[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Nate asks for trade
Author Thread
Papabear
Posts: 24380
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 3/31/2007
Member: #1414

12/20/2009  10:57 PM    LAST EDITED: 12/20/2009  10:59 PM
markvmc wrote:From the knicks' perspective, the question now is not "Why isn't Nate playing?" but "Why should the rotation be changed to accommodate Nate when the team's won 7 of the last 10?"

Papabear Says

I'm a great Knicks fan but I don't like the way this went down between Mike D and Nate. I beleive that Nate could have been a help to the team even in the wins. We just made it tonight.If we don't want Nate then just trade him. And since a lot of people think Nate is hopeless and worthless lets buy him out and give him away for nothing. Beleive me Nate will be picked up by some team. When ever there is a time out Nate is the first guy cheering his team and his team mates are responding. I care about this kids future and what Mike D is doing is not good.

Papabear
AUTOADVERT
Uptown
Posts: 31359
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 4/1/2008
Member: #1883

12/20/2009  11:01 PM
markvmc wrote:From the knicks' perspective, the question now is not "Why isn't Nate playing?" but "Why should the rotation be changed to accommodate Nate when the team's won 7 of the last 10?"

Because the usuaul devil-advocate guys need something to argue.

martin
Posts: 78490
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
12/20/2009  11:14 PM
Papabear wrote:
markvmc wrote:From the knicks' perspective, the question now is not "Why isn't Nate playing?" but "Why should the rotation be changed to accommodate Nate when the team's won 7 of the last 10?"

Papabear Says

I'm a great Knicks fan but I don't like the way this went down between Mike D and Nate. I beleive that Nate could have been a help to the team even in the wins. We just made it tonight.If we don't want Nate then just trade him. And since a lot of people think Nate is hopeless and worthless lets buy him out and give him away for nothing. Beleive me Nate will be picked up by some team. When ever there is a time out Nate is the first guy cheering his team and his team mates are responding. I care about this kids future and what Mike D is doing is not good.

what MDA is doing is not good? How do you explain the Knicks winning while Nate sits? Nate isn't the whole reason, but he is apart of it.

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/20/2009  11:19 PM
Uptown wrote:
markvmc wrote:From the knicks' perspective, the question now is not "Why isn't Nate playing?" but "Why should the rotation be changed to accommodate Nate when the team's won 7 of the last 10?"

Because the usuaul devil-advocate guys need something to argue.

Hmmm...the Knicks certainly had a couple of good wins in the past 10 games, but maybe you should take a look at the Knicks good fortunes during that period: Catching teams with injuries to important players and also take into account that it is a long season. The Knicks won 6 straight during the Larry Brown season.

This team is better than the LB team but they are still bad. But I guess some Knicks fans are easily satisfied.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
12/20/2009  11:31 PM
Uptown wrote:
markvmc wrote:From the knicks' perspective, the question now is not "Why isn't Nate playing?" but "Why should the rotation be changed to accommodate Nate when the team's won 7 of the last 10?"

Because the usuaul devil-advocate guys need something to argue.

for me, i just question why we didn't just look to trade this guy instead of going this route? Now his value is even lower than it was before... i just think this entire situation could have easily been avoided... all of this didn't just come to a head this season, the problems were evident w/Nate ever since he's been here... Nate is the same guy now as he was when we drafted him... benching him wasn't gonna change the guy... at the moment MDA decided he could no longer have this guy a part of the team is when we shoulda been showcasing him if u ask me... we can't let personal issues get in the way of being smart w/whatever assets we have available to conduct trades with... the greater good in my view would have been to get max value out of Nate in a trade, not to discipline him & make him into a spectacle... it's not like Nate was being a disruption & cancer in the lockerroom, MDA just couldn't deal w/his 5 year old behavior anymore... that's fine, i got no problem w/that... but IMO he shoulda been smarter about the situation & looked toward the greater good of pumping up Nate's value for a possible trade... i'm not trying to hate on MDA, i know as a coach it's his job to try & win games first & foremost, but as a fan my priorities are with looking ahead to 2010, & i just wish things were handled differently than they were... just MHO.

