RealGM

Ito wrote:dont compare Nate to Barea -_- Nate = Terry ... dont pay too much attention to his stats this season he was injured at first, came back and when he started playing good Mike decides not to play him for personal reasons... but Nate would we averaging about 17 points right now

So, are you suggesting that Nate is worth 10 million like Jason Terry is being paid? I believe the roughly 2 million JJ Barea makes per year is more so what Nate is worth. Nate's agent can only market the Slam Dunk Champ so much and the interest for him has decreased.

GalloFan22 wrote:
well the statement is dumb because ny can always get a rudy gay or someone like that by outbiding.

also how does benching nate on his last year(and your team gets much better) and he wont be here next year set you up for failure? its just a dumb statement.

we will always have an amare or boozer or gay or someone like that in our backpocket.

I don't think iamworthy meant that by not playing Nate the Knicks are setting themselves up for failure, I think he meant more to the term that I used for the Knicks.....dysfunction. It's pretty relevant that the Knicks haven't escaped the drama even with Isiah out the way. The Marbury fiasco, the yo-yo free agent drama with Lee and Nate.......especially when nobody wanted them anyway.

You're attacking iamworthy for basically stating the obvious, the Knicks aren't guaranteed a top tier free agent, so signing Gay or Boozer is basically settling for leftovers. The guys you list aren't going to put the Knicks over the hump......they're not franchise changing players no matter what you or you're fan base thinks. If the Knicks don't land Lebron or Wade (which is very likely) it'll be a total failure period.

So in essence you really didn't understand what he was getting at in the first place, it was basically pretty simple to tell the truth.

LMAO at the knicks fans thinking we are playing better because Nate is not playing. We are playing much better because the team is playing better, and Duhon.. I bet we would have won those 2 games we lost against Charlotte and Bulls if nate would have played

DEEP3CL wrote:

GalloFan22 wrote:
well the statement is dumb because ny can always get a rudy gay or someone like that by outbiding.

also how does benching nate on his last year(and your team gets much better) and he wont be here next year set you up for failure? its just a dumb statement.

we will always have an amare or boozer or gay or someone like that in our backpocket.

I don't think iamworthy meant that by not playing Nate the Knicks are setting themselves up for failure, I think he meant more to the term that I used for the Knicks.....dysfunction. It's pretty relevant that the Knicks haven't escaped the drama even with Isiah out the way. The Marbury fiasco, the yo-yo free agent drama with Lee and Nate.......especially when nobody wanted them anyway.

You're attacking iamworthy for basically stating the obvious, the Knicks aren't guaranteed a top tier free agent, so signing Gay or Boozer is basically settling for leftovers. The guys you list aren't going to put the Knicks over the hump......they're not franchise changing players no matter what you or you're fan base thinks. If the Knicks don't land Lebron or Wade (which is very likely) it'll be a total failure period.

So in essence you really didn't understand what he was getting at in the first place, it was basically pretty simple to tell the truth.

Why would it be failure? they won't contend for a championship without Wade/Lebron, but they're already in a bad situation anyway, and they can improve/become relevant again by signing players like Joe Johson and Boozer.

Nate is a great sixth man. A contending team like the spurs, lakers, magic would do well by acquiring him when his value is low

D'Antoni liked Tyrus Thomas, right?

Nate for Thomas. Salaries match.

Palmeirense wrote:

DEEP3CL wrote:

GalloFan22 wrote:
well the statement is dumb because ny can always get a rudy gay or someone like that by outbiding.

also how does benching nate on his last year(and your team gets much better) and he wont be here next year set you up for failure? its just a dumb statement.

we will always have an amare or boozer or gay or someone like that in our backpocket.

I don't think iamworthy meant that by not playing Nate the Knicks are setting themselves up for failure, I think he meant more to the term that I used for the Knicks.....dysfunction. It's pretty relevant that the Knicks haven't escaped the drama even with Isiah out the way. The Marbury fiasco, the yo-yo free agent drama with Lee and Nate.......especially when nobody wanted them anyway.

You're attacking iamworthy for basically stating the obvious, the Knicks aren't guaranteed a top tier free agent, so signing Gay or Boozer is basically settling for leftovers. The guys you list aren't going to put the Knicks over the hump......they're not franchise changing players no matter what you or you're fan base thinks. If the Knicks don't land Lebron or Wade (which is very likely) it'll be a total failure period.

So in essence you really didn't understand what he was getting at in the first place, it was basically pretty simple to tell the truth.

Why would it be failure? they won't contend for a championship without Wade/Lebron, but they're already in a bad situation anyway, and they can improve/become relevant again by signing players like Joe Johson and Boozer.

Only because all the hype of the cash they've saved just to land one of those guys. Bottom line is it don't matter, I remember when the Bulls had all that cash after MJ left and they couldn't land anybody.....it's no guarantee for them to get either Wade or Lebron. Like I said Boozer, Amare or Gay aren't franchise changing players. They're not going to make them a contender.....improvement yeah very possible, but winning consistently in the playoffs....no.

He can't get playing time for the knicks and they have played better with him out. Who is giving anything of value for him?

DEEP3CL wrote:

GalloFan22 wrote:
well the statement is dumb because ny can always get a rudy gay or someone like that by outbiding.

also how does benching nate on his last year(and your team gets much better) and he wont be here next year set you up for failure? its just a dumb statement.

we will always have an amare or boozer or gay or someone like that in our backpocket.

I don't think iamworthy meant that by not playing Nate the Knicks are setting themselves up for failure, I think he meant more to the term that I used for the Knicks.....dysfunction. It's pretty relevant that the Knicks haven't escaped the drama even with Isiah out the way. The Marbury fiasco, the yo-yo free agent drama with Lee and Nate.......especially when nobody wanted them anyway.

You're attacking iamworthy for basically stating the obvious, the Knicks aren't guaranteed a top tier free agent, so signing Gay or Boozer is basically settling for leftovers. The guys you list aren't going to put the Knicks over the hump......they're not franchise changing players no matter what you or you're fan base thinks. If the Knicks don't land Lebron or Wade (which is very likely) it'll be a total failure period.

So in essence you really didn't understand what he was getting at in the first place, it was basically pretty simple to tell the truth.

This.

D''Antoni is an idiot, this guy takes things wayyy to personal. Nate will have the last laugh on this matter, while D'Antoni better pray LeBron bolts because if not............... the F I R E - D' ANTONI & Walsh chants will be in full swing at the Garden.