misterearl wrote:what blueseats said

"To hell with what Donnie and D'antoni should be doing for Nate - what is Nate doing for his team?"

An Instant Classic

what misterearl said

"Nate for MVP"

another instant classic

BlueSeats wrote:Some people will simply never side with a coach. It's as if a coaching is supposed to be be some huge circle-jerk where everyone orgasms simultaneously. It don't work that way, get over it.

Where there's smoke there's fire. Marbury and "N8 the G8" are two of the biggest nut jobs of their generation yet people resent coaches for try to contain their damage? These guys expire the patience of multiple coaches, yet it's always the coach's fault?

I like Nate well enough, but I have no problem with a coach having a dog house. What's the right amount of time for Nate to be in it - 2 days? 20 days? A season? Who knows? But what if nothing else has worked with Nate? What if this is the trick that finally will work? What if not even this will work? If a coach sees that chemistry and morale are better with a player in the dog house, is he really supposed to coach that player as a contract (trade bait), rather than the team as an organic whole?

And I'm sure this isn't all about Nate's on-court antics -- how does he conduct himself off court? Is he earning the trust of his coach by all available means? Is he the first at practice and the last to leave; is he tutoring the rookies; is he evidencing he knows the playbook better than anybody else on the team; does he demonstrate himself in practice as the most committed, the best playmaker, and the best defender on the team? Does he ask a team captain to communicate with coach that he accepts his role, whatever it is, and request advice as to how to better serve the team's needs?

Or, is he still packing his pea shooter; dancing when he should be listening; jogging the ipod dial when he should be studying the playbook; distracting his seniors when he should be teaching his juniors; and running to his agent to raise a fuss when he should be asking his coach how to be a better teammate?

To hell with what Donnie and D'antoni should be doing for Nate - what is Nate doing for his team?

dude, not all of us are bashing on MDA for disciplining Nate... it's the fact that he devalued Nate that we have a problem with... we don't like wasting assets like that... kudos to you & others if u have no problem with letting guys like Nate who are capable of monster games like the ones he was putting up last year who are just hitting their prime walk for nothing in return... personally i think that's a foolish waste of an asset.

orangeblobman wrote:TMS, give break to me. MDA did not 'devalue' Little Nate Robinson. 9 DNP - CDs don't devalue a player, he has his value and everyone in the league knows what he can do, they see that it's not working out within what the Knicks are trying to run, that's it.

are u kidding me? how does a player getting DNP's & his agent now requesting him to be traded not devalue him? now even if teams were even remotely interested, they're more likely to just wait it out until the Knicks buy out Nate's contract & then pick him up for minimum bucks later... why would they give up assets for him now when they know he wants out & the Knicks aren't playing him? use some damn common sense.

Guys like Nate, Rodman, Isiah Rider, Marbury, Iverson, Sheed, etc, don't have their stock rise and fall by their coach's antics, but by their own.

TMS wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:TMS, give break to me. MDA did not 'devalue' Little Nate Robinson. 9 DNP - CDs don't devalue a player, he has his value and everyone in the league knows what he can do, they see that it's not working out within what the Knicks are trying to run, that's it.

are u kidding me? how does a player getting DNP's & his agent now requesting him to be traded not devalue him? now even if teams were even remotely interested, they're more likely to just wait it out until the Knicks buy out Nate's contract & then pick him up for minimum bucks later... why would they give up assets for him now when they know he wants out & the Knicks aren't playing him? use some damn common sense.

I just be saying that you wouldn't have gotten much for the little rugrat anyhow. He never a ton of value. There's nothing to devalue. His value is the same now. Donnie will sit on him all year long, he's in no rush to trade him.

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:Some people will simply never side with a coach. It's as if a coaching is supposed to be be some huge circle-jerk where everyone orgasms simultaneously. It don't work that way, get over it.

Where there's smoke there's fire. Marbury and "N8 the G8" are two of the biggest nut jobs of their generation yet people resent coaches for try to contain their damage? These guys expire the patience of multiple coaches, yet it's always the coach's fault?

I like Nate well enough, but I have no problem with a coach having a dog house. What's the right amount of time for Nate to be in it - 2 days? 20 days? A season? Who knows? But what if nothing else has worked with Nate? What if this is the trick that finally will work? What if not even this will work? If a coach sees that chemistry and morale are better with a player in the dog house, is he really supposed to coach that player as a contract (trade bait), rather than the team as an organic whole?

And I'm sure this isn't all about Nate's on-court antics -- how does he conduct himself off court? Is he earning the trust of his coach by all available means? Is he the first at practice and the last to leave; is he tutoring the rookies; is he evidencing he knows the playbook better than anybody else on the team; does he demonstrate himself in practice as the most committed, the best playmaker, and the best defender on the team? Does he ask a team captain to communicate with coach that he accepts his role, whatever it is, and request advice as to how to better serve the team's needs?

Or, is he still packing his pea shooter; dancing when he should be listening; jogging the ipod dial when he should be studying the playbook; distracting his seniors when he should be teaching his juniors; and running to his agent to raise a fuss when he should be asking his coach how to be a better teammate?

