more than he needed to also. There isn’t any tension between David Lee and the Knicks.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 22, 2010 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
heres a thought that I haven't seen posted
Who says we have to stay under the salary cap?
This is New York. There is money in this town. When a big name comes to NY the money will flow and we can afford to go over the cap. Hell we’ve been doing it for years.
Playoffs, here we come. Nate and Jared, you’re comin with us. Just don’t fuck things up, guys.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 21, 2010 5:12 PM EST reply actions
Believe me
We aint going to stay under the cap for long. Once we get the players we want, who cares? But being over the cap with crappy players sucks ass.
We can’t sign a big name free agent unless we are under the cap. Unless we shed Jared Jeffries contract we wont have enough space for two max guys.
What I'm saying is...
we will have enough for at least 1 max guy. Whether or not Jefferies contract is moved to another team may not even matter. We may just go sign another max guy and deal with the luxury tax. We can make the space. this is New York. I’ll be happy as long as it’s not Cowboy Bosh.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 22, 2010 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
you can, but the penalty is the luxury tax
which is a dollar for dollar tax. If we go $5mil over the cap, we have to pay another $5 to luxury tax. So yeah, its a big penalty. But again. New Yorkers do whatever the hell we want. We have had a payroll of over $100 before….
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 22, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
exactly. he's loaded.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 22, 2010 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
I really dont think you can
i mean… if you could just spend over the cap then we should not even be debating getting 2 top FA. Dolan makes so much bank off of the knicks.
We would be saying, lets go get Wade, Bosh and LBJ and just use the insane amount of money the team would make to pay off the Luxury Tax.
You can go over the salary cap. most teams do.
If you go over by a certain amount, you pay Luxury Tax. That’s what NY wants to avoid. The Knicks have paid the most in luxury tax for the last 4 years.
NY isnt about to bloat our team salary to the same levels as in past years. But we CAN.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 25, 2010 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
you are so wrong dude
there is no way they can just go over the cap.
They can go over the cap past year 1 of any deals… but not right off the bat.
Otherwise we wouldnt be in such a bind to trade EC or JJ. And we would have always been in the discussions for LeBron.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
or more specifically:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q19
I am corrected
but this does bode better if we choose to resign Lee and Nate. They both fall under the exceptions allowing us to re-sign our players and go over the Salary Cap to do so.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 25, 2010 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
once you reach your cap you can use a mid level exception or biannual exception.
this is not the mlb. you cant go over and just pay a penalty. the cba doesnt work like that in the nba. if it did there would be teams like the yankees that always compete for a ring due to their money. if we could just go over and sign anyone the donnie walsh wouldnt be stressing jj or curry.
you wanna know how we got to 100 million a few years ago? we repeadedly traded picks for big contracts. those picks had no value until used so it was allowed. otherwise trades also have to match up in salary. perfect example would be eddy curry. we took on currys salary while chicago took a few picks which didnt end up being as much for chicago.
by karamjitm9090 on Jan 25, 2010 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
you only get the mid level
if you start the offseason below the cap. if you start it under, you dont get an exception is my understanding…
That would be great
The Knicks should definitely take advantage of being one of the only teams that doesn’t give a crap about the luxury tax, etc.
That said, I don’t think there’s usually a way to get the players we want if we’re over the cap unless other teams are having a fire sale.
And . . . rumor is that the Sixers and Wizards, at the very least, are doing that. Iguodala is apparently on the block and, of course, Arenas is. Both could probably be had for nothing more than expiring deals.
You know what, sign me up!
"Dishin' and swishin' in transition"
by Serious Garbage Time on Jan 21, 2010 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
don't sign me up for gilbert or iguodala
twitter.com/aighttho
http://aightthen.tumblr.com/
by stingy d on Jan 22, 2010 10:20 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
yeah I like both players
but Arenas has put himself in the Marbury/Iverson category. I’m not saying i agree with it, but if we didn’t want those other guys, no way would we take him. Not to mention his knees. Iguodala is nasty too, but I dont know how his attitude is or isnt. We’d probably have to give up a ton of talent & $ for him too.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 22, 2010 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
me neither
the knicks’ strategy for years has been accepting other teams’ cast-offs. let’s wrest somebody away from his team for once.
That's certainly Plan A
But I wouldn’t mind taking on Iguodala next year for expirings once we execute Plan A.
"Dishin' and swishin' in transition"
by Serious Garbage Time on Jan 22, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
you know who floats under the FA radar?
Rudy Gay.
Maybe we have Chandler and Gallo in his spot, but damn, he is good, young, and is not a sure thing to stay in Memphis.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 22, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
Pause?
"Dishin' and swishin' in transition"
by Serious Garbage Time on Jan 22, 2010 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
no way! it was innocent!!
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Jan 22, 2010 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
well there's no way that one was.
“innocent” is a kinky word. no homo.
so anyway… pause.
twitter.com/aighttho
http://aightthen.tumblr.com/
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
