Sam Amick: Nate Robinson to the Warriors being discussed

[Who]

I'd be happy with Radmanovic for Nate.

[Lucky17]

FWIW, JO plus Nate works. Also creates a roughly $2 million TE to use on a wing replacement for Daniels.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4s6h6jk

Again, I don't see why GSW would take back JO's contract. Ainge would probably need to sweeten with cash and/or a pick.

[Jeff]

I don't see any great fits for the C's on the GS roster, but perhaps it is part of a bigger deal.  

I wonder if Ainge is trying to shoehorn into the Nets' deal for Williams.

I was thinking the same thing.  

possible but none of the moving pieces seem to make sense coming here - so maybe they'd expand that deal?

[Jeff]

FWIW, JO plus Nate works. Also creates a roughly $2 million TE to use on a wing replacement for Daniels.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4s6h6jk

Again, I don't see why GSW would take back JO's contract. Ainge would probably need to sweeten with cash and/or a pick.

interesting

[RebusRankin]

Murphy or Reggie Williams would be great.

[Lucky17]

Most of Golden State's players have less than 3 years remaining on their deals, so giving them financial relief somehow would be difficult to do.

I don't suppose Biedrins would be available? Then a Nate/JO/picks deal might make sense for them. Even so, Biedrins has to have more value than that.

Smoke, but I doubt there will be much fire here.

[Rondo2287]

Anyway that we could be trying to get murphy without the buyout so there is no way he goes to Miami?  Just thinking outloud here

[Bahku]

Interesting ... hard to figure what we'd get in return ... it must be in terms of something more extensive/bigger trade-wise.

Not necessarily. The salaries of Charlie Bell or Dorell Wright match up with Nate's. If it's for Wright I say we must do it! But I don't understand why GS would trade Wright for Nate.

Exactly ... I didn't mean money-wise, but need-wise, (them and us). As others are intimating, I think it's as an extension of a bigger, multi-team deal.

[mgent]

Interesting ... hard to figure what we'd get in return ... it must be in terms of something more extensive/bigger trade-wise.

Not necessarily. The salaries of Charlie Bell or Dorell Wright match up with Nate's. If it's for Wright I say we must do it! But I don't understand why GS would trade Wright for Nate.

Exactly ... I didn't mean money-wise, but need-wise, (them and us). As others are intimating, I think it's as an extension of a bigger, multi-team deal.

Yeah I'm thinking/hoping the same thing.  Why would GS be looking for another guard, don't Monta and Curry play like 40mpg?

[mloyko]

i would think it would have to be part of a three way deal or something, because nothing makes sense 1-1. Danny is creative that way. Maybe after seeing Baby dominate them last night they want to give us Monta for him hahaha- thats a joke of course

[Redz]

When I saw Nate blissfully joining in the chuck fest last night, I thought that GS would be a perfect home for him.

[chenaren]

How about this trade?

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4al2bkw

[hpantazo]

I really hope it's not for Radmanovic, he's terrible. Hopefully, as someone else said, we are trying to gete Murphy before his buyout so that he doesn't pick Miami.

[Chris]

When I saw Nate blissfully joining in the chuck fest last night, I thought that GS would be a perfect home for him.

He really would be a perfect fit.  I still don't think there is a straight up match for the C's, but if the C's need a 3rd team to take Nate in a deal, GS are a good fit.  He is certainly an upgrade over Acie Law.

[csfansince60s]

Thought you guys might like a little more levity from the other (GS) side:

Re: Nate Robinson?

Postby FireNellieQuick on Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:02 pm
If we're doing this, lets go all out... acquire Boykins and Thabeet too, and hire PT Barnum as HC.. bring Darvin Ham out of retirement, sign Harold Miner and Gerald Green. First 10,000 at the gates a giant pair of floppy red shoes..

User avatar

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1094767