Nate Robinson should be available

t2thadot · Post #1 » by **t2thadot** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 7:58 pm

D'antoni benched him for the 4th straight game yesterday. There is no doubt in my mind he is available. Why keep the guy if your not going to play him, and he aint no scrub. Nate averaged 17PPG off the bench last year, and he would be the perfect guy to come off our bench are fire away. Weems/O'bryant/Wright/Pops can be used as trade bait in exchange for Nate. And if it doesnt work out, he is a free-agent this off-season, so the Raptors really have nothing to lose. Throw in a couple of 2nd round picks if necessary to sweeten the deal. Thoughts?

ATLTimekeeper · Post #2 » by **ATLTimekeeper** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 7:59 pm

Of course he should be available. He sucks.

Post #3 » by **ranger001** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:00 pm

In the 4 games Nate has been benched the Knicks are 3-1 so dont look for any playoff team to be giving up assets for Nate.

sump · Post #4 » by **sump** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:01 pm

Okay so you are proposing that we have a team comprised of

1. A 7" PF/C who shoots 3's
2. A 6'3" Guard who can't guard

And you want the 3rd point on the bulletin to be a guy who is probably the biggest cancer in the league who shoots the ball at his own net when he knows his team has won the game? A guy who acts like he is on a max contract but is on a 1 year deal?

I would pass on Nate Robinson even if he was 7 ft tall and could rebound.

gerrit4 · Post #5 » by **gerrit4** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:01 pm

Well he does have a no trade clause right? And he'd lose his bird rights if he was traded?

That being said, I guess he'd rather be traded than hardly play. He's a bad fit for this team now anyways.

J Dilla · Post #6 » by **J Dilla** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:03 pm

Sometimes I think the league discriminates against short players :rofl:

Lionel Messi · Post #7 » by **Lionel Messi** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:03 pm

No thanks, he doesnt provide anything we really need. Maybe penetration but it's not like he does that very often anyways.

Plus the knicks wouldnt want anyone with more than this year left on their deal...so they probably ask for bellineli/wright. Id rather keep the much cheaper, better defender in bellineli.

Basketball_Jones · Post #8 » by **Basketball_Jones** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:03 pm

He can start at the 2!

gei · Post #9 » by **gei** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:05 pm

oh god no. he is absolute garbage. and annoying.

Post #10 » by **Shaazzam** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:06 pm

The immediate thought that springs to mind after reading the thread title was

"There's a good reason for that."

dagger · Post #11 » by **dagger** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:08 pm

If there is one roster spot I'd like to upgrade it's the backup 3. Nate's CV doesn't qualify him for consideration.

Mattd97 · Post #12 » by **Mattd97** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:09 pm

t2thadot wrote:D'antoni benched him for the 4th straight game yesterday. There is no doubt in my mind he is available. Why keep the guy if your not going to play him, and he aint no scrub. Nate averaged 17PPG off the bench last year, and he would be the perfect guy to come off our bench are fire away. Weems/O'bryant/Wright/Pops can be used as trade bait in exchange for Nate. And if it doesnt work out, he is a free-agent this off-season, so the Raptors really have nothing to lose. Throw in a couple of 2nd round picks if necessary to sweeten the deal. Thoughts?

youre right, he is a scrub. so why

undisputed55 · Post #13 » by **undisputed55** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:10 pm

He'd catch a case of the "Raptors Syndrome".

Definition: Player that has the ability to drive, gets traded to the Raptors and starts to believe that he's a knock down jumpshooter. eg Fred Jones

Post #14 » by **LittleOzzy** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:11 pm

Is this a joke?

decu21 · Post #15 » by **decu21** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:13 pm

i dont have alot of good thing to say about this guy...so....no i dont want him on this team

Mad Prophet · Post #16 » by **Mad Prophet** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:16 pm

Available for what?

sule · Post #17 » by **sule** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:38 pm

Yes, I totally want him on this team.

A short guard who thinks he's Jordan when he has the ball. A player that is all about offense and doesn't play a lick of defense.

That is exactly what we need, because lord knows that what this team lacks more than anything else is an ability to score.

We already have enough players that are excellent offthe ball, play hard-nosed defense, and don't worry about their statistics over the team. We already have enough leadership and a strong enough team culture to absorb a controversial, me-first player without any ramifications to our future play and present play.

Bring on Nate Robinson. Get er done BC!

/sarcasm

Gold Chain · Post #18 » by **Gold Chain** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:54 pm

Eww...

I though the league was on notice NOT to help the Knicks.

Nate is similar to many Maple Leafs here in Toronto, he is known mostly because of the market he plays in. If he was a Bobcat, he would only be known by die-hard NBA fans.

Next.

Volcano · Post #19 » by **Volcano** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 8:59 pm

Mad Prophet wrote:Available for what?

I think he meant for dating.

Natural11 · Post #20 » by **Natural11** » Tue Dec 8, 2009 9:03 pm

t2thadot wrote:he aint no scrub.

I agree. He is a scrub. Why any team would want him is beyond me.