Do the Lakers have any interest in Nate?

Knicksick · Post #1 » by **Knicksick** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 10:25 pm

Just wondering. If yes what kind of value would they give up?First round pick?Would they take Jeffries +Nate for Morrison,MBenga?

Jeffries is insurance in case Gasol or Odom get hurt(gives a little defense) and Nate gives you a scoring spark off the bench.
Knicks get 6 mill capspace.

Magicontinues · Post #2 » by **Magicontinues** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 10:39 pm

Knicksick wrote:Just wondering. If yes what kind of value would they give up?First round pick?Would they take Jeffries +Nate for Morrison,MBenga?

Jeffries is insurance in case Gasol or Odom get hurt(gives a little defense) and Nate gives you a scoring spark off the bench.
Knicks get 6 mill capspace.

Lakers are looking to cut cap space right now. Doubt this would work. Nate seems to be a headcase.

Post #3 » by **LLcoleJ** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 10:40 pm

morrison and sasha, no pick. Final offer

Knicksick · Post #4 » by **Knicksick** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 10:45 pm

Sasha wouldn't do all that much. D'Antoni likes Jeffries so I doubt Walsh would trade him and Nate for 1mill. cap relief.

I guess the Lakers are playing too good right now and they have spent a lot of money so they would probably pass on Jeffries even if it'd bring Nate.

But Nate,Brown,Odom would be one hell of an amazing,quick,dynamic bench trio.

DEEP3CL · Post #5 » by **DEEP3CL** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 10:48 pm

Phil X wrote:morrison and sasha, no pick. Final offer

Agree with this.......plus we owe Memphis a pick to close the Pau trade, and I'm sure we don't wanna give up future picks.

fareweatherfan · Post #6 » by **fareweatherfan** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 10:59 pm

I like Nate for this team and I'm confident Phil could whip him into shape. However, he's looking to get paid next year and I don't think he's necessarily the type of player we should throw decent money at. As for this year, I say no b/c I don't agree with adding a one-year player to a championship squad.

Frantik · Post #7 » by **Frantik** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 11:38 pm

I dont know what yall r talking about.... I don't like Nate for this team. Won't even give up Sasha for em! I don't like his personality. He shows off too much. Gets carried away too often, lacks discipline, and I don't want Phil to bother whipping that foo into shape. He is better suited for a run n gun offense, not a structured championship lakers squad. Send him to Oakland, he doesn't belong in LA. Just not a good fit at all. Bad taste on this proposal. I wont even bother discussing Jeffries...

Anklebreaker702 · Post #8 » by **Anklebreaker702** » Wed Dec 9, 2009 12:07 am

DEEP3CL wrote:
Phil X wrote:morrison and sasha, no pick. Final offer
Agree with this.......plus we owe Memphis a pick to close the Pau trade, and I'm sure we don't wanna give up future picks.

Yeah I would do this as well. I like nate's game. I didn't realize we still owe Memphis a pick DEEP so that's just even better gravy.

TonyMontana · Post #9 » by **TonyMontana** » Wed Dec 9, 2009 12:35 am

Phil X wrote:morrison and sasha, no pick. Final offer

We holding on to Sasha for a good trade......... CHECK SIG MANG.......... :lol:

Tommy Trojan · Post #10 » by **Tommy Trojan** » Wed Dec 9, 2009 1:36 am

Phil X wrote:morrison and sasha, no pick. Final offer

I would also throw in farmar too. :lol:

Sasha Vujacic · Post #11 » by **Sasha Vujacic** » Wed Dec 9, 2009 3:47 am

TonyMontana wrote:
Phil X wrote:morrison and sasha, no pick. Final offer

We holding on to Sasha for a good trade......... CHECK SIG MANG..........

Finally a trade with fair value for me.

Post #12 » by **Slava** » Wed Dec 9, 2009 3:54 am

Knicks rather let Nate expire than take on additional garbage for 2010.

Tommy Trojan · Post #13 » by **Tommy Trojan** » Wed Dec 9, 2009 5:32 am

j-far wrote:Knicks rather let Nate expire than take on additional garbage for 2010.

Let's just unload all the garabage we have to the Knicks :lol:

laduane1 · Post #14 » by **laduane1** » Wed Dec 9, 2009 6:51 am

Nate is a great player. Lakers would have to give up something nice to get him. Nate asked for 10 million on a one year deal before the season began. So we can think of him, but at this stage of the Lakers, he is not really an option. I rather have Shannon Brown develop and he cost a ton less.

Dr Aki · Post #15 » by **Dr Aki** » Wed Dec 9, 2009 7:15 am

sure lakers are interested in nate, knicks interested in farmar, ammo or sasha?

Marty McFly · Post #16 » by **Marty McFly** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:44 am

Aki wrote:sure lakers are interested in nate, knicks interested in farmar, ammo or sasha?

nate was born to be a laker.he's got showtime running through his veins.he does some dumb ****, but that's because there is no one on the team other than the coach like a kobe to let him know to stop the non sense.

i would trade nate and jeffires for farmar and no ammo.i think jeffires is the sorta glue guy constant championship contenders can afford to pay 6 mill a year for a year and a half specifically for certain match ups like the celtics's rondo.

SApuro_ · Post #17 » by **SApuro_** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:20 pm

Nate is a shooter. The lakers need a distributor and floor general. I dont think this is a good fit.

DEEP3CL · Post #18 » by **DEEP3CL** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:01 am

SApuro_ wrote:Nate is a shooter. The lakers need a distributor and floor general. I dont think this is a good fit.

Shooter is being way too nice........Nate is a gunner, big difference to me. But I agree with you.