crzymdups wrote:

joec32033 wrote:Reports are coming in it is House and a 1st rounder for Nate.

first rounder? nice!

where is that report from?

As much as Anubis will hate it TD quoted two sources in his twitter. He say the deal is signed off in and it is a first in 2011 because Boston gave up their pick last year.

ESPN sent out a text saying Knicks and Celts are in advanced talks of a House for Nate deal that was not quite done yet.

djsunyc wrote:so when it all boils down to it, the knicks spent $4 mil (+ luxury) on a 2011 first rounder. since money doesn't matter to the knicks, it's a free pick since they had no intention of keeping nate. they still fubared it before by not trading for kenny thomas but that doesn't matter now.

huh? very little of that is true or makes sense.

crzymdups wrote:

djsunyc wrote:so when it all boils down to it, the knicks spent $4 mil (+ luxury) on a 2011 first rounder. since money doesn't matter to the knicks, it's a free pick since they had no intention of keeping nate. they still fubared it before by not trading for kenny thomas but that doesn't matter now.

huh? very little of that is true or makes sense.

he's referring to the 1 year contract we gave to Nate this season for $4 mil + the luxury tax spending that his contract caused on our payroll... we're trading that for a 2011 late 1st round pick essentially... he's saying we could have just bought a late 1st round pick for $3 mil in cash this season like we did for Toney Douglas last season & saved on the luxury tax & the extra $1 mil & that we pissed away our chance to trade Nate last year to Sactown in that Kenny Thomas rumored trade... all of this i agree w/dj with... but what's done is done & getting back at least a late 1st round pick was essential, we couldn't just let Nate walk for nothing... that should have been done last year tho so we would have a pick in this year's draft.

crzymdups wrote:

TMS wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

djsunyc wrote:so when it all boils down to it, the knicks spent $4 mil (+ luxury) on a 2011 first rounder. since money doesn't matter to the knicks, it's a free pick since they had no intention of keeping nate. they still fubared it before by not trading for kenny thomas but that doesn't matter now.

huh? very little of that is true or makes sense.

he's referring to the 1 year contract we gave to Nate this season for $4 mil + the luxury tax spending that his contract caused on our payroll... we're trading that for a 2011 late 1st round pick essentially... he's saying we could have just bought a late 1st round pick for $3 mil in cash this season like we did for Toney Douglas last season & saved on the luxury tax & the extra $1 mil & that we pissed away our chance to trade Nate last year to Sactown in that Kenny Thomas rumored trade... all of this i agree w/dj with... but what's done is done & getting back at least a late 1st round pick was essential, we couldn't just let Nate walk for nothing... that should have been done last year tho so we would have a pick in this year's draft.

nate was a rotation player for a lot of this year. maybe they were paying him to do that?

no one knows what/if any trades were on the table last year for nate.

bottom line, they apparently get a first round pick for an asset they thought might help them make the playoffs this year and would have definitely walked for nothing in 30 games.

and boston is going downhill fast in case y'all didn't notice. a 2011 first rounder from them could look pretty nice.

...or could wind up being an asset to make the mcgrady trade work.

Nate is much more valuable and much more needed by Boston than an expiring Eddie House is needed by us. And Nate is the best player by a wide margin. Instead of taking their first round pick, give them Jeffries and then give Houston the middle finger.

Uptown wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

TMS wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

djsunyc wrote:so when it all boils down to it, the knicks spent $4 mil (+ luxury) on a 2011 first rounder. since money doesn't matter to the knicks, it's a free pick since they had no intention of keeping nate. they still fubared it before by not trading for kenny thomas but that doesn't matter now.

huh? very little of that is true or makes sense.

he's referring to the 1 year contract we gave to Nate this season for $4 mil + the luxury tax spending that his contract caused on our payroll... we're trading that for a 2011 late 1st round pick essentially... he's saying we could have just bought a late 1st round pick for $3 mil in cash this season like we did for Toney Douglas last season & saved on the luxury tax & the extra $1 mil & that we pissed away our chance to trade Nate last year to Sactown in that Kenny Thomas rumored trade... all of this i agree w/dj with... but what's done is done & getting back at least a late 1st round pick was essential, we couldn't just let Nate walk for nothing... that should have been done last year tho so we would have a pick in this year's draft.

nate was a rotation player for a lot of this year. maybe they were paying him to do that?

no one knows what/if any trades were on the table last year for nate.

bottom line, they apparently get a first round pick for an asset they thought might help them make the playoffs this year and would have definitely walked for nothing in 30 games.

and boston is going downhill fast in case y'all didn't notice. a 2011 first rounder from them could look pretty nice.

...or could wind up being an asset to make the mcgrady trade work.

...or we can let Nate walk in April for nothing......And then everyone will bitch and complain that Walsh is an idiot, he should have gotten something for him.

...or we can get back an asset for Nate that we can use & not give that asset up to the Rockets while getting ass raped in that T-Mac trade.