Papabear wrote:

AbrahamLincoln wrote:

Papabear wrote:

AbrahamLincoln wrote:

Papabear wrote:

AbrahamLincoln wrote:Good Riddance out of control gimmick midget with Napoleon complex.

Papabear Says

Man you don't get it!!! We could have gotten something back. But you really don't care! You just want him gone. A player who is better than 90% of the players on the team. This is a poor business judgement. It reminds me of Patrick Ewing. You just wanted him gone.

If you think a trade of Nate Robinson (who has little to no value and had no value this summer when he was a FA and nobody decided to even offer him a contract) for literally anything will have the same impact on this franchise as the Patrick Ewing trade then it is obvious that YOU don't get it. Your love for this player is blinding you. He's not that good. It's just...that's it. He isn't as good as you think he is. No, he isn't better than 90% of the players. And even if he was, that doesn't say much. It's not poor anything. He was benched for his antics and now has demanded a trade. Maybe if he ever matured he would realize that he would play if he stopped acting like a moron every game. It's too bad that some guys never grow up.

Papabear Says

Time Will tell for Nate. He will get picked up by a team and he will grow. I'm glad he is getting out because this is about the worst coached Knicks team that I ever saw. I wonder if we will win 23 games

No, that title belongs to your boy Isiah Lord Thomas.

Papabear Says

Are you saying that Isiah Thomas was a bad point guard?? The last time I looked he was one of the all time greats. So what are you trying to say??? I know he was a bad GM but the Knicks was screwed up before Isiah got here. This ain't about Isaih it's about Mike D and his judgement. The last time I checked Isaih Thomas has 2 championship rings and Mike D has none. And we haven't won one in over 35 years. OOh OOh it's Nates fault. or Isiah's fault.

Mike D'Antoni had a great career in Europe. He is a legend there. I don't really get what a coach's playing career has to do with his coaching. I could care less if Isiah won 10 titles as a player, he sucked as a coach and he sucked even more as a General Manager. Isiah destroyed the team. Was it bad before? Yes. Was it worse after Isiah? Most certainly. Much worse. Bottom line is that D'Antoni is an accomplished and respected coach. If you have a problem with his style, fair enough. But to defend Isiah over him? And for what? Because Nate didn't play? No, that's not a good reason.

And you mentioned Ariza before. Ariza was traded to Orlando and barely played before he broke out in LA. Ariza wasn't traded for his attitude, despite Brown calling him delusional. They just wanted Steve Francis at the time. Ariza was never on Nate Robinson immaturity levels.

McK1 wrote:

Marv wrote:

TMS wrote:

Marv wrote:but as far as nate goes, again i think he'd burn any nba coach out. one, two seasons of his crap would have been plenty. but to keep it up this long? i'd maintain there's no way any of us can fully fathom what it has to be like to be coaching an nba team and have one guy consistently act out during games like he does. all his good intentions and exuberance aside.

the problem i have isn't that MDA finally had enough of Nate, but how he handled the situation... he should have talked it over w/Donnie & figured out a plan of action to unload Nate somehow & get back some useful asset... to banish him to the bench & basically force Nate to demand a trade is pretty much biting off your nose to spite your face, isn't it? what good does it serve our chances of trading him by benching him like that is my question... i just don't see any positives there.

no one in the league wants him. that was proven out last offseason.

ben gordon got no offers as a RFA either soon as he became unrestricted he became a Piston.

Ben Gordon wanted a near max contract. Nate would have taken less than the MLE.

CrushAlot wrote:Nate was resigned by the Knicks after MDA had coached him the previous season. Do you think Walsh would resign a guy that MDA views as having such poor character he that he would banish him from the team? I think the reality is that MDA cannot coach guys who rock the boat in any way. I also think he struggles to communicate with that type of player and if allowed just banishes them until they are traded or waived. This is a major fault and puts Walsh in a very bad position. I think Walsh needs to either fire him or make him play Nate. There should be a balance of power between the coach and gm. I think Gallo is a Knick because of the coach. I think Nate and Dlee were resigned with the coaches blessing. Walsh needs to find out if MDA can coach anyone other than an all star level player with tremendous character.

