Posted by Bonn1997:

Kurt's nothing special either. I don't think either side got much out of the deal. I'd still rather have Q than Kurt. I think Q will play around 60 games/year. Kurt would just take time away from Lee and Frye.

We should have been able to get more for Kurt at the time, though. (Perhaps Indiana's pick and Danny Granger.)

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Kurt's nothing special either. I don't think either side got much out of the deal. I'd still rather have Q than Kurt. I think Q will play around 60 games/year. Kurt would just take time away from Lee and Frye.

We should have been able to get more for Kurt at the time, though. (Perhaps Indiana's pick and Danny Granger.)

There is no way bird would trade with isiah. no way!

put george karl on that list. and billy king if LB's on board. anyone else i'm forgetting? what was it, GMs supposedly laughed when layden called them? do they even pick up for IT?

kurt would just be another redundant piece here. frye has his offense, lee his rebounding and maybe his man defense. i hoped when we drafted frye that he would be kurt thomas with shotblocking. we'll see.

what exactly is wrong with Q's back? he goes on the injured list with "back spasms," right? what does that mean?

60 games isn't too shabby. not great, but could be enough for a playoff run if we're lucky.

nate- man, someone needs to steal just a little bit of his joy and he'll be a good player.

i still do that trade. we got younger, and if nate stands on Q's shoulders we didn't really lose any height (actually, with Q's back maybe he has to stand on nate). it's not a grand slam, but worth the risk if Q can still contribute for most of a season and playoffs in a few seasons when it matters.

Posted by djsunyc:

60 games - i think i was being generous. it will probably be less. the guy will be hampered with back problems and related issues (hamstrings, calfs, etc) for the rest of his career.

KT had foot problems. He wasnt written off. Drob had back problems much worse than Q. He wasnt written off. The fact that we got a player like q and a #1 pick for a 32 year old with a bad contract was a good move. Nate is very immature but the talent is there

NOw it's a bad trade???? I like the other revisted thread when it was a great trade........


YOU know the one when we had a two way small forward averaging 15 points and 7 boards and a Bench player getting 18 minutes a game and geting 15points per



What happened to that thread?????

[Edited by - anji on 12-27-2006 12:17 PM]

Posted by Masterplan:

Posted by djsunyc:

60 games - i think i was being generous. it will probably be less. the guy will be hampered with back problems and related issues (hamstrings, calfs, etc) for the rest of his career.

do you have any idea what's wrong with him? i'm not disputing your analysis. i have no idea what his actual condition is aside from the "back spasms" bit. are you going on some medical info, or just his injury track record with us?

he has an uninsured contract for his back - which means his back was so bad, no insurance company was willing to pick up the contract if he couldn't play b/c of it. that's a major red flag.

secondly, he was out all of last year with hamstring problems - a clear byproduct of a bad back as it's an extension of the same muscle.

thirdly, he got hurt by just jumping up and down, not a hard hit or anything like that. he is forever going to be hurt and he can't retire b/c of medical reasons b/c insurance won't pick it up. i like quentin, but if the deal ends up being kurt for nate, and at the time, kurt had some nice trade value, then we made a bad decision. a gm must weigh all factors when making a deal and this is a result of isiah's financial greenlight by dolan to just make a deal regardless of financial ramifications. no other gm makes this deal. even portland said no and that was for a cancer like dmiles.

YEah, if we gave up Q with a first round pick, why would Portland not make that trade????

Aslong as Q is productive the trade is fine. And Nate robinson does have that talent to make that great all by himself.

now, if isiah took jarret jack with the pick, then the trade could be evaluated a little differently, but even then, the philosophy of it was still flawed.

Posted by TMS:

i'm happy seeing D Lee & Frye getting burn... very happy the trade was made.

doesn't mean they wouldn't be if kurt was still here. but i'm not even advocating keeping kurt. i'm talking about the players we took back in return. it seems to me, that we traded for severely damaged goods, and the sweetener was nate.

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by TMS:

i'm happy seeing D Lee & Frye getting burn... very happy the trade was made.

doesn't mean they wouldn't be if kurt was still here. but i'm not even advocating keeping kurt. i'm talking about the players we took back in return. it seems to me, that we traded for severely damaged goods, and the sweetener was nate.

i don't think D Lee would have been seeing significant minutes w/KT here, & he most certainly would have cut into a big chunk of Frye's minutes as well... i'm very happy they unloaded him when they did.

as for what they got back in the deal, that is debateable... i love Q Rich as a player & always have... i thought the deal was great, even w/the back issues that came w/him... Nate so far has been a total enigma... looks like he's got big potential 1 minute, & then commits a boneheaded maneuver that makes you lose faith the next... pretty much sums up the entire team for that matter, so i guess he fits right in in that sense.

i don't regret Isiah making that trade... i think Q Rich still has good trade value if he comes back & plays again, which i have no doubt he eventually will do... as for Nate, who knows... if he ever gets his head screwed on straight, he can be a very good player off the bench for this team... if he continues to portray his 49cent persona, he might just go down w/all the other talented numbskulls who've played this game whose NBA careers were cut short prematurely because of their own stupidity.