Hey, I can make up trades too!

by Seth on Jan 13, 2009 3:47 PM EST in Miscellaneous Comment 29 comments

This isn't usually my cup of tea, (I don't even DRINK tea. Duh.) but I just couldn't resist the opportunity to float this trade idea. Getting a close look at the Hornets' roster last night lead me to believe two things:

1. New Orleans sure has a lot of centers.

2. New Orleans sure needs more bench scoring.

With this and the Knicks' best interests in mind, I came up with this brilliant trade idea. See if you can follow:

New York receives C Hilton Armstrong

New Orleans receives G Nate Robinson

When I asked the trade machine about this deal, it started panting and humping my leg. Little bugger LOVED it.

Now, once you wrap your head around that, let me explain. The Knicks get some much-needed frontcourt defensive help in Armstrong. "H.A.", as I like to call him, is ideal : a skinny, awkward 7-footer who can block shots, but is currently buried in the Hornets rotation. He's also due a qualifying offer in the magical year of 2010.

Meanwhile, the Hornets showed last night that their bench doesn't have very much firepower, especially in the backcourt. Nate's got the fast-acting shooting touch (well, not at the moment, but you know) to keep Byron Scott's offense alive when Paul and Butler leave the floor. A bench weapon like Nate can play a huge role in a tight playoff series. Plus, his contract expires this summer, so it's not a long-term commitment.

Anyway, I promise I won't do this too often, as I generally dislike such endeavors. Thoughts? Alternative deals that send Nate away for a big man?

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

two things

1. This trade would probably necessitate that the Knicks either sign another point guard or invest in a third lung for Chris Duhon.

2. I wonder if people would take this for a rumor if I just cited some ambiguous sources?

Posting and Toasting: Blogging Robin Hood-Style Since 2007

by Seth on Jan 13, 2009 4:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Granted

Nate has been a shooting funk lately but…. New Orleans 3rd string C for nasty Nate? I may be a little biased but I think we could get a little more for him, although I haven’t been playing with the trade machine. I say sign Shaun Livingston and get a better center than Hilton Armstrong.

by Justin_44 on Jan 13, 2009 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Livingston

I think Livingston either resigned, or is going to resign, with the Heat.

by Serious Garbage Time on Jan 13, 2009 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hell no.

by the way, is the trade machine also that puppy?

by Barnesgasm on Jan 13, 2009 4:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

FINE.

my puppy will one day be a trade machine.

Posting and Toasting: Blogging Robin Hood-Style Since 2007

by Seth on Jan 13, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i was just wondering

why the trade machine was humping your leg. also, because i can’t figure out whether a puppy with advanced knowledge of the nba collective bargaining agreement would be adorable or just creepy, but i’m leaning towards adorable.

by Barnesgasm on Jan 13, 2009 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

WOOF WOOF

what’s that, boy? jeffries has a player option in 2010?

Posting and Toasting: Blogging Robin Hood-Style Since 2007

by Seth on Jan 13, 2009 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

so do you guys think nate should be resigned?

Posting and Toasting: Blogging Robin Hood-Style Since 2007

by Seth on Jan 13, 2009 5:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

No

I think Donnie should trade Nate when he starts shooting the ball better.

Or don’t resign him. He’s a great energy guy – but I don’t think he’s worth locking up long-term. D’Antoni’s system is all about flexibility. And if (for example) Kidd or Nash were to come in with Duhon to run this system, do you allocate 3 roster spots to Kidd/Nash, Duhon (he’s proven he can run this system and for the right $ should stick around), and Nate? NFW. Plus, who do you put on the floor? Kidd/Nash/Duhon and Nate? No way! You’d get abused because Nate can only guard 1’s or other smaller 2’s.

Then again, the guy can SCORE and is exciting (plus he’s obviously a good guy)

by Cody K on Jan 13, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what would you be looking for in return?

how about a string bean of a 7-footer with an upscale hotel chain for a first name?

Posting and Toasting: Blogging Robin Hood-Style Since 2007

by Seth on Jan 13, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

I actually like the Robinson-for-Armstrong idea, but only if there’s a backup point guard somewhere to be added to the roster to take the Marbury/Big Snacks part.

If not that, re-sign him. Nate brings a lot of energy, and does have the talent to be an off-the-bench scorer. Teammates seem to love him, and the fans love him, and not in that creepy Brian Scalabrine “hey, he’s goofy and white, just like me!” way.

If the Knicks get Nash in 2010, then let Duhon go. Duhon is okay, but if I had a choice in 2010, I’d take Nash or Kidd + Robinson vs. Nash or Kidd + Duhon.

Listen to the Disciples of Clyde NBA Podcast. It's sleek and unique. It's rippin' and dippin'. It's weekly and, um, weekly.

by DiscipleofClyde Dan on Jan 13, 2009 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by my calculation

Kidd in 2010 would be about 514 years old.