After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
martin
Posts: 78490
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
12/20/2009  11:41 PM
TMS wrote:
Uptown wrote:
markvmc wrote:From the knicks' perspective, the question now is not "Why isn't Nate playing?" but "Why should the rotation be changed to accommodate Nate when the team's won 7 of the last 10?"

Because the usuaul devil-advocate guys need something to argue.

for me, i just question why we didn't just look to trade this guy instead of going this route? Now his value is even lower than it was before... i just think this entire situation could have easily been avoided... all of this didn't just come to a head this season, the problems were evident w/Nate ever since he's been here... Nate is the same guy now as he was when we drafted him... benching him wasn't gonna change the guy... at the moment MDA decided he could no longer have this guy a part of the team is when we shoulda been showcasing him if u ask me... we can't let personal issues get in the way of being smart w/whatever assets we have available to conduct trades with... the greater good in my view would have been to get max value out of Nate in a trade, not to discipline him & make him into a spectacle... it's not like Nate was being a disruption & cancer in the lockerroom, MDA just couldn't deal w/his 5 year old behavior anymore... that's fine, i got no problem w/that... but IMO he shoulda been smarter about the situation & looked toward the greater good of pumping up Nate's value for a possible trade... i'm not trying to hate on MDA, i know as a coach it's his job to try & win games first & foremost, but as a fan my priorities are with looking ahead to 2010, & i just wish things were handled differently than they were... just MHO.

Knicks should concentrate on winning basketball games and showcasing 2 guys if possible: JJ and Curry.

Why would you predicate your team play on showcasing Nate? He has already showed that he can score 20 in a quarter this year, what more showcasing is there? ... besides playing him and losing basketball games.

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
misterearl
Posts: 38786
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/16/2004
Member: #799
USA
12/21/2009  12:06 AM    LAST EDITED: 12/21/2009  12:07 AM
Aaron Goodwin Brokers A Deal

"Nate's value wasn't at peak last summer -- as a younger, cheaper player the previous two seasons, he had more respect on the market. But still, Robinson had been thought of rather highly, perhaps a top five scoring guard off the bench (and who doesn't need scoring off the bench?). But no teams could rustle up enough cap (or cap space) to pull him into the fold, and in taking a one-year deal Robinson took all the risk in the relationship.

... Agent Aaron Goodwin told New York media he wants to try to help his client get moved, or perhaps eventually bought out. That might actually be the best solution for all parties: the Knicks would save a few bucks, and Robinson would get an opportunity to show his skills in advance of free agency. There's no reason for New York to not agree to a, say, $2 million buy-out settlement (Robinson is owed $4 million). If Robinson can grab $1 million or so from a contender and get some high profile playing time, it's a long-term win.

Otherwise, few teams seem likely to give up an asset for Robinson's service, and the Knicks won't just take a piece of crud - they could just let Nate rot. Goodwin doesn't look like he'll let that happen, and Goodwin usually finds solutions in these situations. We'll see how it pans out."

- Tom Ziller

Chandler and Gallo were mentioned first by D'Antoni in October and his trust in them shows in December. Wilson Chandler is regaining hios rhythm after a Summer of inactivity and only 53 games into his NBA career, Gallo is healthy and gaining confidence.


David Lee is playing better basketball. Jon Bender is providing a welcome jolt of versatility and scoring. Barely noticed, Al Harrington is having his minutes rationed and his role reduced in clutch situations. That is a good thing as the Knicks yoots gain valuable game experience.


The Knicks new core is being selected.

once a knick always a knick
EwingsGlass
Posts: 27678
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 4/29/2005
Member: #893
USA
12/21/2009  1:19 AM
Now that Jared Jeffries is showing that he can be an effective defender, it might be a good time to revisit the JJ and Nate for Kenny Thomas deal. A good filler in that transaction from the Sactown side would be Sergio Rodriguez. I see it going down as JJ, Nate and a 2nd Round draft pick for KT and SR.

Jeffries isn't exactly a bargain, but he is an effective defender. Nate is Nate and has a lot of marketability. KT is just expiring salary and SRod coming up on restricted free agency. Because Sactown only paid cash considerations for him, they might be willing to toss him in.

A key thought from this is that once they move JJ, the Ty Thomas/Harrington transaction seems more palatable. Furthermore, I would think that the boob-kittens would consider a curry for chandler trade to re-unite curry with brown. of course, in 2010, it is pretty much a wash. And assume Bender resigns for the vets minimum.

