Nate for Sean?
- Thread starter netsking
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
pegs
My future wife.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 12,079
- Likes
- 12
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L @ Aug 13 2008, 06:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>WTF we need a playmaking backup pg and Nate is supposed to be it? lol</div>
But he'll make up for the 6 ppg scoring that we lost in the RJ for Simmons + YI trade! We can't possibly make that up with any of the players we've signed this offseason.
But he'll make up for the 6 ppg scoring that we lost in the RJ for Simmons + YI trade! We can't possibly make that up with any of the players we've signed this offseason.
NJNetz
BBW Banned
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2004
- Messages
- 14,413
- Likes
- 88
- Points
- 48
Why would the Nets want Nate? Unless you can give up a bum like Swift for him, I wouldn't even consider exploring a trade. Not to mention, Sean has a higher ceiling than Nate. All you're going to get is a 5 ft circus act that won't amount to anything in the end.
SportsTicker
News Feed
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 6,105
- Likes
- 9
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Aug 13 2008, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nate Robinson is not a basketball player. He is a dominant, elite athlete who figured out how to use that to make a living playing basketball. His head is already bonking against his ceiling. Trading a prospect like Sean for him is idiotic.</div>
He is a circus act.
As for the recurring complaint that Sean didnt get minutes, it's crap. Williams played more minutes than any player drafted after him and more than half the players drafted ahead of him. For the record, he played 1,278 minutes. Yi is one of the few rookies who played more minutes than he did, at 1,647.
He is a circus act.
As for the recurring complaint that Sean didnt get minutes, it's crap. Williams played more minutes than any player drafted after him and more than half the players drafted ahead of him. For the record, he played 1,278 minutes. Yi is one of the few rookies who played more minutes than he did, at 1,647.
SportsTicker
News Feed
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 6,105
- Likes
- 9
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Aug 13 2008, 05:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (netsking @ Aug 13 2008, 05:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Aug 13 2008, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The trade sounds like the hopeful wishings of someone that writes a blog.
Biggest mistake in the proposal is thinking Nets management would risk looking like idiots for giving Sean to the Knicks and he later turns into a very good player. They are not that stupid.
Nate is Nate, he's a known commodity... a bench player. If they trade Sean it will be for another player with "potential" like Crittenton or Lowry or as part of bigger package.</div>
potential can't be shown if he never gets any PT. We have many bigs and with Yi starting and Boone and Swift and Najera backing up, how much time can he get.
</div>
Swift isn't getting any playing time.
And the point was that Sean already has shown potential and Thorn will take a risk on another player with potential (like Crittenton or Lowry) rather than a player with a lower ceiling like Nate.
Thorn can't be criticized for making a trade of "potential" for "potential" if Sean explodes with another team. He can be ripped apart for trading "potential" to his biggest rival for a "role player" if Sean explodes with the Knicks. Especially since Sean is an athletic big.
</div>
Very good point. The only way I see Williams being traded is as part of a sign-and-trade. Anything else would be a mistake, including for a first round pick.
Biggest mistake in the proposal is thinking Nets management would risk looking like idiots for giving Sean to the Knicks and he later turns into a very good player. They are not that stupid.
Nate is Nate, he's a known commodity... a bench player. If they trade Sean it will be for another player with "potential" like Crittenton or Lowry or as part of bigger package.</div>
potential can't be shown if he never gets any PT. We have many bigs and with Yi starting and Boone and Swift and Najera backing up, how much time can he get.
</div>
Swift isn't getting any playing time.
And the point was that Sean already has shown potential and Thorn will take a risk on another player with potential (like Crittenton or Lowry) rather than a player with a lower ceiling like Nate.
Thorn can't be criticized for making a trade of "potential" for "potential" if Sean explodes with another team. He can be ripped apart for trading "potential" to his biggest rival for a "role player" if Sean explodes with the Knicks. Especially since Sean is an athletic big.
</div>
Very good point. The only way I see Williams being traded is as part of a sign-and-trade. Anything else would be a mistake, including for a first round pick.
Mr. J
Triple Up
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,912
- Likes
- 19
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Aug 13 2008, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. J @ Aug 13 2008, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I have no problems with people not liking this trade. However, many of you are misguided if you think Nate is “terrible”, or Sean Williams is the next Amare (which is rather laughable).