Papabear Says

CrushAlot: you said it and you said it well. enough said.
With this Papabear is signing out and going to bed. I enjoyed this open discussion. Hey we all love the Knicks and we deserve better than what they have been giving us and we can all agree with that. Hey I'm going to bed. SEE YA!!

McK1 wrote:

Marv wrote:

TMS wrote:

Marv wrote:but as far as nate goes, again i think he'd burn any nba coach out. one, two seasons of his crap would have been plenty. but to keep it up this long? i'd maintain there's no way any of us can fully fathom what it has to be like to be coaching an nba team and have one guy consistently act out during games like he does. all his good intentions and exuberance aside.

the problem i have isn't that MDA finally had enough of Nate, but how he handled the situation... he should have talked it over w/Donnie & figured out a plan of action to unload Nate somehow & get back some useful asset... to banish him to the bench & basically force Nate to demand a trade is pretty much biting off your nose to spite your face, isn't it? what good does it serve our chances of trading him by benching him like that is my question... i just don't see any positives there.

no one in the league wants him. that was proven out last offseason.

ben gordon got no offers as a RFA either soon as he became unrestricted he became a Piston.

ben gordon handled his resigining by having a strong season and then an absolute beast of a postseason. you see what nate has done with his opportunity.

Marv wrote:

McK1 wrote:

Marv wrote:

TMS wrote:

Marv wrote:but as far as nate goes, again i think he'd burn any nba coach out. one, two seasons of his crap would have been plenty. but to keep it up this long? i'd maintain there's no way any of us can fully fathom what it has to be like to be coaching an nba team and have one guy consistently act out during games like he does. all his good intentions and exuberance aside.

the problem i have isn't that MDA finally had enough of Nate, but how he handled the situation... he should have talked it over w/Donnie & figured out a plan of action to unload Nate somehow & get back some useful asset... to banish him to the bench & basically force Nate to demand a trade is pretty much biting off your nose to spite your face, isn't it? what good does it serve our chances of trading him by benching him like that is my question... i just don't see any positives there.

no one in the league wants him. that was proven out last offseason.

ben gordon got no offers as a RFA either soon as he became unrestricted he became a Piston.

ben gordon handled his resigining by having a strong season and then an absolute beast of a postseason. you see what nate has done with his opportunity.

be life support for duhon

DrAlphaeus wrote:I know this is a bit of a tangent, but does anyone now still think Iverson would have worked out here?

Depends on what your definition of "worked out" is. Do I think AI would have gotten us more than one win? Yes. Do I think the team would win 35 percent of it's games? Yes.

But clealry all of that has been achieved without his services. And clearly AI wouldn't have stunted the youngster's growth any more than not playing them now does.

So I'd say signing him would've been a wash

nixluva wrote:I wonder sometimes about the thinking of many Knick fans. We get a coach that has a great resume with wins, success getting players to excel above expectations ie Nash, Diaw & Bell, he did nothing bit win with a team that was never the best talent in the West and in a dispute with a player about playing winning ball many fans side with Nate? What the hell has he ever done to deserve the benefit of the doubt? This is Coach number THREE that has had the same issues with him! Guys keep bringing up MDA's coaching style and other nonsense as if that has anything to do with Nate acting like a professional.

It's been 8 GAMES! That's not a long time. Now a coach can't discipline a player using PT as the rod? When was there a specific limit on the number of games a player can be in the doghouse? This MDA bashing is BS! I'm tired of whinnig Knick fans they don't deserve DW or MDA! Give them some other clowns that know nothing about winning! The kid was benched cuz he doesn't understand what kind of mentality it takes to be a winner! Case closed! MDA tried, Zeke tried and LB tried. ENOUGH!!!

It's not the point...No one argues against Nate being banished...We question how it's done...Could it not have been done in a manner where some value could be extracted from a trade...Does MDA's amd Walshs' examplary resume is such that no questions can be asked of their actions...