Give Lebron a max contract and offer Lee the balance of whatever is left over.

We quickly have a 2010 roster of:

SRod $2.8MQO/Douglas $1M
Lebron $17M
Gallo $3.3M/WChandler $2.1M
Lee $8M/TThomas $6.25M QO/Bender $1M
TChandler$12.75/Hill $2.7M

Its not perfect because I only used the QO for Srod and TThomas, but that team looks pretty good.

You know I gonna spin wit it
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
12/21/2009  2:08 AM    LAST EDITED: 12/21/2009  2:09 AM
martin wrote:
TMS wrote:
Uptown wrote:
markvmc wrote:From the knicks' perspective, the question now is not "Why isn't Nate playing?" but "Why should the rotation be changed to accommodate Nate when the team's won 7 of the last 10?"

Because the usuaul devil-advocate guys need something to argue.

for me, i just question why we didn't just look to trade this guy instead of going this route? Now his value is even lower than it was before... i just think this entire situation could have easily been avoided... all of this didn't just come to a head this season, the problems were evident w/Nate ever since he's been here... Nate is the same guy now as he was when we drafted him... benching him wasn't gonna change the guy... at the moment MDA decided he could no longer have this guy a part of the team is when we shoulda been showcasing him if u ask me... we can't let personal issues get in the way of being smart w/whatever assets we have available to conduct trades with... the greater good in my view would have been to get max value out of Nate in a trade, not to discipline him & make him into a spectacle... it's not like Nate was being a disruption & cancer in the lockerroom, MDA just couldn't deal w/his 5 year old behavior anymore... that's fine, i got no problem w/that... but IMO he shoulda been smarter about the situation & looked toward the greater good of pumping up Nate's value for a possible trade... i'm not trying to hate on MDA, i know as a coach it's his job to try & win games first & foremost, but as a fan my priorities are with looking ahead to 2010, & i just wish things were handled differently than they were... just MHO.

Knicks should concentrate on winning basketball games and showcasing 2 guys if possible: JJ and Curry.

Why would you predicate your team play on showcasing Nate? He has already showed that he can score 20 in a quarter this year, what more showcasing is there? ... besides playing him and losing basketball games.

oh come on martin, u mean to tell me u don't think that benching Nate like this hasn't hurt his trade value in the slightest? wouldn't it have been better to see Nate putting up 20 point games this season while engaging other teams in trade talks regarding him instead of how we're doing it now?

everyone knows Nate wants out now & MDA won't play him, we're in as weak a bargaining position as we could possibly be in short of Nate becoming a Marbury-like cancerous presence... at least he hasn't progressed to that level but i think this whole situation could have been handled a lot better to facilitate a trade & make all parties happy in the long run... i don't see the point in punishing a guy who was never gonna change his ways to begin with when he wasn't being a malcontent... i can understand the banishment Marbury got, he had no trade value at all, his skills were diminished considerably & he was still owed a ton of money on his contract that year... Nate is signed to a very reasonable contract at $4 mil & he's just touching his prime as a basketball player... to waste an asset like that is not in the best interests of the NY Knicks IMO.

if the goal is to unload JJFish & Curry, then you're gonna have to throw in other assets to get rid of them... Nate could have been one of those assets... it doesn't make sense to devalue him like this just to prove some point MDA's trying to get across to his team... he already established that point by benching Nate for a game or 2... after that he shoulda been back in the rotation & Walsh shoulda been working the phones non-stop trying to look for a trade partner while Nate was putting up numbers if u ask me.

After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
12/21/2009  8:37 AM
TMS wrote:
martin wrote:
TMS wrote:
Uptown wrote:
markvmc wrote:From the knicks' perspective, the question now is not "Why isn't Nate playing?" but "Why should the rotation be changed to accommodate Nate when the team's won 7 of the last 10?"

