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

If you have to trade one guy
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum


Author Poll
kam77
Posts: 7664
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
Imagine there's a deal on the table and the other team wants either Frye or Nate.
Trade N8
Trade Frye
I can't decide
View Results


« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
4/24/2007  1:13 PM
It goes against the accepted "Big-Man logic", but I would deal Frye.
lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
AUTOADVERT
FrenchKnicks
Posts: 21043
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 10/30/2001
Member: #147
France
4/24/2007  1:47 PM
I absolutely hate stupid Nate, ship him out of here for crap, I don't care.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
4/24/2007  1:59 PM
Nate's value is the highest of the two I think. Sell high.
I just hope that people will like me
daddynel
Posts: 21222
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 12/2/2003
Member: #505
4/24/2007  9:34 PM
depends on who we're trading for.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
4/24/2007  10:27 PM
trade Frye... i think Nate is a headcase, but u can never question the kid's heart... Frye on the other hand...
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
joec32033
Posts: 30641
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
4/25/2007  10:43 AM
I put choice 3. It depends on what type of player we are getting back.
~You can't run from who you are.~
JrZyHuStLa
Posts: 25677
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/5/2007
Member: #1241
4/25/2007  11:05 AM
I'd trade Frye.

At this point, we don't/cant' be too choosy about some of the attitudes on the team. We need guys that can flat out ball, and Nate fits that bill, sometimes, or a LOT MORE than Frye, for sure. Besides, Nate has the perimeter shot that Channing somehow lost after he went through puberty after his rookie season. Championship teams need to be concerned with attitude problems and distractions, not the Knicks.
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
4/25/2007  11:08 AM
Try not to answer in terms of who we're getting back.

This is really about if they held a gun to you and you had to give up Frye or Nate. Who would you get rid of.

lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
joec32033
Posts: 30641
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
4/25/2007  11:10 AM
Posted by kam77:

Try not to answer in terms of who we're getting back.

This is really about if they held a gun to you and you had to give up Frye or Nate. Who would you get rid of.

I'd easily give up Nate, under those guidelines. Even with his crappy past season, Frye is still a 6-11 PF/C who has shown skills in the past. Nate is a 5-9 immature SG.
~You can't run from who you are.~
JrZyHuStLa
Posts: 25677
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/5/2007
Member: #1241
4/25/2007  11:13 AM
Posted by joec32033:
Posted by kam77:

Try not to answer in terms of who we're getting back.

This is really about if they held a gun to you and you had to give up Frye or Nate. Who would you get rid of.

I'd easily give up Nate, under those guidelines. Even with his crappy past season, Frye is still a 6-11 PF/C who has shown skills in the past. Nate is a 5-9 immature SG.

Exactly, Frye has shown skills in the PAST. What good is that ? That's a poor indicator of things to come.

Also, about his size, it matters to a certain extent. If you're a 6'11 punani like Frye, what good is it ? At that size, you are immediately expected to bang in the post and alter shots, none of which Frye does.
joec32033
Posts: 30641
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
4/25/2007  11:18 AM
Posted by JrZyHuStLa:
Posted by joec32033:
Posted by kam77:

Try not to answer in terms of who we're getting back.

This is really about if they held a gun to you and you had to give up Frye or Nate. Who would you get rid of.

I'd easily give up Nate, under those guidelines. Even with his crappy past season, Frye is still a 6-11 PF/C who has shown skills in the past. Nate is a 5-9 immature SG.

Exactly, Frye has shown skills in the PAST. What good is that ? That's a poor indicator of things to come.

Also, about his size, it matters to a certain extent. If you're a 6'11 punani like Frye, what good is it ? At that size, you are immediately expected to bang in the post and alter shots, none of which Frye does.

Bottom line, 6-11 and showing some skills is worth more than 5-9 showing some skills every time. That is why I said it depends to me on who we get back.
~You can't run from who you are.~
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
4/26/2007  3:28 PM
The little man quietly had himself a nice sophomore season—well maybe “quietly” isn’t the right word, but you get where I’m going. For all the people trying to run him out of town for his immaturity, consider that Robinson was fairly efficient (39% 3-pt shooter, 55.3% TS) and one of the least turnover prone players on the roster despite some of his shenanigans.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/?p=502

Don't run N8 outta town, Knick fans. He's got talent.
lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
« Reply To Topic
If you have to trade one guy
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©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