Bulls Rumors: Chicago Would Be Foolish to Waive Nate Robinson
Come on, Chicago. You don't have to be that cheap.
...they [Bulls] can waive Robinson with no penalty any time before that date [Jan. 10], an option that always has been under consideration internally.
[Marquis] Teague's development, not to mention Derrick Rose's expected return, could make Robinson expendable.
I should note here that ShamSports' Mark Deeks notes that Jan. 10 is incorrect and it is actually Jan. 1, but the date should be inconsequential. They should not ditch Robinson.
There is nothing to suspect this move would be done for anything but financial reasons. Teague's development is mentioned, but if Teague was developing so well, why is he averaging over 10 minutes less a game than Robinson?
The answer is simple: Robinson gives the Bulls a better shot to win. The Bulls are 15-11 and currently the fourth seed in the Eastern Conference. Nate Robinson's hot shooting was a big factor in several of those wins.
We should also discuss the school of thought that Robinson is expendable because of Derrick Rose's eventual return.
This is only all the more reason to keep Robinson. If Rose can manage to get anywhere near 100 percent by playoff time, the Bulls will be title contenders.
Yes, they would still have Kirk Hinrich to back up Rose, but Hinrich's offensive game is almost non-existent. The Bulls need another point guard that can light it up on nights when the offense needs a spark.
Also, the Bulls need to be very careful with Rose when he returns, and no one knows if he will have a setback and miss more time. Robinson's presence will make it easier for the Bulls to bring Rose along slowly.
The Bulls are a better team this season with Robinson on the roster.
Now, here comes the real kicker, waiving Robinson would only save Chicago, as Deeks points out, just under $500,000.
That will only shave roughly a sixth off of the $3.2 million that, Yahoo! Sports' Kelly Dwyer tells us, the Bulls are over the cap.
This is not the time for the Bulls to get weaker for such a tiny portion of their operating costs.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?