Krypto-Nate

[mercury]

Irish, thanks for 600 quality post. I wish you good karma. Concerning Nate, on Alan Hahns blog he mentions the Knicks had a tade for Nate in the works but Nate vetoed it. However, Hahn only gives the specifics of the trade in his article which you must subscribe to. I wonder what the deal was? However, it will probally be on hoopshype soon.

[mercury]

To answer my own question the trade Nate vetoed was to Memphis. It would have sent the Knicks Marcus Williams and a Memphis 1st round pick. However, the Grizz have three 1st round picks which currently sit at 12, 23, and 30. Hopefully after his big game we can get a better deal.

[garyd]

Jan 2, 2010 19:15:31 GMT -5 rxmeister said:

anyone who DOESN'T want to trade Nate has lost sight of the big picture. It's not about sneaking into the playoffs this year with a sub .500 record and getting swept in the first round, it's about the long term. The Knicks will have to renounce their players next year for maximum cap space, and Nate will have to go as will David Lee. As well as Lee has played, he's going to be looking for 10 mill plus per season, and he's simply not that good. There's a reason nobody gave him what he wanted after last year and he came back to the Knicks. I give him credit for improving his perimeter game, but there's better fish on the FA market after this season, and giving him a huge contract would be a mistake. As for making Ben Wallace look like an old man, it's probably because he actually is one.

Actually in my case its not a loss of sight of the objectives. I know well what Walsh is attempting to do. I have no idea what D'Antoni is attempting to do. Maybe you need to send him this post.

Mike has taken a talented (although difficult player at trimes) and squeezed all the value out of him for either Knick scoring on- court, or trade value. Its a Larry Brown like move.

Nate just doesnt have much of a salary (less than 5 Million) and therefore is, at most, a minor cog in trades or free agency. Right now the Knicks wins are more important for a number of reasons: lowering the value of that traded away first round pick; showing progress for Walsh and D'Antoni personally in a very weak division, keeping fans and future free agents interested; backing up the very weakest areas on this Knick team (3 point shooting and guard depth). It would be better for the Knicks if Nate does well now, and then walks away such that his salary cap space is open for the Knicks instead of taking on more dead bodies (like Isaiah did).

Im not one that thinks that other teams would be duped into taking Curry, that Jeffries is a stiff (he is if the Knicks only have 3 scorers on the court with him). So there is little to nothing to be gained by throwing Nate out with the bathwater this year.

[irish2u2]

Interesting that Nate went for 41 against the Hawks and his old buddy Jamal Crawford.

In that game Nate illustrated the difference between him and Jamal and his value to the right team. Jamal relies on his jumper. Nate can drive, score on putbacks plus hit jumpers off the dribble and perimeter shots. His game is more immune to the fits of inconsistency that Jamal's game shows all too often.

A scorer off the bench is a very valuable commodity. If that scorer doesn't get off his own bench like Nate did the whole month of December he is not a commodity. There are any number of playoff teams that could use Nate Robinson off the bench. In particular he would fill that need nicely for the Rockets while Curry gives them some size up front and only an extra year of contract length.

Nate is a great chip to have in a straight trade or a salary dump type trade. What he could do for us is not important if we can jettison Curry's contract. Do that and we can maybe get LeBron, keep David Lee and also add a Joe Johnson. ; )

[ironman95]

I disagree with the point of lowering the value of the Knicks, no Utah's first round pick. Who cares?! Lowering Utah's pick means that other teams, mostly in the East will move up in the draft. I don't want that. Keep the good draft picks out west. I don't get the reasoning there and never will. Most of the bad teams are in the EAST!. THEY all move up if Utah moves down. Yes I want the Knicks to win, but Utah's draft pick should be of no concern at all. In fact, the higher the better. THEY'RE NOT IN THE EAST LAST TIME I CHECKED!!!!!!!! Any time you can package Nate, Darko, Hughes, maybe even Chandler/Harrington to get rid of Curry/Jeffries, you do it, period. You keep the nucleus, not the nuclear(like Nate).

[greatgates]

Jan 2, 2010 9:18:04 GMT -5 @whensly said:

I can see Walsh working the phones today trying to off Curry and using Nates as the sweetner...Hellooo Houston.

I can't see Houston wanting Nate at all. brooks is much better and one munchkin in their rotation is enough

[greatgates]

I watched the game and nate was as hot as I've ever seen him and he basically won the game by himself. That was nice to win a game when the other team was better. BUT he was still nate; totally forgot about the team as the 4th quarter and OT moved on. I realize he was absurdly hot but i hope to see some clue that he can run an offense. Just like his post game interview. started off perfectly then it became "shake and bake cartoon time"

[greatgates]

Jan 2, 2010 19:15:31 GMT -5 rxmeister said:

anyone who DOESN'T want to trade Nate has lost sight of the big picture. It's not about sneaking into the playoffs this year with a sub .500 record and getting swept in the first round, it's about the long term. The Knicks will have to renounce their players next year for maximum cap space, and Nate will have to go as will David Lee. As well as Lee has played, he's going to be looking for 10 mill plus per season, and he's simply not that good. There's a reason nobody gave him what he wanted after last year and he came back to the Knicks. I give him credit for improving his perimeter game, but there's better fish on the FA market after this season, and giving him a huge contract would be a mistake. As for making Ben Wallace look like an old man, it's probably because he actually is one.

