What do you feel about Not trading Nate

[Bleedin' blue]

I was thinking, Nate is great for us, and he might have a great season. If we lose him at seasons end, and get nothing back for him, was it worth not getting rid of his Jeffries contract?

Im trying to think this through:

1) Nate plays us into the 8th seed = plus

2) Nate can be traded in a sign and trade deal that brings us back a pick

3) Jeffries is traded next season

If those things dont happen, i.e we dont make the playoffs, we dont trade Nate for a pick, and Jeffries can't be traded because teams can't afford him, it was a bad move.

That being said, hindsight is 20/20.

[cgf]

I don't see Nate getting too large of a deal and nate robinson for 4 mil per, a reasonable deal for him, will be a completely tradable asset next season if we need to trade him.

[Knicksfan1]

He should have been gone...

[BelieveTheDream]

i just hope this doesn't hurt our plans at the most id pay him is 6 mil a year and we threw him a bone not trading him and he better throw us one

[Fury]

I ain't happy, I'm feeling glad. Got sunshine, in a bag. Gone useless, but not for long. The future is coming on, is coming on, is coming on, is coming on.

[cgf]

I doubt nate get's the full MLE unless he keeps balling all season, which'll mean he's playing smarter and more efficiently thus actually being worth the full MLE, in which case we'll re-sign him and then trade him if we have to at next year's deadline.

[god shammgod]

in a perfect world you'd be able to keep nate & lee, trade jeffries alone and still have room for 2 max free agents but that's not possible. sometimes sacrifices need to be made.

[Bleedin' blue]

I was surprised at the gut reactions when Stien reported the trade was made. Nate has won alot of fans over since he came out of his slump. I KNOW he will go back into a slump, as most players do, and people will be calling Walsh out.... This is a questionable non move, but if the Knicks do sign him for another one year deal or do something creative with him, Nate is valuable to this team and this style of offense only.

[Bleedin' blue]

in a perfect world you'd be able to keep nate & lee, trade jeffries alone and still have room for 2 max free agents but that's not possible. sometimes sacrifices need to be made.

I agree, I wonder of Dolan wanted to keep the guy around because he will bring fans to the games if we fall out of it. Im hoping that this was a Walsh decision.

[putiger78]

I was torn, in my heart I didn't want Nate traded but in my brain I understood why maybe he had to be. The thing is, we could sign Nate if we traded Jefferies but we couldn't trade Jefferies without trading Nate. Classic Catch 22.

I figure that Walsh figures he holds on to the guy and we live to fight another day. There are other scenarios where we can unload Jefferies. Other bad contracts.

Bottom line. I was glad the trade didn't go down. But, that being said, if we don't trade Jefferies by next year's deadline, it could come back to bite us.

One possibility on draft night could be us trading our pick, and Jefferies, for a lesser pick and an expiring contract.

[haterade]

If the trade was just for K Thomas, I would probably have walked away also. It was a pretty bad deal unless the Kings could have sweetened it. If they did not come back with a counter offer to sweeten the deal I can see why it was declined.

[haterade]

Ok wiretap says Walsh said the rumor was bogus.

[putiger78]

Ok wiretap says Walsh said the rumor was bogus.

Maybe so, but that could also be Walsh's cover. This way he doesn't have to throw Jefferies under the bus by explaining to the media how he was almost willing to give away Nate, get back an awful player and contract in return, just to get rid of Jefferies.

[TdoubleE]

Walsh made a good move by not trading Nate. Love him or hate him, Nate is the heart of the Knicks and what he means to this team right now trancends his sometimes erratic play. He's kinda like Starks that way. That Kings trade was not worth it IMO. I'll take the gamble that we can resign him to a cap-friendly deal this summer. If not, we still have options.

[R-DAWG]

The way Nate is playing right now, someone with cap space could offer him more than MLE money and structure the deal where he makes the most money in 2010 (if that team is not going to be a factor in the LBJ/Wade/Bosh sweepstakes) the Knicks will be unable to match and will get NOTHING for Nate. And with the demand for Nate right now, he should've been offered with Curry. If Sac was will to eat Jeffries deal for Nate, they would've ate Curry's deal for Nate, especially considering we would be taking back their dead weight in Moore and Thomas. We could've also sent the cash we sent to OAK to them to offset the difference between Curry and Jeffries contract in 2010. So to me, this is a complete loss unless Curry is traded. I would've also offered Lee in a package with Curry if we would get a 1st rd pick back.

Donnie Walsh has 2 goals before 2010...trade Curry and Jeffries. He could've got rid of at least 1 today, and he failed.

[Bleedin' blue]

Curry is basically un-tradeable, Walsh pretty much told everyone that besides Gallo if you take Curry you can have anyone you want.

[Smoke24]

I just hope that the thought of being traded puts the fear of Smoke into him and he finally realizes that you can be gone just like that. He should play within himself and should do too much. He should not be doing wht Al does on the court.

If you help the team get better, then you will be rewarded in the end.