On Friday, I put out a call for Golden State Warriors mailbag questions, and the community delivered some fantastic questions. Now that the week is back — I hope you all had a nice Labor Day weekend — let’s dive into those questions.
Plopplop:
What is your assessment of the roster, starters, bench, and different units options, by considering AH, DAM and GPII are signed, in terms of competitiveness compare to the other top teams?I’d also love to have your analysis compare to our winning rosters of championship years, as, are we filling the formula that have worked the last 10 years in our Curry-centric and motion offense?
And if not, who do you see as perfect but obtainable complementary pieces we could get at the trade deadline?
What a fun question. I would think that De’Anthony Melton fills some of the Swiss Army role than Andre Iguodala, and he and Al Horford should definitely be trusted veterans on par with anyone that the Dubs brought in during the championship years.
But I think the biggest answer to these questions lies with a starter: Jimmy Butler III. Butler is a significantly better player than even championship-year Andrew Wiggins, and he helps solve a lot of those problems. They don’t have a second-unit scorer off the bench to match Jordan Poole’s contributions (though they can do a lot by committee, with Brandin Podziemski, Buddy Hield, and, presumably, Jonathan Kuminga), but Butler can run the second unit as a scoring presence better than Poole or Wiggins ever did. They don’t really have a Swiss Army knife the way Iguodala was, but what is Butler if not the star version of Iggy?
It’s definitely a different roster than the one that conquered the league in 2022, but there are certainly similarities, too. The biggest similarity is probably just an abundance of playable depth, which can allow them to withstand injuries (as long as they’re not to Steph Curry), and play certain matchups. The last championship team had a whopping 12 different players who averaged at least 16 minutes per game, with 13 different Dubs getting a starting nod during the season.
Given that the Warriors seem a lock to sign Horford and Melton, and at least one and probably two of the Gary Payton II, Malcolm Brogdon, Seth Curry, and Cody Martin bucket, the team can replicate that abundance of quality, veteran depth. Add in Butler (and at times Kuminga) playing the roles that both Iguodala and Poole had, and there’s at least the bones of a very good team.
420_Blackbirds:
Outside of Horford, most of the unsigned FAs rumored to be in the Warriors crosshairs are guards. Who do you think are the most desirable options remaining at SF/PF for a minimum deal?
I’d say the name at the top of the list is Jonathan Kuminga. And if they sign Kuminga, I’m honestly not sure they need to add any more large depth. Jimmy Butler III and Draymond Green are the team’s second and third-best players so, save for the load management days, they’ll get a ton of minutes. Kuminga and Moody are right behind them, ready to play a ton of minutes. There’s good center depth behind Al Horford, with both Trayce Jackson-Davis and Quinten Post. And we know the Dubs are happy to play small, especially if they re-sign Gary Payton II and can have him defend a larger player, and Buddy Hield can definitely be a three. I think that’s enough, though adding Cody Martin would certainly be a nice little dose of wing depth.
Cosmo4gsw:
At this time, what the public knows is that Kuminga has two choices: either the Qualifying Offer or a 1+1 contract for $45M with a waiver of his right to veto trades. JK stubbornly rejects inclusion of that waiver. Contrarily, he proposed a 3 year contract without an NTC (no trade clause), leading to serious doubt as to the fairness & sincerity of his objection to waiving that right on an even shorter contract, stating that he didn’t want to be a trade “pawn”). Of course, the reason the Dubs are willing to give JK the $45M deal is to make that contract tradable, which would be defeated if it had an NTC.Question: If Kuminga signs the QO contract, which includes the right to veto trades, of all the teams that would execute a trade for him, which ones would he veto a trade to? By name, please specify teams he would refuse to go to, keeping in mind that said teams would know JK is seeking a featured role and would have to pay compensation to the Warriors.
I’m not the only one asking this question. GC Bellchamber wrote: “his reluctance to relinquish a no-trade clause by taking a two year deal is particularly ridiculous given his desire to find a new home. . . While it is understandable that Kuminga feels shunned and even disrespected by the Warriors, he must do what is best for his career in allowing himself to be traded as quickly and as easily as possible, making his camp’s current stance increasingly untenable.
Tim Kawakami, in a podcast several days ago, said: “Wait a minute, I thought he wanted to be traded?. . .What team could there possibly be that he wouldn’t want to be traded to?”
It’s a great question, Cosmo, and one that I think many Warriors fans have been wondering as this saga drags on and on and on. Usually when we think of no-trade clauses (especially in other sports), we associate it with cities or organizations that a player specifically doesn’t want to play for. In Jonathan Kuminga’s case, I think it’s different. He wants to go to a team where he’ll be a featured part of the offense and can have a long-term home. I think he’d be amenable to a trade to any team that offers him that.
