he has his flaws. asking him to make decisions with the ball usually don't work out well for us. asking him to run the point for an extended period of time hurts us. he can't make a simple entry pass to the post. and he sometimes gets out of control.

but...

his energy, his scoring ability, his toughness, AND his attitude have helped us tremendously. in effect, q1 has given us NOTHING. where would we be without nate being able to step into the starting lineup and giving us what he does? he rebounds the ball, and he's hitting the 3 with a high percentage. he's diving into the stands and he's aggressive. without nate, the kurt deal is an absolute, unmitigated BUST.

i think what's unique in our situation is that there is a base for comparing nate to other rookies. frye is special and has this aire of becoming a star. lee is a high iq player. so if you compare nate's mental acumen to them, it seems like he has a long way to go. but he's a rookie. he's starting and if we didn't have lee or frye, then we all would be clamoring at how GREAT nate really is for a rookie.

i, for one, am VERY happy he's here and i would include him in the untouchable list.

Posted by djsunyc:

i, for one, am VERY happy he's here and i would include him in the untouchable list.

<writes nates name down>

and done.

I dont want to compare the two. But the situation on Nate reminds me a little on how people reacted on Arizas play last year!
I totaly agree with you on you view of Frye and Lee!!! Nates outstanding feature seems to be his stylish play! Such game was long missed at the Garden and people needed it in a way!

I really like what every rookie this year brings on the table!!! And I think they complements each other greatly!!! I just hope they can keep their game up!!!

ALL OUR ROOKIES ARE UNTOUCHABLE!!!!

I would trade nate. he has played great, and is definitely improving, but, he is a human marketing bonanza, and I think we could get a better player for him if we traded him to a small market. He would help them sell tickets and therefore they would be willing to give up a player with more talent but less star power. IN that scenario I would trade him, I also would have traded him in a deal for Artest

Posted by Killa4luv:

I would trade nate. he has played great, and is definitely improving, but, he is a human marketing bonanza, and I think we could get a better player for him if we traded him to a small market. He would help them sell tickets and therefore they would be willing to give up a player with more talent but less star power. IN that scenario I would trade him, I also would have traded him in a deal for Artest

Killa!! He's playing great! He's freaking starting on a 6-0 run!! He's adding so much spunk for this team, driving, dishing, teeing it up from outside, freaking leading us in rebounds a lot of games! What's up with trading him!?!?!?

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by Bonn1997:

You still regret the Kurt trade, DJ? I sure DON'T!

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 01-14-2006 3:43 PM]

if q1 doesn't snap out of his funk, kurt for nate is NOT a good trade.

It is in my opinion. Kurt was so done here and was only going to take up room that needed to be opened for Curry, Lee and Frye.

Nate's already providing us with tons of positives and he's 30 games into his career. He's been a major factor in the 6 straight.

Nate IS untouchable. He is the reason for Marbury's resurgence more than anything. Having a player who is a threat to break down the D other than Marbs is allowing him to drive without facing triple teams. Entry passes are easier with Nate in there too. The D has to play way off of Nate and Marbs and they can pass easily to Curry and Frye.

I actually don't see any trades out there that will make us better this year. Everyone has a role, you don't want to mess with that. If anything we should trade for expiring contacts and picks.

I agree, he has unbelievable heart, and competes every minute he is on the floor.

Posted by Killa4luv:

KT for Nate is not a good trade. If it were that alone I wouldn't do it. KT would help us greatly on the boards. Our teams leading rebounder is Frye who is averaging 6. I like the little guy, but he isn't worth a pf/c who averages a double double.

Kurt may be worth more, but he will turn 34 this year, and you also have to wonder how many minutes he would be taking away from Frye.

Posted by Rich:

Posted by Killa4luv:

KT for Nate is not a good trade. If it were that alone I wouldn't do it. KT would help us greatly on the boards. Our teams leading rebounder is Frye who is averaging 6. I like the little guy, but he isn't worth a pf/c who averages a double double.

Kurt may be worth more, but he will turn 34 this year, and you also have to wonder how many minutes he would be taking away from Frye.

it depends on LB, KT may not take minutes away from frye, but rather from AD, and Rose.