Because the usuaul devil-advocate guys need something to argue.

for me, i just question why we didn't just look to trade this guy instead of going this route? Now his value is even lower than it was before... i just think this entire situation could have easily been avoided... all of this didn't just come to a head this season, the problems were evident w/Nate ever since he's been here... Nate is the same guy now as he was when we drafted him... benching him wasn't gonna change the guy... at the moment MDA decided he could no longer have this guy a part of the team is when we shoulda been showcasing him if u ask me... we can't let personal issues get in the way of being smart w/whatever assets we have available to conduct trades with... the greater good in my view would have been to get max value out of Nate in a trade, not to discipline him & make him into a spectacle... it's not like Nate was being a disruption & cancer in the lockerroom, MDA just couldn't deal w/his 5 year old behavior anymore... that's fine, i got no problem w/that... but IMO he shoulda been smarter about the situation & looked toward the greater good of pumping up Nate's value for a possible trade... i'm not trying to hate on MDA, i know as a coach it's his job to try & win games first & foremost, but as a fan my priorities are with looking ahead to 2010, & i just wish things were handled differently than they were... just MHO.

Knicks should concentrate on winning basketball games and showcasing 2 guys if possible: JJ and Curry.

Why would you predicate your team play on showcasing Nate? He has already showed that he can score 20 in a quarter this year, what more showcasing is there? ... besides playing him and losing basketball games.

oh come on martin, u mean to tell me u don't think that benching Nate like this hasn't hurt his trade value in the slightest? wouldn't it have been better to see Nate putting up 20 point games this season while engaging other teams in trade talks regarding him instead of how we're doing it now?

everyone knows Nate wants out now & MDA won't play him, we're in as weak a bargaining position as we could possibly be in short of Nate becoming a Marbury-like cancerous presence... at least he hasn't progressed to that level but i think this whole situation could have been handled a lot better to facilitate a trade & make all parties happy in the long run... i don't see the point in punishing a guy who was never gonna change his ways to begin with when he wasn't being a malcontent... i can understand the banishment Marbury got, he had no trade value at all, his skills were diminished considerably & he was still owed a ton of money on his contract that year... Nate is signed to a very reasonable contract at $4 mil & he's just touching his prime as a basketball player... to waste an asset like that is not in the best interests of the NY Knicks IMO.

if the goal is to unload JJFish & Curry, then you're gonna have to throw in other assets to get rid of them... Nate could have been one of those assets... it doesn't make sense to devalue him like this just to prove some point MDA's trying to get across to his team... he already established that point by benching Nate for a game or 2... after that he shoulda been back in the rotation & Walsh shoulda been working the phones non-stop trying to look for a trade partner while Nate was putting up numbers if u ask me.

The bigger problem, to me, that has been exposed from Nate Gate is our current GM & Coach couldn't figure out what to do with Nate in a half season - last year before the deadline- and suddenly this year can't live with him.

What the F were they - MDA & Walsh- doing last year? Was their head that far in the sand?

And isn't a coach, a good coach, supposed to be able to get his players to buy in?

And are we that good that we can let one of our better players go unused?

All this BS about winning and a short rotation. The Knicks will be lucky if they can match last season's win total.

How is that progress?

nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
12/21/2009  8:46 AM
The sheer truth is that people are going to believe what ever they want to believe. I believe that D'Antoni never wanted Nate back, but Donnie probably figured he could play him and maybe get something for him if he played well enough. This would have worked fine until Nate started acting like a small child and shooting at the wrong basket, amongst the litany of problems he's had. To me, that's certainly a benchable offense, no matter who it is.

I give Nate credit in one respect though, he's ALWAYS the first one off the bench to congratulate players after a big run.

"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
AnubisADL
Posts: 27382
Alba Posts: 13
Joined: 6/29/2009
Member: #2771
USA
12/21/2009  9:14 AM
D'Antoni can only blame himself for this situation. Nate was acting a fool last year with some of his antics on the court and what did D'Antoni do? Nothing. D'Antoni set the tone for what is allowed last year which carried into this year. If he had a problem he should have nipped it in the bud last year.

We went on a two game winning streak without Hughs so I guess he should be left out of the lineup too.

NY Knicks - Retirement home for players and GMs
misterearl
Posts: 38786
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/16/2004
Member: #799
USA
12/21/2009  9:21 AM
Showcase

nyk4ever - true. Nate's enthusiasm is both his strong point and achilles heel.

