- 20,258
- 18,404
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
No big deal. Funny how those two Seattle heads be in the BX hard. They were probably scooping up some Hispanic broads.
Go to the official '09-'10 New York Knicks season thread, this thread will be locked soon
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by pr0phecy718,
- Start date
No big deal. Funny how those two Seattle heads be in the BX hard. They were probably scooping up some Hispanic broads.
- 11,980
- 18
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
Why am I not surprised Nate be blowing it down?
- 4,058
- 11
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
could the Knicks/Ramon Sessions soap opera offically be voted as the most annoying flip floppy story of this entire offseason in the NBA??
I think this is the 5th time this summer that the media flipped this story 180 degrees
I think this is the 5th time this summer that the media flipped this story 180 degrees
Alan Hahn provides an update on the status of restricted free-agent Ramon Sessions.
"I continue to hear that the Knicks remain the 23 year old's last remaining legitimate option," writes Hahn. "The Clippers seem content with their roster and the Bucks just recently made additions (Carlos Delfino and Roko Ukic) that suggest they are ready to move on, as well."
According to Hahn, the Knicks are ready to sign an offer sheet at around $4 million per season if and when Sessions accepts.
every single %%+!+$% week you got, Knicks only sessions suitor or Knicks will offer Sessions this week, or Sessions will be a Knick. Only to befollowed by Knicks dropping out of Sessions race because of 2010, or Knicks meet with Sessions cant decide on an offer, or Knicks backing down Clippers newfrontrunner for Sessions.
Now after all last week hearing about how we are kinda backing out of the sessions race and that the Clips are favorite we oncce again start hearing Knicks areonly option nd he will most likely be a Knick. Probably only to be let down in a few days. I honestly expect Sessions to remain unsigned til opening day
Media FTMFL
Nasty Nate
- 12,102
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
that i can be happy about.
4 mill? sign me up
4 mill? sign me up
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
I'm convinced walsh is gonna lock him up for CHEAP.
- 4,991
- 454
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2004
^ it's a buyers market. I see that too, if it happens at all.
- 30,673
- 5,702
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2002
psst, at this point I'm moving on with Sessions
...if somethinghappens, then cool
- 30,673
- 5,702
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2002
- 4,058
- 11
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
Man i swear to $+%$!!$ god, you get Nate Robinson for a 1 year deal, you take it. dude is already one of the leagues top bench players and a 1 year deal doesnot effect our cap. He is the best scorer on our team and to not take him for a one year deal cause of a stupid arrest that has NOTHING to do with basketba;land nothing really to do with his bad character (other than the fact that he is a bit irresponsible but ive had similar $#$% happen to myself) is just $+%$!!$******ed.
That would basically be like cutting Nate for no reason at all. If you wanna get rid of him AT LEAST get something like cap relief out of it, he is a desirableplayer just this market is $#$%. And he would have got other offers as well, but teams didnt want to offer cause it wasnt high enough as to where Donniewouldnt match, as stated in the article... But you dont get rid of a young 17 point per game scorer off the bench who is a fan favorite when you could sign himfor one year, without any risk at all on our cap room next summer. Im not saying go out and offer him some long term deal, cause that would be a bit risky, butif we cant work a long term out with him or Lee for that matter. To not give them a one year deal is just $+%$!!$ ******ed because they clearly make the teambetter next season (which we want considering that tanking is not an option
) and because it has 0 salary cap risk. There is 0 downside to it. Nate is not a "cancer" player, sure $#$% like this happens, he is a bitirresponsible. but his teamates love him, he is coachable for the most part, and most importantly always gives 100%
That would basically be like cutting Nate for no reason at all. If you wanna get rid of him AT LEAST get something like cap relief out of it, he is a desirableplayer just this market is $#$%. And he would have got other offers as well, but teams didnt want to offer cause it wasnt high enough as to where Donniewouldnt match, as stated in the article... But you dont get rid of a young 17 point per game scorer off the bench who is a fan favorite when you could sign himfor one year, without any risk at all on our cap room next summer. Im not saying go out and offer him some long term deal, cause that would be a bit risky, butif we cant work a long term out with him or Lee for that matter. To not give them a one year deal is just $+%$!!$ ******ed because they clearly make the teambetter next season (which we want considering that tanking is not an option
- 12,102
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
im starting to feel cofident about lee having to just take a 1 year deal....and i think ultimately nate will too
- 7,084
- 45
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
wasnt there a report that actually most teamates hated him?