In addition to being instant offense and energy off the bench, Nate’s decision making has improved, making him more than serviceable for your team. The Nets’ PG position is also somewhat thin. After Keyon Dooling (whom Nate is better than), there is no other PG. While adding depth, the Nets subtract from their mini glut of big men: Brook Lopez, Josh Boone, Ryan Anderson, Stromile Swift (a carbon copy of Sean Williams), and Yi (who will probably play a lot of 4-5).
And saying that Nate is a player that only dunks and hits the occasional three is vastly underrating him. He’s actually prone to numerous scoring outbursts (ex: when he dropped 45 on Portland). Considering the Nets lost their leading scorer in Jefferson, Nate should contribute in that aspect. Another intangible Nate brings to the table is energy, which is often the catalyst for many Knick runs, as the crowd responds well to Nate.
And for those who think Nate is a distraction and immature, need to do some research on Sean Williams’ troubled past. </div>
I think Nets fans would know more about Sean Williams' "troubled past". Just because he was one of the few basketball players actually caught smoking, doesn't mean he's a disruption to the team. Like Nate.
You see, Nate plays absolutely no defense. And with the exception of Hayes and Yi, which fill the spots Frank's used to of the wing and one big who play pretty bad defense, everyone on this team is/can be a solid defender, at the least. I don't think management or Frank would want him on the team. Also, he's a malcontent and fights with teammates. Not the type of team management is trying to make.
The only thing I see from Nate is that he's fast, short, can dunk, and can knock down the occasional 3 (sometimes shooting too much).
And to say Nate is better than Keyon is laughable. Wow. Yeah, when was the last time Nate was on a winning team? When was the last time Nate actually played defense? Heh.
Btw, Sean is not a "carbon copy" of Stromile Swift (you had it backwards btw, Stro is older, therefore cannot be the "copy" of the younger player).
And the only people I've seen compare Sean to Amare are John Lucas, who worked with Sean extensively and watched him play more than you ever have, obviously...and Bruce Ratner.
</div>
Nate isn’t a distraction to the team. Most players and coaches on the Knicks have been quoted saying Nate is a welcome addition, a good teammate, etc. If you think Nate is a distraction to the team then you have bought into the New York media hoopla. I think Nate throwing a towel at Zach during a game which they won is less of a distraction than Sean Williams possibly getting suspended for failing a drug test. Not to say Williams is the only NBA player who smokes; however, it adds negative light to the organization. Negative light is usually a distraction.
Your assessment on Nate’s defense is unfair. The whole Knicks team was terrible on defense. Rotations were always late, there was little communication, and Isiah’s defensive philosophy wasn’t too good.
How is it laughable to say Nate is better than Keyon Dooling when Nate produces more than him? This whole “on a winning team” thing is a fallacious argument. Nate is not the reason the Knicks have been losing. Prior to this year, Garnett and Gasol haven’t done too much winning; McGrady and Yao have yet to pass the first round; Elton Brand has one career playoff appearance. There are a plethora of solid NBA players who have had the misfortune of playing on bad teams with terrible management. You also have to take into consideration Nate has only played three seasons and Dooling has played eight and still hasn’t lived up to his expectations. I’m sure if Nate actually signed with a winning team like Dooling we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The only thing I can see out of Sean Williams is that he is tall, athletic, and can dunk. Does that sound accurate?
Losing brings the worst out of players. By saying Nate has fought with teammates, you are basically summing up the careers of most NBA players. Kevin Garnet literally punched Wally Szczerbiak in the face a few years ago. And I’m sure you are aware of the well-publicized Kobe-Shaq feud. Teammates fight and have disputes all the time, especially when losing is involved – Nate isn’t any different.
By calling Williams a carbon copy I mean they share very similar games. I haven’t watched too much of the 08 version of Stromile Swift, but he does have very similar qualities to a young Stromile Swift. Both are good shotblockers with impressive athleticism and are very raw offensively with low basketball IQ’s. Lucas and Ratner’s opinions don’t mean anything, BTW. We’ve heard several of the “next” Jordan’s, Bird’s, Shaq’s, etc. The fact of the matter is he isn’t the next Amare regardless of who has extensively watched him.
In addition to being instant offense and energy off the bench, Nate’s decision making has improved, making him more than serviceable for your team. The Nets’ PG position is also somewhat thin. After Keyon Dooling (whom Nate is better than), there is no other PG. While adding depth, the Nets subtract from their mini glut of big men: Brook Lopez, Josh Boone, Ryan Anderson, Stromile Swift (a carbon copy of Sean Williams), and Yi (who will probably play a lot of 4-5).