To hell with what Donnie and D'antoni should be doing for Nate - what is Nate doing for his team?

dude, not all of us are bashing on MDA for disciplining Nate... it's the fact that he devalued Nate that we have a problem with... we don't like wasting assets like that... kudos to you & others if u have no problem with letting guys like Nate who are capable of monster games like the ones he was putting up last year who are just hitting their prime walk for nothing in return... personally i think that's a foolish waste of an asset.

and yet with the wins and they way the Knicks have been playing over the past 14 games the value of these guys have gone up: Lee, JJ, Harrington, Hughes, Chandler.

You don't mess with a winning formula case of 2-bit Nate.

Also, you were making a direct opposite argument via playing JJ a couple of weeks ago.

here u go again w/that same tired counter... i told u before Fishlips even when given minutes is a scrub... yeah he'll give u some good games here & there but u tell me who's the more dynamic & talented player who's more likely to attract a suitor here, nevermind the fact that Nate's got a very reasonable expiring contract something Fishlips does not... are u kidding me with this? ur better than that martin.

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:Some people will simply never side with a coach. It's as if a coaching is supposed to be be some huge circle-jerk where everyone orgasms simultaneously. It don't work that way, get over it.

Where there's smoke there's fire. Marbury and "N8 the G8" are two of the biggest nut jobs of their generation yet people resent coaches for try to contain their damage? These guys expire the patience of multiple coaches, yet it's always the coach's fault?

I like Nate well enough, but I have no problem with a coach having a dog house. What's the right amount of time for Nate to be in it - 2 days? 20 days? A season? Who knows? But what if nothing else has worked with Nate? What if this is the trick that finally will work? What if not even this will work? If a coach sees that chemistry and morale are better with a player in the dog house, is he really supposed to coach that player as a contract (trade bait), rather than the team as an organic whole?

And I'm sure this isn't all about Nate's on-court antics -- how does he conduct himself off court? Is he earning the trust of his coach by all available means? Is he the first at practice and the last to leave; is he tutoring the rookies; is he evidencing he knows the playbook better than anybody else on the team; does he demonstrate himself in practice as the most committed, the best playmaker, and the best defender on the team? Does he ask a team captain to communicate with coach that he accepts his role, whatever it is, and request advice as to how to better serve the team's needs?

Or, is he still packing his pea shooter; dancing when he should be listening; jogging the ipod dial when he should be studying the playbook; distracting his seniors when he should be teaching his juniors; and running to his agent to raise a fuss when he should be asking his coach how to be a better teammate?

To hell with what Donnie and D'antoni should be doing for Nate - what is Nate doing for his team?

dude, not all of us are bashing on MDA for disciplining Nate... it's the fact that he devalued Nate that we have a problem with... we don't like wasting assets like that... kudos to you & others if u have no problem with letting guys like Nate who are capable of monster games like the ones he was putting up last year who are just hitting their prime walk for nothing in return... personally i think that's a foolish waste of an asset.

and yet with the wins and they way the Knicks have been playing over the past 14 games the value of these guys have gone up: Lee, JJ, Harrington, Hughes, Chandler.

You don't mess with a winning formula case of 2-bit Nate.

Also, you were making a direct opposite argument via playing JJ a couple of weeks ago.

here u go again w/that same tired counter... i told u before Fishlips even when given minutes is a scrub... yeah he'll give u some good games here & there but u tell me who's the more dynamic & talented player who's more likely to attract a suitor here, nevermind the fact that Nate's got a very reasonable expiring contract something Fishlips does not... are u kidding me with this? ur better than that martin.

nate is a scrub who will give you a good game here and there and plays zero defense which hurts the rest of the team.

When JJ has played well, so have the Knicks.

It's not a tired argument.

TMS - you have make a repeated reference to Walsh not "wasting assets", I get it.

However - as evidenced by the rebuttals of martin, orangeblob and blueseats - you have yet to build a compelling case to back it up. Perhaps, if you have some evidence of a pending deal that Donnie Walsh was offered for Nate and turned down, or a specific reference that ANY NBA team coveted Nate, perhaps your position would be more believable.

As it stands, your angle is valid - as pure conjecture and opinion, which is always cool, but a long, long, long way from fact. Nate has amazing skills and is highly flammable. He has the posters to prove it. Yet, as seen this Summer, only the NYKnicks stepped in to set the cash value for his unique skill set. If you really think Nate Robinson tops any NBA General Managers "To Do" list, last season or now, I invite you to name them.

According to Commissioner David Stern hisself, only half of the leagues 30 teams are turning a profit. That cuts the field of teams who may have more pressing needs than a backup guard. In the depressed economy of the NBA where too many franchises are operating in the red, I would offer that the remaining 15 NBA GMs who might have the assets to barter, consider Nate Robinson a luxury because of his limitations on defense. Net result, a lack of interest last year and a lack of interest this year.

Could a deal be done? Of course. Anyone can be traded. To insist that Nate's so-called "value" has been damaged by Walsh or D'Antoni is plain and simply - ungrateful. By paying him $4M (plus a one million dollar playoff bonus on top of that) the Knicks doubled what he made the year before. How is that a diss?

TMS - I am also honored and grateful that you have unearthed some of my past comments on Nate. Can you also please repost the bold predictions that I made which compared Wilson Chandler's sophomore production to Kobe?

Wilson Chandler must marry my daughter.