Monday mailbag: the offseason, Jonathan Kuminga, and more

You’ve got questions and we’ve got answers.

Last week, I put out a call for some Golden State Warriors offseason mailbag questions. This week, I tried my best to answer those questions.

Thanks to everyone who popped into the comments to ask something!

I have long been a proponent of re-signing Jonathan Kuminga and, if they want to trade him at some point, doing so at the deadline instead of in an offseason sign-and-trade. That makes the most sense to me, as it gives the Warriors an opportunity to see if Kuminga can work alongside Steph Curry, Jimmy Butler III, and Draymond Green.

But it also presents its fair share of issues, namely that if the Warriors want to trade Kuminga come February, he’s probably not playing well enough to have much value in a trade. At that point we’re probably looking at something similar to the Jordan Poole/Chris Paul deal. If Kuminga’s value has risen by February, it’s probably because things have gone well and the Dubs aren’t interested in trading him. And, to the question, if they have a straightforward offseason — re-sign Kuminga, add some minimums, draft a player, etc. — then the logistics of trading Kuminga in-season would be fairly basic.

Some complications arise with a sign-and-trade, because Kuminga’s outgoing contract would count for double his incoming contract (in other words, if Kuminga sign-and-trades for $25 million per year, the Warriors would be trading a $12.5 million contract in terms of matching, and going a penny over that would hard cap them). That provision makes it much harder to execute a trade, and also limits how good of a player the Dubs can get in return.

Do I think the Warriors could still get something decent for him? Yes. But without it being a like-for-like max or near-max contract, it’s unrealistic to expect them to get something that really moves the needle. That would require there being a needle-moving player who makes half of what Kuminga will get, with the other team being so enamored with JK that they’re willing to not only pay him handsomely, but part with said player for the privilege of doing so.

A drawn-out ending means more ad breaks and more time to place bets. More ad breaks and more time to place bets means more money. The drop in entertainment value doesn’t impact viewership in a meaningful way, which means there’s no incentive for them to change it.

Basketball may be the beautiful game, but the NBA is still a gargantuan corporate entity.

Well, for starters, I think Joe Lacob would take umbrage with your phrasing. I don’t think Lacob would categorize signing Kevin Durant as good fortune, but rather as the very result of that “light years” organization.

He’d be (mostly) wrong, but still.

I’d argue against them ever being “light years” better, even if that description made sense. And I say that as someone who thinks that both Lacob and Bob Myers are/were among the best in the NBA at their respective jobs. They did a wonderful job building a dynasty, but it’s hard for me to ascribe any sort of premier wizardry to that, given that they inherited a top-10 all-time player in the infancy of his career, who happened to suffer the perfect injury — one that suppressed his financial value at contract time, but did nothing to keep him from becoming a dominant force.

That’s not a knock on them. I’m just not sure it’s possible to be ahead of the game in team-building by that much in the NBA. And the real test will come over the next 10 years, not over the last 10.

As for roster construction blind spots, for me it comes down to modern, athletic wings (and even guards). The Warriors have targeted players who play the game the way they like, which is understandable, but it’s come at the expense of modernizing their lineup. They might have won their first-round series, but watching them match up with the Houston Rockets was, frankly, a little shocking. You’re not used to seeing teams that look so physically different in the NBA as those two did.

And I think, like almost all organizations, from time to time the Warriors fall in love with a concept and can’t get off of it. Sometimes they’d be better off just getting good, modern players instead of lesser ones who fit the vision.

I say this as someone who spent a long time advocating for a Ben Simmons trade: I don’t think the Warriors should — or would — touch that with a 10-foot pole. That said, Steve Kerr and Ty Lue get along well, so maybe if Kerr gets a good report on what 2025 Simmons is like, the Warriors could explore that route. But they were fine with a potentially disruptive locker room presence when it was a star like Butler; I don’t see them doing the same with Simmons. Nor is a non-shooting non-center something that they should be intrigued by right now.

As for Kristaps Porziņģis, he’d be a dreamy fit but I don’t see how the logistics would work. Porzingis is due nearly $31 million next year, and the Warriors just don’t have a clean way of matching that, nor do they have pieces that the Boston Celtics would likely be interested in.

I’d say the odds are low, but I’m still putting them in the “contenders” category. The margin for error is thin, though. They don’t have the depth of other teams, and their core is old and somewhat injury prone. They’ll certainly enter the year trying to catch the Oklahoma City Thunder, and the west is teeming with teams that could have big bounce-back years next season (Lakers, Nuggets, Clippers), or could keep growing into something special (Rockets, Mavericks, Spurs, Timberwolves).

As for your second question, the reality is that if you’re trying to maximize a championship window, you just can’t worry too much about protecting future picks. The Warriors have gone out of their way to protect their young players, and the result is they at least have some interesting pieces to work with post-Curry. But any big swing is going to require parting with some first-rounders. It’s unclear if they’ll be able to pull off something big, though.

I sadly have no idea how to research this, short of doing so manually. But, to your point, the Warriors would certainly be among the oldest.

It doesn’t make it unrealistic, though. It is, at some level, a sign of the times, even as we watch two young teams battle in the NBA Finals.

Comparing the Warriors’ age to that of other champions just doesn’t help us all that much, because the game has changed and so has the medicine and science around it. When Michael Jordan was Steph Curry’s age, he looked like a shell of himself, and that was after taking three years off to rest and recover. Curry, Green, and Butler’s age hurts them, without a doubt, but it doesn’t disqualify them.

But balancing that with some energetic youth certainly helps, as I think was shown by how well they played at certain stretches when Kuminga and Brandin Podziemski were clicking.

Thanks for the questions, everyone!