And saying that Nate is a player that only dunks and hits the occasional three is vastly underrating him. He’s actually prone to numerous scoring outbursts (ex: when he dropped 45 on Portland). Considering the Nets lost their leading scorer in Jefferson, Nate should contribute in that aspect. Another intangible Nate brings to the table is energy, which is often the catalyst for many Knick runs, as the crowd responds well to Nate.
And for those who think Nate is a distraction and immature, need to do some research on Sean Williams’ troubled past. </div>
I think Nets fans would know more about Sean Williams' "troubled past". Just because he was one of the few basketball players actually caught smoking, doesn't mean he's a disruption to the team. Like Nate.
You see, Nate plays absolutely no defense. And with the exception of Hayes and Yi, which fill the spots Frank's used to of the wing and one big who play pretty bad defense, everyone on this team is/can be a solid defender, at the least. I don't think management or Frank would want him on the team. Also, he's a malcontent and fights with teammates. Not the type of team management is trying to make.
The only thing I see from Nate is that he's fast, short, can dunk, and can knock down the occasional 3 (sometimes shooting too much).
And to say Nate is better than Keyon is laughable. Wow. Yeah, when was the last time Nate was on a winning team? When was the last time Nate actually played defense? Heh.
Btw, Sean is not a "carbon copy" of Stromile Swift (you had it backwards btw, Stro is older, therefore cannot be the "copy" of the younger player).
And the only people I've seen compare Sean to Amare are John Lucas, who worked with Sean extensively and watched him play more than you ever have, obviously...and Bruce Ratner.
</div>
Nate isn’t a distraction to the team. Most players and coaches on the Knicks have been quoted saying Nate is a welcome addition, a good teammate, etc. If you think Nate is a distraction to the team then you have bought into the New York media hoopla. I think Nate throwing a towel at Zach during a game which they won is less of a distraction than Sean Williams possibly getting suspended for failing a drug test. Not to say Williams is the only NBA player who smokes; however, it adds negative light to the organization. Negative light is usually a distraction.
Your assessment on Nate’s defense is unfair. The whole Knicks team was terrible on defense. Rotations were always late, there was little communication, and Isiah’s defensive philosophy wasn’t too good.
How is it laughable to say Nate is better than Keyon Dooling when Nate produces more than him? This whole “on a winning team” thing is a fallacious argument. Nate is not the reason the Knicks have been losing. Prior to this year, Garnett and Gasol haven’t done too much winning; McGrady and Yao have yet to pass the first round; Elton Brand has one career playoff appearance. There are a plethora of solid NBA players who have had the misfortune of playing on bad teams with terrible management. You also have to take into consideration Nate has only played three seasons and Dooling has played eight and still hasn’t lived up to his expectations. I’m sure if Nate actually signed with a winning team like Dooling we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The only thing I can see out of Sean Williams is that he is tall, athletic, and can dunk. Does that sound accurate?
Losing brings the worst out of players. By saying Nate has fought with teammates, you are basically summing up the careers of most NBA players. Kevin Garnet literally punched Wally Szczerbiak in the face a few years ago. And I’m sure you are aware of the well-publicized Kobe-Shaq feud. Teammates fight and have disputes all the time, especially when losing is involved – Nate isn’t any different.
By calling Williams a carbon copy I mean they share very similar games. I haven’t watched too much of the 08 version of Stromile Swift, but he does have very similar qualities to a young Stromile Swift. Both are good shotblockers with impressive athleticism and are very raw offensively with low basketball IQ’s. Lucas and Ratner’s opinions don’t mean anything, BTW. We’ve heard several of the “next” Jordan’s, Bird’s, Shaq’s, etc. The fact of the matter is he isn’t the next Amare regardless of who has extensively watched him.
GMJ
Suspended
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 12,067
- Likes
- 30
- Points
- 0
Lets not lose perspective here, it's not a more general "negative light." It was weed, man. He smoked weed in college. Who hasn't smoked weed in college? I bet your (general "your") parents smoked weed in college. He doesn't now.
pegs
My future wife.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 12,079
- Likes
- 12
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. J @ Aug 13 2008, 11:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nate isn’t a distraction to the team. Most players and coaches on the Knicks have been quoted saying Nate is a welcome addition, a good teammate, etc. If you think Nate is a distraction to the team then you have bought into the New York media hoopla. I think Nate throwing a towel at Zach during a game which they won is less of a distraction than Sean Williams possibly getting suspended for failing a drug test. Not to say Williams is the only NBA player who smokes; however, it adds negative light to the organization. Negative light is usually a distraction.
