Nate Robinson

[Call Me Geoff]

I'll go ahead and say it. Nate would absolutely be a wonderful fit in Sac. He'd be a perfect 6th man for this team. He'd be a modern day Bobby Jackson so to speak. A small guard off the bench who can score in bunches and do a good job as a starter when needed. I like the move. Just because Beno was/is a bust doesn't mean we don't upgrade the position. Beno can just take a seat at the end of the bench and collect that paycheck. I don't want to get into Robinson's cap number but he'd be A LOT better value than guy's like Nocioni, Beno and Garcia. Robinson actually fills a need and can potentially be a building block to a winning team. Evans, Martin, and Robinson would be a very nice 3 guard rotation.

[KM44]

I'll go ahead and say it. Nate would absolutely be a wonderful fit in Sac. He'd be a perfect 6th man for this team. He'd be a modern day Bobby Jackson so to speak. A small guard off the bench who can score in bunches and do a good job as a starter when needed. I like the move. Just because Beno was/is a bust doesn't mean we don't upgrade the position. Beno can just take a seat at the end of the bench and collect that paycheck. I don't want to get into Robinson's cap number but he'd be A LOT better value than guy's like Nocioni, Beno and Garcia. Robinson actually fills a need and can potentially be a building block to a winning team. Evans, Martin, and Robinson would be a very nice 3 guard rotation.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Did you not read any of this thread? Perezident was dismantled for taking the SAME EXACT STANCE that you just did. I'm not going to explain again, but feel free to go through the conversation and check out what I said.

Long story short- just no.

[Call Me Geoff]

I'll go ahead and say it. Nate would absolutely be a wonderful fit in Sac. He'd be a perfect 6th man for this team. He'd be a modern day Bobby Jackson so to speak. A small guard off the bench who can score in bunches and do a good job as a starter when needed. I like the move. Just because Beno was/is a bust doesn't mean we don't upgrade the position. Beno can just take a seat at the end of the bench and collect that paycheck. I don't want to get into Robinson's cap number but he'd be A LOT better value than guy's like Nocioni, Beno and Garcia. Robinson actually fills a need and can potentially be a building block to a winning team. Evans, Martin, and Robinson would be a very nice 3 guard rotation.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Did you not read any of this thread? Perezident was dismantled for taking the SAME EXACT STANCE that you just did. I'm not going to explain again, but feel free to go through the conversation and check out what I said.

Long story short- just no.

Yeah, I saw what you said and I don't agree. I skimmed through your statements and didn't put a whole lot of credence to them because it was clear to me you don't see the value in a Nate Robinson. I like the guy because he fills a role. We wouldn't acquire him to play along side Martin or Evans. We'd acquire him to come off the bench and fill it up for 25 minutes a night. A "Bobby Jackson" type role if you will. This team has no real bench. And certainly has nobody that can be counted on to consistently provide offense night in and night out. Francisco Garcia's extension was one of the few Petrie moves I completely disagreed with. The guy is so eratic it's maddening. We need a guy to be that spark and Nate fits that mold. He's a scoring PG that should never be asked to start on a healthy team. If we're trying to build a winner we need pieces and Nate is a piece. He fills a role that's hard to fill. Petrie sees it and you should too.

[dozencousins]

It is not wise to give somebody a 4-5 year contract woth many millions of $$$$$$$$$$$ to be a role player .

[rpa]

I like the guy because he fills a role.

A no-defense, shot chucking, WAY undersized guard is a role that we need to fill? Since when?

We wouldn't acquire him to play along side Martin or Evans. We'd acquire him to come off the bench and fill it up for 25 minutes a night.

Uh, problem there. If he's playing 25 minutes a night he's going to be playing (most likely) all of those alongside either Martin or Evans.

A "Bobby Jackson" type role if you will.

People remember Jackson as just some scoring guard off the bench. What people don't remember is that Jackson could legitimately play a PG role when needed AND was a very good defender. Robinson is flat out NOT a PG nor is he a good defender (he's closer to the atrocious side of the scale than the good side).

This team has no real bench. And certainly has nobody that can be counted on to consistently provide offense night in and night out.

A bench is useless if you don't have stars in the starting lineup. Going after Robinson inevitably cuts into our 2010 cap space that we could use to sign an all star caliber player. Furthermore, Robinson doesn't exactly provide the consistent offense you seem to imply. He's a career 43% shooter (35% from 3pt range). That kind of percentage tells me he's anything BUT consistent.

If we're trying to build a winner we need pieces and Nate is a piece. He fills a role that's hard to fill. Petrie sees it and you should too.

