Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by Marv:
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!?!?!?
I agree with everything, but he is the kind of player whose trade value is much higher than his actual value to our team because of his ability to sell tickets. So if we traded him, we would get back MORE value= a better player. I'd be willing ot do that.
i couldn't disagree more.
i think you see guys like frye and lee and see how they're just smarter players and tend to overlooks nate's contributions.
look at his #'s as a starter. those are the #'s we expected from q1 - a starter on a 62 win team last year. nate is just a rookie who has a LONG LONG LONG way to go...and while he's still flawed, he's still delivering #'s all the while STARTING for us.
i think nate is a BIG reason why we've been 6-0 regardless of msg marketing.
i'll put it to you this way, we were ready to annoint trevor the start SF last year. why? b/c we really didn't have any other rookies on our team to compare him to. imagine we had frye and lee last year, you think trev would've still looked that good to us last year? nate is INFINITELY better than trev.
[Edited by - djsunyc on 01-14-2006 11:34 PM]