Your assessment on Nate’s defense is unfair. The whole Knicks team was terrible on defense. Rotations were always late, there was little communication, and Isiah’s defensive philosophy wasn’t too good.
How is it laughable to say Nate is better than Keyon Dooling when Nate produces more than him? This whole “on a winning team” thing is a fallacious argument. Nate is not the reason the Knicks have been losing. Prior to this year, Garnett and Gasol haven’t done too much winning; McGrady and Yao have yet to pass the first round; Elton Brand has one career playoff appearance. There are a plethora of solid NBA players who have had the misfortune of playing on bad teams with terrible management. You also have to take into consideration Nate has only played three seasons and Dooling has played eight and still hasn’t lived up to his expectations. I’m sure if Nate actually signed with a winning team like Dooling we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The only thing I can see out of Sean Williams is that he is tall, athletic, and can dunk. Does that sound accurate?</div>
1. Hypocritical paragraph.
2. The whole Knicks team's defense doesn't make Nate's any better. And defensive rotations are the least of Nate's problems.
3. It is laughable because Nate does nothing to contribute to a winning team, unlike all the players you mentioned. And Keyon Dooling, he plays defense, scores, can even run an offense IF NEEDED. He basically does what the team needs. Nate's an all-for-himself type player who hurts chemistry more than he helps. And don't give me that bs "It's just the media everyone says they love him" blah blah blah. Do you really think they would go around saying "Of course he's a malcontent! He always ruins our chemistry, we can't stand him!"...especially if they're trying to trade him?
4. Wrong, you haven't paid enough attention to Sean's game. Maybe you should, if you're going to make silly statements like that. I've sat through enough Knicks games on a boring school night to know how terrible Nate is.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ace @ Aug 14 2008, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nate sucks</div>
I concur.
Your assessment on Nate’s defense is unfair. The whole Knicks team was terrible on defense. Rotations were always late, there was little communication, and Isiah’s defensive philosophy wasn’t too good.
How is it laughable to say Nate is better than Keyon Dooling when Nate produces more than him? This whole “on a winning team” thing is a fallacious argument. Nate is not the reason the Knicks have been losing. Prior to this year, Garnett and Gasol haven’t done too much winning; McGrady and Yao have yet to pass the first round; Elton Brand has one career playoff appearance. There are a plethora of solid NBA players who have had the misfortune of playing on bad teams with terrible management. You also have to take into consideration Nate has only played three seasons and Dooling has played eight and still hasn’t lived up to his expectations. I’m sure if Nate actually signed with a winning team like Dooling we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The only thing I can see out of Sean Williams is that he is tall, athletic, and can dunk. Does that sound accurate?</div>
1. Hypocritical paragraph.
2. The whole Knicks team's defense doesn't make Nate's any better. And defensive rotations are the least of Nate's problems.
3. It is laughable because Nate does nothing to contribute to a winning team, unlike all the players you mentioned. And Keyon Dooling, he plays defense, scores, can even run an offense IF NEEDED. He basically does what the team needs. Nate's an all-for-himself type player who hurts chemistry more than he helps. And don't give me that bs "It's just the media everyone says they love him" blah blah blah. Do you really think they would go around saying "Of course he's a malcontent! He always ruins our chemistry, we can't stand him!"...especially if they're trying to trade him?
4. Wrong, you haven't paid enough attention to Sean's game. Maybe you should, if you're going to make silly statements like that. I've sat through enough Knicks games on a boring school night to know how terrible Nate is.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ace @ Aug 14 2008, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nate sucks</div>
I concur.
