Lakers made play for nate robinson at deadline?

Post #1 » by **dockingsched** » Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:35 pm

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wireta ... deadline/#

There were rumors around the trading deadline last month that the Kings made the Knicks an offer for Nate Robinson, but other teams reportedly made a play for the guard as well.

The Lakers and Thunder also called the Knicks about Robinson, according to league sources.

eh, wonder how much truth there was to this. nate is up for a new contract this summer, and with the lakers' financial situation, i doubt they would have offered jordan farmar. can't really find anyone else that matches up salary wise, so may be a combination of chris mihm and a pick was all that was and could have been offered.

daddyfivestar · Post #2 » by **daddyfivestar** » Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:36 pm

Nate Rob seems like the quintessential triangle point...............

dripping

lakersfanatic · Post #3 » by **lakersfanatic** » Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:06 pm

I would imagine probably jordan (considering his recent arguments with the coach..hehe) and some more..

Is nate a shooter PG or a pass first PG.. i think more like a shooter PG..
Imagine if he was on our team.. his slam dunk contest would be more glorified LOL jk.

He has that tough unbreakable build in him, very solid... the toughness we need more in LA hehe
but of course it didn't go to fruition.. I wish they mention who the lakers were offering for him tho..

Post #4 » by **Slava** » Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:34 pm

I can't see any of our bench players involved in the discussion since Ariza is too valuable, Farmar was injured and everyone else's contracts run past 2010, which is a strict "no" for the Knicks. So may be Mihm+ Yue + Pick might be the only deal.

DEEP3CL · Post #5 » by **DEEP3CL** » Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:28 pm

Means absolutely nothing after the fact....................but if it meant sticking the Knicks with our trash (Mihm, Vlad or whoever) it would've been worth it.

method · Post #6 » by **method** » Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:00 am

DEEP3CL wrote:Means absolutely nothing after the fact....................but if it meant sticking the Knicks with our trash (Mihm, Vlad or whoever) it would've been worth it.

Now why will we take your thrash....more like you will be taking out thrash along with Nate maybe Curry or Jefferies.

Post #7 » by **dockingsched** » Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:56 am

yeah, this isn't a "what would the knicks want for nate" thread. this is to discuss specific players on the lakers that could have been on the block, perhaps giving a glimpse into their though process going forward. no one really cares about the knicks POV on this.

Dr Aki · Post #8 » by **Dr Aki** » Tue Mar 3, 2009 5:55 am

i highly doubt lakers were serious about nate robinson

phil likes his guards tall for a reason and thats to be able to defend properly

nate isnt exactly the type of guard phil enjoys having

DEEP3CL · Post #9 » by **DEEP3CL** » Tue Mar 3, 2009 6:04 am

method wrote:
DEEP3CL wrote:Means absolutely nothing after the fact....................but if it meant sticking the Knicks with our trash (Mihm, Vlad or whoever) it would've been worth it.

Now why will we take your thrash....more like you will be taking out thrash along with Nate maybe Curry or Jefferies.

Thrash ?...............well yeah we already thrashed the Knick in the Garden last month. :lol:

microfib4thewin · Post #10 » by **microfib4thewin** » Tue Mar 3, 2009 6:46 am

I don't think there were any serious offers. They spend most of their trading assets for Gasol already, and we simply cannot afford to lose anyone that still has trading value.

Dr Aki · Post #11 » by **Dr Aki** » Tue Mar 3, 2009 6:51 am

come summer time, im hoping the lakers might be able to shore up their rotation using ammo/farmar (both expirings)

DEEP3CL · Post #12 » by **DEEP3CL** » Tue Mar 3, 2009 7:38 am

Probably won't bring much back considering total value is just a little over 7 mil. I'm willing to give Ammo a chance to see if he can help first, rather than just trade him off for the sake of adding another player. If that player isn't Artest it's no use in dealing.

Farmar on the other hand.......I'm losing patience with.

hermes · Post #13 » by **hermes** » Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:45 pm

good thing this didn't go down

i'm tired of you Nate, quit doing the dunk contest!

monk302 · Post #14 » by **monk302** » Tue Mar 3, 2009 4:02 pm

We don't need any KNUCKLE HEADS on this team! I live in NYC and have watched him act like an idiot since his rookie season.

kevin_405 · Post #15 » by **kevin_405** » Fri Mar 6, 2009 6:08 am

Nate would have been a great addition... but we had nothing to give up for him.. Our weakness is the PG spot.. So Mitch was looking at doing a deal for the right position.. We probably did not have enough to offer.. I dont think we could have offered this years pick because we have traded last and next years pick.. so this would have been a diffcult trade to materialize..

What i dont understand is that why we didnt try to go after Stephan Marbury..