Nate Robinson to be bought out by Thunder

Balkman32 · Post #1 » by **Balkman32** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:51 pm

Nate Robinson will be bought out per J. Michael Falgoust.

Nate Robinson will be bought out by #Thunder so he can become free agent. They tried to do this before the lockout. Working on it now #nba

http://twitter.com/jmikenbausat

Posted around 4 o'clock on 11/30/11

Post #2 » by **slick_watts** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:53 pm

Frees up a roster spot, I guess.

MrCavs · Post #3 » by **MrCavs** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:09 pm

Surely he's worth a 1st round pick from someone??

Balkman32 · Post #4 » by **Balkman32** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:14 pm

This is an interesting move. I thought he would be a nice trade chip at the deadline for teams trying to get under the cap for 2012.

I can not see Royl Ivey or Rob Vaden being on the roster to begin the season. So that leaves two roster spots once Cook signs the RFA tender.

Devilanche · Post #5 » by **Devilanche** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 2:24 am

MrCavs wrote:Surely he's worth a 1st round pick from someone??

I think at best he's worth a 2nd rounder. Presti probably trying to show OKC as a good employee. A possible rotational player being squeezed out of minutes. The hope here is probably that Nate will settle for less from OKC in exchange for trying to get a multi year deal from a team that he wants to be at rather than having his contract waived and going to the highest bidder.

That means 2 roster spot open!

Post #6 » by **wizkid27** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 4:49 am

Not too surprised... He never really got himself a role and with our 1st round pick from the draft, the backcourt only gets more crowded.

Post #7 » by **slick_watts** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 2:59 pm

This is almost exactly what Presti did with Earl Watson a couple years ago. He'll save some $$$ depending on the amount of the buyout and how much Nate signs for elsewhere. Expiring contracts are only valuable if you're willing to take on long term contracts in return (or else, trading for an expiring is kind of useless). And right now the Thunder shouldn't be taking back long term contracts. So Nate wouldn't have much value.

fallacy · Post #8 » by **fallacy** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 2:38 am

Nate officially told not to show up to training camp. He will stay in Seattle until further notice. Will not play for OKC this year

The Thunder is expected to announce tonight that Nate Robinson is not reporting to camp. I'm told that it's not a nasty breakup, just best

fallacy · Post #9 » by **fallacy** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 2:43 am

In collaboration with Nate Robinson and his representatives, we have mutually agreed to continue working toward clarifying his future status with the Thunder. Nate is an accomplished player, but with the current composition of our roster, it will be unlikely he will have an opportunity to contribute on a nightly basis. Given the compressed period of time that we have been given to work through the current situation, it has been decided that Nate will not attend training camp while we work with his representatives to resolve the situation We will not be commenting on this subject further but will provide notification when a resolution is reached

Official statement by the Thunder

Dezmondballins3 · Post #10 » by **Dezmondballins3** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 2:45 am

bought out or amnesty?

dream_catcher_9 · Post #11 » by **dream_catcher_9** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 2:50 am

Dezmondballins3 wrote:bought out or amnesty?

bought out probably, or traded. I doubt we use the Amnesty now. Granted we will probably never use it, but to have it in your back pocket is nice insurance.

fallacy · Post #12 » by **fallacy** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 2:57 am

bought out or traded. OKC will hold on to the amnesty for a possible use later

Post #13 » by **slick_watts** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 2:59 am

That statement kinda paints the team into a corner. Nate probably wants to play but if he doesn't agree to a buyout they have to waive him. Unless there are clubhouse issues we are not aware of, I'd rather have Nate around as depth than to just let him sit in Seattle or waive him for nothing.

wiff · Post #14 » by **wiff** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 6:07 am

slick_watts wrote:That statement kinda paints the team into a corner. Nate probably wants to play but if he doesn't agree to a buyout they have to waive him. Unless there are clubhouse issues we are not aware of, I'd rather have Nate around as depth than to just let him sit in Seattle or waive him for nothing.

I like Nate as an insurance policy too. He can give you instant offense. The fact that he is a little man dunker only helps his role as a fan favorite.

I like that he is a shameless chucker. Sometimes you need that guy to shoot yourself back into a game. Or shoot you out of one.

I wonder what Presti thinks about Reggie Jackson?