Comments on: Daily Dime: Nate vs. Eddie

By: Brendan Jackson

Brendan Jackson — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:16:18 +0000

Jamal, regardless of whether the Celtics traded for Nate or kept Eddie, neither player was going remain a Celtic after this year anyway- unless, of course, they were resigned to new contracts. Thus, in the microcosm of this season, it seems only right to compare Eddie House and Nate Robinson’s production since the trade. You could make an argument that the Celtics traded away Eddie’s Bird rights, but I feel that there is the same incentive either way for Eddie so sign with Boston after this season.

Furthermore, you seem to assert that it’s only logical that Nate has been more productive. This is, in fact, the premise of my article: compare House and Robinson’s production since the tradeand determine who made the correct deal.

I’m not really sure where your issue with the article lies.

By: Jamal

Jamal — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:51:39 +0000

The whole premise of this article is wrong. You are trying to compare an older role player who was traded for a younger one. It makes no sense to compare the two in terms of their future production because Eddie’s best years are probably behind him and Nates had better be in front of him.

By: KC

KC — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:35:50 +0000

What was so grate about Nates dunk? He’s 5’9′ or whatever, but has big hops, it was a nice little pass of the bboard but nothing … grate.

Greens dunk the pass was made from the top of the key (not under the basket).

Green reached back – one handed – at full stretch – to tomahawk it down.

Nates dunk TA “missed” a layup and Nate followed through – pulling himself up on the ring. No biggie.

By: mitch

mitch — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:26:52 +0000

why do we even have marcus landry, he bites

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:39:57 +0000

How can you ignore the impact of Bill Walker as well?
He was part of this deal after all and has a couple of 20 point games under his belt now that he is getting a chance to play.