We also need the flexibility to add top-level pieces (since we don't have one). Signing Robinson all but takes away one avenue for obtaining top-level talent: free agency.

The question is basically this:

Would you rather have Nate Robinson and $8-10mil to spend in free agency or not have Robinson and have $14-16mil to spend in free agency?


Further still, sign Robinson to that kind of deal and suddenly you're spending $13mil a year for him and Beno longterm while still not having a semblance of a decent big man rotation.

[Nicky Nix Nook]

If Petrie thinks its a good idea, he'll do it...and I'll support it.

[KM44]

^Geez, you're really sticking your neck out on this one nick.

[Nicky Nix Nook]

Um what?

[KM44]

I was saying you aren't taking much of a stance at all. If we all just said "If petrie does it, I will support it," then there would be no point of posting here. I was just insulting your apathy, don't worry about it.

[Nicky Nix Nook]

I was saying you aren't taking much of a stance at all. If we all just said "If petrie does it, I will support it," then there would be no point of posting here. I was just insulting your apathy, don't worry about it.

wrong. There are some things that we don't want Petrie to do and if he did them we would not support them.

Petrie signs Hedo to 10 years 150 million...I would not support his decision.

Petrie signs Robinson to a reasonable deal...I support that.

What's so hard to understand about that?

[KM44]

^Wasn't trying to make a big deal about it.. I was just joking around saying that you weren't taking a stance about that. I guess if you knew me, you would understand that I was joking

[Call Me Geoff]

I like the guy because he fills a role.

A no-defense, shot chucking, WAY undersized guard is a role that we need to fill? Since when?

We wouldn't acquire him to play along side Martin or Evans. We'd acquire him to come off the bench and fill it up for 25 minutes a night.

Uh, problem there. If he's playing 25 minutes a night he's going to be playing (most likely) all of those alongside either Martin or Evans.

A "Bobby Jackson" type role if you will.

People remember Jackson as just some scoring guard off the bench. What people don't remember is that Jackson could legitimately play a PG role when needed AND was a very good defender. Robinson is flat out NOT a PG nor is he a good defender (he's closer to the atrocious side of the scale than the good side).

This team has no real bench. And certainly has nobody that can be counted on to consistently provide offense night in and night out.

A bench is useless if you don't have stars in the starting lineup. Going after Robinson inevitably cuts into our 2010 cap space that we could use to sign an all star caliber player. Furthermore, Robinson doesn't exactly provide the consistent offense you seem to imply. He's a career 43% shooter (35% from 3pt range). That kind of percentage tells me he's anything BUT consistent.

If we're trying to build a winner we need pieces and Nate is a piece. He fills a role that's hard to fill. Petrie sees it and you should too.

We also need the flexibility to add top-level pieces (since we don't have one). Signing Robinson all but takes away one avenue for obtaining top-level talent: free agency.

The question is basically this:

Would you rather have Nate Robinson and $8-10mil to spend in free agency or not have Robinson and have $14-16mil to spend in free agency?


Further still, sign Robinson to that kind of deal and suddenly you're spending $13mil a year for him and Beno longterm while still not having a semblance of a decent big man rotation.

I haven'y forgotten who Bobby Jackson is. If you'll remember he was very similar to Nate before we got him. You talk about shooting percentages like Nate's 43% is horrific. Bobby only had 1 season in which he shot better than 43% and many that he shot below 40%. Bobby was a good defendern not a great defender or even a very good defender. He was gritty and defended the 3 point line well. All things he learned to do as a member of the Kings. Bobby was a far cry from the player he developed into before we got him. In the right system and with the right coach he developed into a 6th man of the year. I see Nate doing the same thing. Get him out of Dantoni's "spread offense" and into a Princeton type Westphal offense where passing the ball and playing off the ball are valued and I think you'd see a remarkable improvement in his game. I don't think it would cost anymore than the mid-level to get Nate. The Knicks don't want to take on money and virtually no team has the ability to give him anymore than the mid level. If that. He's a guy I can see being had for about 4 years at 20million.
Give me the name of a realistic FA to be had in 2010 and I'll be on board with hoarding cap space away until then. I don't see a front line star coming here. There are far too many larger market teams clearing space for 2010. If we want that Webber type star we either have to develop him (Tyreke or Hawes?) or deal for him. And Beno's contract should have no bearing on acquiring players to make this team better.

[Nicky Nix Nook]

^Wasn't trying to make a big deal about it.. I was just joking around saying that you weren't taking a stance about that. I guess if you knew me, you would understand that I was joking