Mr. J
Triple Up
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,912
- Likes
- 19
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs)</div><div class='quotemain'>1. Hypocritical paragraph.</div>
Alright, tell me how Nate is a disruption to the team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>2. The whole Knicks team's defense doesn't make Nate's any better. And defensive rotations are the least of Nate's problems.</div>
You should have been paying more attention. Nate isn’t as bad a defender as you’re making him out to be. Besides, it’s not like Nate can’t improve in this aspect. He’ll probably become a solid defender before Dooling gets a consistent jumper.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>3. It is laughable because Nate does nothing to contribute to a winning team, unlike all the players you mentioned. And Keyon Dooling, he plays defense, scores, can even run an offense IF NEEDED. He basically does what the team needs. Nate's an all-for-himself type player who hurts chemistry more than he helps. And don't give me that bs "It's just the media everyone says they love him" blah blah blah. Do you really think they would go around saying "Of course he's a malcontent! He always ruins our chemistry, we can't stand him!"...especially if they're trying to trade him?</div>
You brought up the winning team argument, which is rather foolish since Nate has only been in the league for three years – five less than Dooling. I don’t know what you consider “contributing”, but I think a player who can come off the bench and score 13 points, dish out a few assists, while getting the crowd involved is a solid contribution on any team. Maybe you think Dooling’s playoff 6.6 PPG/1 RPG/0.8 APG is a better contribution? I mean it is on a winning team and everything. And how can Dooling, the 8-year vet with a career 1.9 APG, effectively run the offense if needed? Please explain to me how Dooling can run an offense but Nate can’t. Nate can score and run an offense better than Dooling.
Finally, what are you basing this “malcontent” talk over?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>4. Wrong, you haven't paid enough attention to Sean's game. Maybe you should, if you're going to make silly statements like that. I've sat through enough Knicks games on a boring school night to know how terrible Nate is.</div>
I actually have followed Sean Williams a lot last season. I clearly wrote that in response to you saying Nate is only short and can dunk.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J Pis)</div><div class='quotemain'>Mr J. you can't be serious Garnett, Gasol, Mcgrady, and Yao are way more than just solid players. Comparing them to Nate is preposterous and absolutely absurd. Nate isn't even solid in addition to the fact he is on a bad team</div>
Read my entire post. My point was there is no relevance in saying “when was the last time Nate was on a winning team” since you can find stars who haven’t been on winning teams, and he has spent all THREE of his NBA years on his first team. Wins don’t necessarily measure a player’s abilities, hence the reason I included the aforementioned players.
As I said before, I don’t care if people are opposed to this trade scenario. I probably would too if I was a Net fan. I’m only defending the unwarranted sh!tting on Nate.
Alright, tell me how Nate is a disruption to the team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>2. The whole Knicks team's defense doesn't make Nate's any better. And defensive rotations are the least of Nate's problems.</div>
You should have been paying more attention. Nate isn’t as bad a defender as you’re making him out to be. Besides, it’s not like Nate can’t improve in this aspect. He’ll probably become a solid defender before Dooling gets a consistent jumper.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>3. It is laughable because Nate does nothing to contribute to a winning team, unlike all the players you mentioned. And Keyon Dooling, he plays defense, scores, can even run an offense IF NEEDED. He basically does what the team needs. Nate's an all-for-himself type player who hurts chemistry more than he helps. And don't give me that bs "It's just the media everyone says they love him" blah blah blah. Do you really think they would go around saying "Of course he's a malcontent! He always ruins our chemistry, we can't stand him!"...especially if they're trying to trade him?</div>
You brought up the winning team argument, which is rather foolish since Nate has only been in the league for three years – five less than Dooling. I don’t know what you consider “contributing”, but I think a player who can come off the bench and score 13 points, dish out a few assists, while getting the crowd involved is a solid contribution on any team. Maybe you think Dooling’s playoff 6.6 PPG/1 RPG/0.8 APG is a better contribution? I mean it is on a winning team and everything. And how can Dooling, the 8-year vet with a career 1.9 APG, effectively run the offense if needed? Please explain to me how Dooling can run an offense but Nate can’t. Nate can score and run an offense better than Dooling.
Finally, what are you basing this “malcontent” talk over?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>4. Wrong, you haven't paid enough attention to Sean's game. Maybe you should, if you're going to make silly statements like that. I've sat through enough Knicks games on a boring school night to know how terrible Nate is.</div>
I actually have followed Sean Williams a lot last season. I clearly wrote that in response to you saying Nate is only short and can dunk.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J Pis)</div><div class='quotemain'>Mr J. you can't be serious Garnett, Gasol, Mcgrady, and Yao are way more than just solid players. Comparing them to Nate is preposterous and absolutely absurd. Nate isn't even solid in addition to the fact he is on a bad team</div>
Read my entire post. My point was there is no relevance in saying “when was the last time Nate was on a winning team” since you can find stars who haven’t been on winning teams, and he has spent all THREE of his NBA years on his first team. Wins don’t necessarily measure a player’s abilities, hence the reason I included the aforementioned players.
As I said before, I don’t care if people are opposed to this trade scenario. I probably would too if I was a Net fan. I’m only defending the unwarranted sh!tting on Nate.