I agree with every syllable that you wrote here RX. Every syllable

[jbaer10314]

You know what, guys? I simply wanted to pay Nate a compliment. I didn't realize everyone else considered him the Antichrist. I'm sorry, and I'll never pay him a compliment again.

[garyd]

Jan 3, 2010 17:23:05 GMT -5 @greatgates said:

Jan 2, 2010 19:15:31 GMT -5 rxmeister said:

anyone who DOESN'T want to trade Nate has lost sight of the big picture. It's not about sneaking into the playoffs this year with a sub .500 record and getting swept in the first round, it's about the long term. The Knicks will have to renounce their players next year for maximum cap space, and Nate will have to go as will David Lee. As well as Lee has played, he's going to be looking for 10 mill plus per season, and he's simply not that good. There's a reason nobody gave him what he wanted after last year and he came back to the Knicks. I give him credit for improving his perimeter game, but there's better fish on the FA market after this season, and giving him a huge contract would be a mistake. As for making Ben Wallace look like an old man, it's probably because he actually is one.

I agree with every syllable that you wrote here RX. Every syllable

I disagree with his take but I do agree with some of his syllables. So I guess he wins by multiple syllables. LOL

BTW this is an opinion board...right?

[ironman95]

My opinion is that I both love and hate Nate. I certainly don't consider him the anti-christ. That is reserved for one Stephon Marbury. He's a showman, I love it. I shoots at the wrong basket, I hate it. Come to think of it, I don't really hate Nate, I hate some of the things he does. And those things make coach and GM unable to see a future for him on the Knicks. I complemented him twice on performance in this thread. Where were you JBaer? How many "Wow's" do I have to include in my posts before you don't think I think he's the anti-christ? This is a good thread, a lot of very diverse opinions and that leads to wide-open ideas and minds. I even suggested signing him next year for a one year deal, because as I see it Curry and Jeffries really aren't going anywhere in 2010 anyway. We're not gonna see 5th street until 2011. That's when all the cards will be played.

[jbaer10314]

<< Where were you JBaer? How many "Wow's" do I have to include in my posts before you don't think I think he's the anti-christ? >>

Jeez, Iron--don't take it personally.

<< This is a good thread, a lot of very diverse opinions and that leads to wide-open ideas and minds. I even suggested signing him next year for a one year deal, because as I see it Curry and Jeffries really aren't going anywhere in 2010 anyway. >>

I'm mad because we're now playing winning basketball and some of us want to dismantle the team anyway. I don't mean to suggest I'm only happy when everyone agrees with me, but we finally have a reason to get excited about our boys and some people think we're still stuck in the Zeke era. It's aggravating.

I'm all for your idea of signing Nate to another one-year deal, but Walsh has to think highly enough of him to do it.

[axios]

No one is taking curry, so we desperately need to unload Jefferies w Nate. A contender would do itself well to get a versatile defensive guy and instant bench offense. It's unfortunate we are not that contender to be able to need Nate, but we need a consistent 2, with length, Nate will not be running the point anytime soon. He's vinnie johnson and we need a Dumars right now. Maybe he proves me wrong but I just dont see it, I love the guy, but we need the room, especially now that we are keeping LEE..

[ironman95]

I think Walsh thinks, if not highly, reasonably well of Nate, it's D'Antoni who is not convinced, and will probably never be convinced.

[irish2u2]

Jan 3, 2010 20:10:29 GMT -5 jbaer10314 said:

You know what, guys? I simply wanted to pay Nate a compliment. I didn't realize everyone else considered him the Antichrist. I'm sorry, and I'll never pay him a compliment again.

An over reaction on your part Jeff. Nate has been a constant subject on this board for very good reasons. He is a helluva basketball player and he's a head case. There is no middle ground there and though you can argue about Nate's maturity level it won't hold under the weight of Nate's many, many immature acts.

Like Iron, and I suspect most Knick fans, there is a love/hate relationship with Nate Robinson. As a proud member of the under 6' club I identify with the little guy and there is no denying his amazing athletic ability and prodigious skills. As a 55 year old male I deplore Nate's constant antics. I did point out though how well he has handled the benching showing previously unseen professionalism and maturity.

The bottom line is I am a Knicks fan first. If I can advocate trading David Lee, a productive player I have met and watched extensively as a collegian down here at the University of Florida, then any and all Knicks are fair game. I would not mind Nate sticking with the Knicks though I would hope any contract extended would not be max years or dollars. I do think we can parlay Nate's ability to score in bunches as part of a deal to trade Curry.

Trade Curry and Nate and get back Lee and/or Joe Johnson (for example) in return. A guy averaging 19 points and 11 boards a game and a 6'7 All-Star SG for Eddy and Nate.

I'll do that in a NY minute and I believe any Knicks fan would do the same. FWIW, I think all of us were more than complimentary of Nate's amazing, even epic, performance against Atlanta.

That was then. This is now. It's business, not personal.