Ewing with the step...YES! and the foul!

by Anthony Masons Haircut on Jan 14, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

If I want anyone that’s actually available on the Hornets roster, why not Julian Wright? Wouldn’t he be better than what Jeffries/Tim Thomas bring to the table, and is younger, so more upside?

Listen to the Disciples of Clyde NBA Podcast. It's sleek and unique. It's rippin' and dippin'. It's weekly and, um, weekly.

by DiscipleofClyde Dan on Jan 13, 2009 5:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

love wright

although he doesn’t fit an immediate need as much. that may or may not be important.

Posting and Toasting: Blogging Robin Hood-Style Since 2007

by Seth on Jan 13, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Play him as a backup PG!

Just to for the inevitable FreeDarko post, if nothing else. And to freak out Breen and Clyde.

Listen to the Disciples of Clyde NBA Podcast. It's sleek and unique. It's rippin' and dippin'. It's weekly and, um, weekly.

by DiscipleofClyde Dan on Jan 13, 2009 6:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

instead of Hilton

As long as we are talking for possible trade targets for Nate, what about Amir Johnson. Contract runs out after next season. Good defender-shot blocker. Maybe we could get a second rounder with it or maybe include Afflalo somehow?

by Stecka on Jan 13, 2009 6:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

looooove johnson

but only way to do that would be with malik rose and a couple extra guys coming with AJ. don’t know why the pistons would do that, unless they were trying to clear space.

Posting and Toasting: Blogging Robin Hood-Style Since 2007

by Seth on Jan 13, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Timeframe

Point 1 in your first comment flagged my main worry with this idea, but I’m also not entirely sure what it’s goal is. Is it supposed to make the team better right now, post-2010, or both?

by washerdreyer on Jan 13, 2009 6:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

right now

and then if he pans out, post-2010.

Posting and Toasting: Blogging Robin Hood-Style Since 2007

by Seth on Jan 13, 2009 6:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sergio Rodriguez

anyone? I think the fellow’s undervalued, and I’m pretty sure he has one of the highest assist:minutes played ratios in the league. This little swap might somehow go hand-in-hand with moving D-Lee over there (as sad as that is to consider), but might have to involve a third team cuz the L-Blazers would probably need another PG…

by SamH on Jan 13, 2009 6:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

love Rodriguez

from what i’ve seen of him…..which hasn’t been much. Is he good/consistent from long range?

by Stecka on Jan 13, 2009 6:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

totally 150% for it

let’s face it, Nate isn’t getting an extension, so why not get something for him?

HA’s 36-minute averages pan out to 10/8/1.5. he helps the front-line and gets the team further away from using Curry.

Ewing with the step...YES! and the foul!

by Anthony Masons Haircut on Jan 13, 2009 10:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

what?!?

you don’t drink tea?

by frootluvr on Jan 13, 2009 11:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

yea tea is great

trading nate for a 7-foot bag of yogurt is not in our best interest. i thought you were better than this seth…

by stingy d on Jan 14, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

there are 3 options

1. re-sign nate
2. let nate sign somewhere else
3. trade him before he’s a free agent

what would you do? i don’t think he’s getting resigned, and i’d rather have a young shot-blocker than nobody.

Posting and Toasting: Blogging Robin Hood-Style Since 2007

by Seth on Jan 14, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i would re-sign nate

no question about it. you can get a guy like hilton armstrong any old time.

i look at our team for 2010 and the only holdovers i want are david lee, wilson chandler, and nate robinson tentatively pico de gallo, and that’s basically it. everyone else can get lost as far as i’m concerned.

the only caveat to that is i wouldn’t go over a fair price to sign nate, if he walks, that’s fine.

by stingy d on Jan 14, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why let him walk?

they should at least try to get something for him, no?

i’m not saying that Armstrong is the next Dwight Howard, but i think that is an attractive trade option. i’d rather Donnie ship Nate out now, then watch him go out the door with nothing in return.

Ewing with the step...YES! and the foul!

by Anthony Masons Haircut on Jan 14, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the question then is

how much do you pay the guy, and for how long?

Posting and Toasting: Blogging Robin Hood-Style Since 2007

by Seth on Jan 14, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh

i’d give nate a 3-5 year contract between 5-7 mill per year. i think he is liable to get an 8 or 9 mill offer and longer years from say cleveland or something fucked up like that. but if he styed with us, he would have some bird rights and be able to sign a nice big contract that won’t effect us later on and we could have a team of young talent that stays together into veteranhood. makes sense to me anyhow.

you have to be very clear that we are not a team worried about the luxury tax. so getting nate just below or at market value is reasonable in my estimation. honestly i’d take my chances. nate is just one of those guys. he’s in a funk right now so it’s tough to justify it. but he is the type of guy that can change the outcome of a game for the positive EVERY night and at a moment’s notice. and he is the type of player you want to represent your team.

by “you” i seem to only mean me. but still

by stingy d on Jan 15, 2009 4:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs