Robinson does want out, and a source close to the Robinson camp tells ESPN.com there's one place the former slam-dunk champion would truly like to land if a trade can be worked out: Boston. 
Robinson also is what's known as a base-year compensation player, a designation given to any player whose salary rises more than 20 percent from the previous season (Robinson went from making $2.02 million to $4 million). If the Knicks found a trade for Robinson that was to his liking, they could only take back a player making $2.02 million or less -- and Walsh has been adamant that he will not take on any contracts that eat up the cap space he has squirreled away for next summer. (Note: A trade of Robinson to Boston for J.R. Giddens and Bill Walker would work under salary cap rules, but would add nearly $2 million to the Knicks' 2010-11 payroll. A Robinson-Marquis Daniels swap -- with all deals possibly brokered through a third team -- would make more sense for New York payroll-wise, but it is questionable whether that would interest the Celtics -- even with Daniels sidelined until the All-Star break by thumb surgery.)
Uh, this kind of came out of left field. I guess when you're the best team in the league this is to be expected. Never been a big fan of Nate, but always nice to know that someone wants to be a Celtic. Not sure if he'd improve our team or not. He seems like the classic two guard in a point guard's body. The whole situation in New York is odd though. What does D'Antoni just pick a point guard every year that he will banish to a life of DNP-CD's?

JR 12/21/2009 09:25:00 AM Edit
« Prev Post Next Post »

Recent Posts

comments powered by Disqus

4 Responses so far.

  1. We don't need Nate Robinson but if we can get rid of a couple guys that just take up space at the end of the bench I say why not. Definitely don't trade Marquis for him though, that would be ridiculous.

  2. JR says:

    I wonder if Sheridan is wrong about the adding 2.1 million to next yr's payroll if the Knicks got Giddens and Walker. The C's declined Giddens's option. He's an expiring contract.

  3. Three Toe says:

    Lester for Nate. (haha sorry lester).

    I think with a short-term contract as a back up to rondo, this would benefit the C's, but I don't see this happening. The knicks aren't going to take our end-of-the-bench guys, and with some big free agency discussions coming up, perhaps our existing draft picks will be retained for better trades later. Also, we are already spending a lot of money on salary.

    Plus I don't understand why a coach would be like "oh a guy who complains and refuses to play... sure send him over!" What if the celtics get the wrong end of the stick in the next few years and revert to early 2000's mode? More dead weight with Robinson when he pulls the same stunt (which is why I say short-term only please, if it somehow happens).

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.