Why are we adding Nate Robinson?

[moiso]

I'm excited about Nate's aggresion and energy.  We are sorely lacking in these categories and Nate will help that.  He's always in attack mode.

[droopdog7]

Because Nate is a much better player than House. And he can do all the things that House cannot do. He can dribble against pressure, create his own shot, and create for others (when he feels like it). And I am not buying the defensive issue until I see him with the celts. He certainly has the potential to be a better defender than House.

The bottom line is that this move will not matter if kg and pp don't pick it up eventually. But the bottom line is that this move makes us better. And IMO is a better choice than trying to trade ray, as we won't take on the salary that it would take for us to get significantly better (eg, Jamison and butler).

[Rtpas11]

you guys kill me with the bashing of Nate Robinson being a so-called jerk, like any of us know him.

If Nate is selfish is because he has to be, being on that terrible team, play through a terrible system, for a terrible coach. I don't understand why he's a punk anyhow...

We're getting Nate because he's a overall better player, and better fit than Eddie House. What Eddie can do Nate does, what Eddie can't do Nate does.

[byennie]

Just for giggles as I slowly lose my mind...
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yl82olo

Ray and Perk for Nate, David Lee, Tyrus Thomas and Jared Jeffries.
Knicks get big expiring deals + affordable center for next year.
Bulls get another year of Jordan Hill instead of just losing Tyrus.

[slamdunk]

They want to be prepared if the NBA goes to a dunk contest to decide games like the NHL does with the shootout.

[Bahku]

Because we can ... I really see this as a small push toward building support for a younger team to come, I'm just not sure how it's going to work out. As I did with Sheed and Cassell and "Starbury", I have some negative feelings about him, (though not to the level of the other three - I really hated them coming here), but also like them, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and wait to make a decision about him until after he's had time to acclimate to this team. I certainly feel more positive about him than I did with any of the other three I mentioned, and I think he may add a more positive energy than they were capable of, for a longer period of time. We'll see. (I HATE losing Eddie).

[Who]

No bird rights for Nate Robinson so it's unlikely that he'll be kept past this season.

More of a band aid, a rental player, than a move to get younger.

To add some a younger player who can grow over the next few years.

[snively]

He's our Jamal Crawford.

It will be difficult to get him big minutes though.  It'll be interesting how long we can get away with a Rondo/Nate line-up.  If the answer is less than 5 minutes, Nate's gonna have a hard time cracking 10mpg in the playoffs.

[Scribbles]

Also the 40 points he threw up I don't get why people are making such a big deal about.  Tons of mediocre players have put up huge scoring games.  Tony Delk scored 53 in a game once, Jim Jackson put up 50, Bryant Reeves scored 41.  Its no big deal he scored 40.

Robinson can legitimately put up 20 PPG over long stretches -- not something the Tony Delks and Bryant Reeves of the world could ever do.

Of course Jimmy Jackson actually averaged over 20PPG for a several year stretch, so I'm not sure he fits the mold you were going for.

I'm certainly not saying this makes Nate the answer, but Tony Delk isn't a realistic comparison.

I wasn't really comparing him to Delk as much to as I was comparing him to a decent role player that put up a huge scoring effort in their career.  Robinson is a couple points over double digits in his career.  Delk averaged just below 10.  And you are right Jackson did have some seasons scoring in the 20's but I was just going by averages and he ended up just under 15, so it fit with where Nate was at. 

I just don't get the hype of trading a sharp shooting, defensive liability, that at least gives us effort and knows the system, for a guy that is younger sure, has better handles, but is an even bigger defensive liability, known as a selfish player, and the effort isn't always there.  Though I will cut him some slack, he has been in New York his whole career. 

Anyways the point of my post was, he really doesn't change the dynamic of our team any more than House, IMO.  If the deal does go through,I'll welcome him and give him a chance to prove me wrong, but I don't think this is the deal that makes the team wake up and start playing like they did at the start of the season.

[RJ87]

Because we can ... I really see this as a small push toward building support for a younger team to come, I'm just not sure how it's going to work out.

unless we move Ray in the next 12 hours, our chances of getting younger are next to nil - if we're just gonna let his contract expire, it sounds like we try to resign him on the cheap this summer. I don't think the MLE will bring in a young impact player, so I've resigned myself to the fact that we'll be watching clearly-past-their-prime Hall of Famers until the Summer of 2012.

At least we got another banner out of it .

[lon3lytoaster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHvBLCjOzg0

Also, my first attempt at a photoshop jersey swap, not that good, but that's why it's a first



And OT.. Is the beat in that video's song from The Message by Grandmaster Flash? Ice Cube kinda butchered that a little.

[Greeny]

Nate is an upgraded Eddie.

Rebounding - Nate
Assists - Nate
Steals - Nate
Scoring off the dribble - Nate
Speed defending or on offense - Nate

Shooting open shoots - Eddie
3pt shooing % - Eddie 38% (Nate 37%)

Look at it like this.
Knicks have Lee, and Nate can still score.
Celtics have Ray, Sheed, KG, Rondo, Paul...and Eddie has trouble getting open.

Nate in the right environment will become a star, and I think he will do that on this team.

With Nate this second unit will FLY on the break.
TA , Nate, Marquis, Sheed, Baby.
All these guys love to push it.

I cant wait.
I will miss Eddie, but I would rather take Nate.

[JIMTONIK]

danny wants Nate,because he is desperate,he MUST do something for the fans,but nate is not the one who can solve our problems.
I like Robinson, but we need more to contend this year. Much more. With this roster we have no chance,only if LBJ,D-12 and many more are injuried.

[crownsy]

With Robinson we got about 6% better at best

So?

If the only option you have to get better is a small improvement, you still take it.

Yeah, but I don't like Robinson so I would rather have kept House

Personally I think it's a sideway move

I was being generous with the 6 %

Disagree, how can it be a sideways move to trade a one dimensional player who is not preforming well at that one dimension for a player who is much more talented?

It's a good trade. Doesn't improve us a ton, but certainly upgrades what is in essence a dead spot with the way eddie has been playing the last year and a half.

I love eddie, but it's time to cut the cord. He's easily replaceable, and we upgraded the posistion. had to be done.

Hoping there are some more deals to solidify the bench, but with the trash pieces we have, i'm actually kind of amazed we even upgraded one part of our bench.

[CoachBo]

The acquisition of a guy who has no distribution skills whatsoever, while throwing away a legitimate perimeter threat, does absolutely nothing for me - and it does absolutely nothing to enhance this club's chances to win this year.

Terrible deal that accomplishes nothing, and if there's a meaningful pick included it gets even worse.