maybe it was someone else.
i have a feeling walsh is going to use this arrest against nate, as a smokescreen, and give him lets say a 3/10 deal.
wouldnt mind that, AT ALL.
maybe it was someone else.
i have a feeling walsh is going to use this arrest against nate, as a smokescreen, and give him lets say a 3/10 deal.
wouldnt mind that, AT ALL.
- 4,444
- 13
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
Na it was 90% of the league hates him actually
- 159,699
- 140,899
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
People don't mess with Nate forreal though? Why?
Is that story true about him trying to fight Malik Rose in the shower? LOL
Is that story true about him trying to fight Malik Rose in the shower? LOL
- 4,058
- 11
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
i would take that 3/10 in a hot second
Na it was 90% of the league hates him actually
my man Nasty tha Villain
- 30,673
- 5,702
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2002
yea I heard about that
- 35,214
- 26,870
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2005
just heard that...
knicks cut off all negotiations with all PGs until the 24th (kahn is in spain until the 24th to see if he can work something out with rubio). basically donnieis waiting to see what will happen with kahn and his meeting with rubio's camp this week before he can start negotiations with kahn about rubio and hisrights. just some speculation...
knicks cut off all negotiations with all PGs until the 24th (kahn is in spain until the 24th to see if he can work something out with rubio). basically donnieis waiting to see what will happen with kahn and his meeting with rubio's camp this week before he can start negotiations with kahn about rubio and hisrights. just some speculation...
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
would you guys really want to give up chandler if it means rubio?
- 7,084
- 45
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
no. thats why i went bonkers when iheard about the report chandler+#8 pick. and i mean bonkers.
i actually believe that rumor, because once that report of kahn going back to spain, we saw reports of clippers being front runners for sessions.
i doubt thats a coincidence.
i actually believe that rumor, because once that report of kahn going back to spain, we saw reports of clippers being front runners for sessions.
i doubt thats a coincidence.
- 11,640
- 506
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
If I had to choose then, no. I would not give up Chandler to get Rubio. Although, Chandler does play the same position as LeBron and if we want toget LeBron you'd figure Wilson will see less minuets. I don't think Chandler has the game to play a SG. That's just me though.
- 4,524
- 218
- Joined
- May 11, 2004
sooo i just realized...
say we get nate for the qualifying. lee for 5 mil.
we can package them with jeffries/curry to a team willing to take a chance on an extra wack contract for a year to rent out nate+lee in an attempt to make adeeper run into the playoffs. and we can get a contract that expires in 2010.
brad miller on the bulls? b wallace+pavlovic on the suns?
if its possible we should try getting something done at the deadline so that we can keep lee and nate for as long as possible. we need the depth.
say we get nate for the qualifying. lee for 5 mil.
we can package them with jeffries/curry to a team willing to take a chance on an extra wack contract for a year to rent out nate+lee in an attempt to make adeeper run into the playoffs. and we can get a contract that expires in 2010.
brad miller on the bulls? b wallace+pavlovic on the suns?
if its possible we should try getting something done at the deadline so that we can keep lee and nate for as long as possible. we need the depth.
- 9,086
- 11
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2006
^
Players that sign one year contracts like that have to agree to a trade but it would give them a disadvantage when they become free agents. I don'tremember the exact specifics but I remember reading about it due to Ben Gordon's situation this past season.
Players that sign one year contracts like that have to agree to a trade but it would give them a disadvantage when they become free agents. I don'tremember the exact specifics but I remember reading about it due to Ben Gordon's situation this past season.
- 11,640
- 506
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
Yeah, I think Devan George was in the same situation too when he was with the Mavs.
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
true
- 3,938
- 11
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
You gotte remember we're not building a conventional team here. Chandler can play the 4, 3, or the 2 and we would be fine.
