He could block Wright some.  They're similar in that they're not exactly your prototype 4, but not really wing players.  Both are very athletic, Warrick having an edge in strength, Wright in speed.

A two for one isn't out of the question--nothing prevents it-- but it means  we'd  have to be release someone immediately though they'd still count towards the cap. (Phone call for Troy Hudson.  It's your real estate agent on the phone.  You don't have a real estate agent?  You should.  It's foolish to try to sell your home without one.  You weren't selling your home?  Well, Bay Area real estate is still probably a good thing to have, but since you aren't going to be playing here anymore--oh wait, did I forget to mention that we're sending your worthless ass on its merry way?)

I'd love to see if there was a way to get Kyle Lowry out of them to make things work.  It would require cutting someone else from the squad to avoid losing him, but if Troy Hudson has to go, so be it.  (No, don't wake me up. I'm enjoying this dream.)

then again, like any homer fan, as soon as he was on the dubs, I guess I'd say "way to take a charge!"

The only equation that makes sense is looking at Warrick and Wright and figuring out which one will be better.  IF Wright will be better, there is no reason to get Warrick, but this has nothing to do with the fact that we gave up Richardson. If Warrick is going to be a better option, then the equation is whether Warrick is worth more than Wright and whomever we'd have to invest (in trade and future playing time) to get a productive Warrick vs what we'd have to invest (in future playing time [but not what we've already spent]) to have a productive Wright.  Considering what we paid for Wright shouldn't enter things as the choice to not have him isn't there.  This is a sunk cost that doesn't change regardless of what happens.  We cannot undo the past investment.  

Thinking about past investments causes people to try to squeeze value out of things that have no value to give.  It then becomes an emotional argument.  It is the same sort of thinking that caused the Warriors to overpay Dunleavy ("we cashed in a #3 pick on him, so he has to be good--therefore let's give him a big contract to keep him, give him playing time he doesn't appear to deserve to try our absolute best to make him into something that he actually isn't, investing more money and time into a lost cause).

This is not to say that I think Warrick will be better than Wright. Actually, I don't.  I think Wright has more potential in the moderate term. It's merely about the strategy and why the Warriors shouldn't let Richardson enter.