But, especially at the deadline, teams aren’t always looking for that. If the Warriors are buyers at the deadline, hypothetically trading Kuminga to a rebuilding team that is looking for young talent to build around, then I think Kuminga will be happy with wherever he ends up. But what if they’re sellers, shopping JK to a playoff-bound team that’s looking for some reinforcements ahead of a postseason push? What if, say, the Dallas Mavericks want a little extra firepower, or suffer and injury, and acquire Kuminga for the stretch run? Does he see a future as a featured player being given a large contract and 20 shots a game on a team that has Cooper Flagg, Kyrie Irving, and Anthony Davis? The Mavs might be happy to pick up his team option and keep him around for another year to be a supersub, but he’s not going to get the scoring opportunities that he wants to pump up his value for free agency, and he’ll almost surely be switching team s again the next summer.
That’s the type of situation I think he’s trying to avoid, rather than a particular team or city.
nboothe:
Assuming all the signings go as planned (JK, Horford, Melton, GP II/Se. Curry/other guard), the Warriors biggest starting weakness might be at SG (unless Podz makes a major leap). Instead of the Warriors fourth-best player being JK as a 6th man, what SG could the Dubs get in return if they went all-in for this year in trading players and either the 2026 or 2027 #1 pick – presumably those would be a late round picks with this core for the next two years – but no first round picks after 2027?So assume a deal like JK, Podz, and a 2027 #1 for ??? at SG and anyone else needed on both sides to make the money work out.
This assumes an approach to go all out for the next two years and then commit to full rebuild afterwards, so keeping picks beyond 2027.
At the risk of sounding like I’m trying to avoid answering the question, I’m really not sure there’s anyone who would fit this mold. First off, the Warriors are still dealing the base-year compensation issue if they choose to execute a sign-and-trade with Kuminga, which really complicates things … and makes a deal nearly impossible at this juncture in the offseason. Really, if they wanted to do a big deal involving Kuminga and Brandin Podziemski and some first-rounders, it would have to come at the trade deadline, and then it really depends on what else has happened in the league, and what teams are in or out of it.
Even in a hypothetical where Kuminga could be traded more normally, I’m just not sure who’s available for those players, especially since the team’s 2027 first-rounder doesn’t figure to be too good. Like, sure, they could get Zach LaVine, but … why?
Cosmo4gsw:
During summer league, MDJ proposed a deal to Kuminga’s agent: a $45M 1+1 contract with a 2nd year team option and an explicit waiver of JK’s right to veto trades. Under NBA rules, this is considered a one-year contract, which would potentially result in JK losing his Bird rights (note: signing a qualifying offer also terminates Bird rights). Loss of Bird rights would severely limit the number of teams that could sign him when he becomes a free agent and would restrict how much he could be paid. The financial loss can potentially be tens of millions. Currently, the Warriors hold full Bird rights.Question: If JK signs a 1+1 contract and the Warriors exercise their option, would they have full Bird rights or Early Bird rights or no Bird rights?
In other words, does exercising the option on a 1+1 transform it into a 2 year contract?
Also, if the Warriors trade JK before the trade deadline, what Bird rights if any would his new team have assuming his new team exercises the option? On this point, I have read that the new team would have no Bird rights even after the 2nd year.
Note that if the Warriors signed JK to a 2 year contract with the 2nd year partially guaranteed, my understanding is the Bird rights would not be lost. This would be a better deal for both parties, because the team would have a far longer window to trade him before guaranteeing the full year. For JK, his new team would inherit his Bird rights and he would get some insurance against injury. I predict the parties will successfully negotiate a multi-year contract with partial guarantees and/or team options. I hope it’s for 3+ years.
Thank you Brady for addressing these complicated issues.
If the Warriors exercise the option on a 1+1 with Kuminga, they would retain his full Bird rights. Any team that has retained a player for three consecutive seasons, regardless of the type of contract, retains their full Bird rights unless that player’s rights have been renounced at some point. To that end, signing the Qualifying Offer would not actually terminate his Bird rights.
The simplest form is this: there is no scenario in which Kuminga is on the Warriors and they don’t have his Bird rights. And there is no scenario in which Kuminga is traded without the team that acquires him also acquiring his Bird rights. And there is no way that Kuminga can leave as a free agent without sacrificing his Bird rights. Basically, full Bird rights are acquired after three seasons with one team, and that clock resets when a player signs a contract with a different team in free agency.
So in that sense, it’s a bit of a misunderstanding to say that teams are limited in signing him if he doesn’t have Bird rights … teams, not players, have Bird rights. Kuminga does not have Bird rights with any team except the Warriors unless he is traded to them. If he enters free agency, no one will have his Bird rights (except the Warriors). So his Bird rights only matter for purposes of a trade which, admittedly, could be a big tool even if free agency, if they execute a sign-and-trade.
Thanks for the great questions, everyone! Opening night is in less than two months!
0 Comments