There is not a shread of documented evidence (beyond manufactured rumors or trade checker) that any NBA team had genuine interest in Nate Robinson, or made an offer for him last year or this. Walsh has zero incentive to take back a player with a contract beyond this season.

After the Jason Kidd flirtation fell through, Nate was a $4M insurance policy at guard, pending the performance of Toney Douglas. Douglas has answered the questions swirling around him on draft night with solid play. As a direct result of Douglas, the Knicks don't have to accommodate Nate while Gallo, Chandler and Lee are dishing and swishing. It is up to Nate to beat someone out and keep working. To his credit, Larry Hughes played his way back into the rotation in November.

How many teams are looking for a reserve guard who makes $4million?

once a knick always a knick
AnubisADL
Posts: 27382
Alba Posts: 13
Joined: 6/29/2009
Member: #2771
USA
12/21/2009  9:36 AM
misterearl wrote:Showcase

nyk4ever - true. Nate's enthusiasm is both his strong point and achilles heel.

There is not a shread of documented evidence (beyond manufactured rumors or trade checker) that any NBA team had genuine interest in Nate Robinson, or made an offer for him last year or this. Walsh has zero incentive to take back a player with a contract beyond this season.

After the Jason Kidd flirtation fell through, Nate was a $4M insurance policy at guard, pending the performance of Toney Douglas. Douglas has answered the questions swirling around him on draft night with solid play. As a direct result of Douglas, the Knicks don't have to accommodate Nate while Gallo, Chandler and Lee are dishing and swishing. It is up to Nate to beat someone out and keep working. To his credit, Larry Hughes played his way back into the rotation in November.

How many teams are looking for a reserve guard who makes $4million?

You are correct and other teams have zero incentive to give up any real assets for Robinson when he will be a UFA this summer. Just because a team wont give up assets for Robinson doesn't mean he isn't wanted though. Plus Robinson can veto any trade so that just complicates things. He isn't going somewhere else to not play.

Jamal Crawford was traded for basically an expiring contract twice last year. Did that mean he wasn't wanted or does is mean teams weren't willing to give up assets.

NY Knicks - Retirement home for players and GMs
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
12/21/2009  9:45 AM    LAST EDITED: 12/21/2009  9:46 AM
Papabear wrote:
markvmc wrote:From the knicks' perspective, the question now is not "Why isn't Nate playing?" but "Why should the rotation be changed to accommodate Nate when the team's won 7 of the last 10?"

Papabear Says

I'm a great Knicks fan but I don't like the way this went down between Mike D and Nate. I beleive that Nate could have been a help to the team even in the wins. We just made it tonight.If we don't want Nate then just trade him. And since a lot of people think Nate is hopeless and worthless lets buy him out and give him away for nothing. Beleive me Nate will be picked up by some team. When ever there is a time out Nate is the first guy cheering his team and his team mates are responding. I care about this kids future and what Mike D is doing is not good.

$4 mils is too much money for creerleader. He can score but his effectivness as a guard is negative. He cannot setup anybogy. He is sooooooo dumb he cannot run simple plays.
He is garbage time player for good team and ticket attraction for rebuilding. His time in NY is over.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
JrZyHuStLa
Posts: 25677
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/5/2007
Member: #1241

12/21/2009  10:08 AM
Not sure why some think D'antoni can't control Nate.

He's got him buried on the bench. D'antoni is clearly having this his way.

BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024

12/21/2009  11:03 AM
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?

nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
12/21/2009  11:32 AM
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?

Thanks for being the voice of reason as always Blue.

"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
NJPlayer79
Posts: 20227
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/19/2009
Member: #3021
USA
12/21/2009  11:37 AM
Bottom line is Nate is just not a good fit on most basketball teams, let alone the Knicks...he's too small to be a consistent two guard, his defense and hustle comes and goes, and he is not EVER going to be a solid back up PG, he chucks the ball up way too much. His best role would be to find a situation similar to Eddie House in Boston where he can be the 2nd or 3rd guy off the bench when you need to score some points in a hurry.

I don't see how he would fit into our long term plans.

That said, I agree with a couple of you that we are going to be hurting for getting the right value back since it was at it's all time high last year.

misterearl
Posts: 38786
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/16/2004
Member: #799
USA
12/21/2009  11:38 AM
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

once a knick always a knick
Nate asks for trade

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy