Would you guys do Nate Robinson and Pick 5

BRIGGS · Post #1 » by **BRIGGS** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:41 pm

for pick 3?

cpfsf · Post #2 » by **cpfsf** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:45 pm

I don't want to see McHale trade our draft pick at all. We have never had luck with trading and McHale never makes good trades.

Nate is 5'9" (we have a super small team already).
He does not have great PG skills.

MilMinMan · Post #3 » by **MilMinMan** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:45 pm

i have absolutely zero interest in nate robinson.

if anything, we need to add height to the backcourt. if we bring back telfair and hold onto foye and mccants (which aren't set in stone), robinson doesn't fit at all.

lee, balkman and chandler i'd have interest in. but that changes the whole equation, of course.

GopherIt! · Post #4 » by **GopherIt!** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:46 pm

no. I don't think anyone would trade down for a backup PG. Plus we have Bassy already as our backup.

casey · Post #5 » by **casey** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:47 pm

I'm not sure I'd trade pick #5 for Robinson and pick #3.

cpfsf · Post #6 » by **cpfsf** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:47 pm

GopherIt! wrote:no. I don't think anyone would trade down for a backup PG. Plus we have Bassy already as our backup.

for now

big3_8_19_21 · Post #7 » by **big3_8_19_21** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:45 am

yeah, but would you really try to solve it this way?

no way in hell.

john2jer · Post #8 » by **john2jer** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:02 am

Nate Robinson is negative value.

Krapinsky · Post #9 » by **Krapinsky** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:38 am

casey wrote:I'm not sure I'd trade pick #5 for Robinson and pick #3.

It's true. Poor Knicks.

kandiking · Post #10 » by **kandiking** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:11 am

no, but i don't see how he has negative value. maybe we could get stephon and jerome james and you get jaric, buckner, walker, someone else if we're the 5th and NYK is 3rd?

shrink · Post #11 » by **shrink** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:38 pm

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think there is anyone on the Knicks roster that has enough positive trade value to raise the #5 pick to the #3. I wouldn't do it for Nate, and I wouldn't do it for David Lee, but I may be in the minority on the second one. The Knicks can't add a future 1st with those protected picks out there that they owe -- plus what would Isiah do without the draft? Maybe you could take a bad contract, but MIN only has one right now .. Marko Jaric. However, I don't think saving money moves you up in the high lottery.

Your best bet is to try to trade some established vet for something that's positive and would appeal to a young timberwolves team. Right now, I don't see a trade asset you have that would make it worthwhile to trade out of the #3 slot.

younggunsmn · Post #12 » by **younggunsmn** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:41 pm

No. We don't want/have no use for nate robinson.
David Lee, on the other hand would work if you are going
to take jerryd bayless, with memphis taking brooke lopez 4th. but if you want OJ Mayo there is no way we trade the pick.

deeney0 · Post #13 » by **deeney0** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:44 pm

I might do it for David Lee. It'd be something to think about, anyway.

Krapinsky · Post #14 » by **Krapinsky** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:09 pm

Why would the Knicks want to trade from 5 to 3 anyway? Aren't they in a position take the best available player? I think they'd be happy to take Bayless or Mayo, whoever falls.

GopherIt! · Post #15 » by **GopherIt!** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:53 am

I'd do Kevin Mchale and the #3 for Donnie Walsh and the #5