Warriors exploring S&T for Kuminga

[Onus]

Hey JRoy,

It was a curious move for me when Portland traded for Jrue....What do you think your team will end up doing with him?

With Scoot out Jrue is good insurance to have and I could see him being a good trade deadline chip for a team missing a piece. Houston would be a great trade partner IMO with their bounty of assets and FVV being injured.

I know i'm not the one you asked but I think Por is trying to make the playoffs (why?) and will keep Jrue.

I like what the Blazers are doing.

They have some good young talent and having a veteran like Jrue as a mentor who can still ball wouldn't be the worst thing.

The Blazers are really just missing that superstar talent, but their team can be really good.

[JRoy]

JK + Hield or Moody for Jrue.
Lets get old!

Pass for POR

Hey JRoy,

It was a curious move for me when Portland traded for Jrue....What do you think your team will end up doing with him?

With Scoot out Jrue is good insurance to have and I could see him being a good trade deadline chip for a team missing a piece. Houston would be a great trade partner IMO with their bounty of assets and FVV being injured.

Great question.

I am not a Scoot believer. Trading for Jrue and signing Lillard coming off a serious injury is an indication the FO might be waking up to the fact that Scoot sucks.

I hope I am proven wrong about him being a bust.

That said, Jrue would be a great choice for HOU. Their current pg options are cat-turd tier.

[JRoy]

Pass for POR

Hey JRoy,

It was a curious move for me when Portland traded for Jrue....What do you think your team will end up doing with him?

With Scoot out Jrue is good insurance to have and I could see him being a good trade deadline chip for a team missing a piece. Houston would be a great trade partner IMO with their bounty of assets and FVV being injured.

I know i'm not the one you asked but I think Por is trying to make the playoffs (why?) and will keep Jrue.

I am inclined to agree. I am pessimistic by nature so I am expecting playin and an unimpressive draft pick.

[vvoland]

The rumor was JK for Caruso which we declined. Caruso is one of the best wing defenders in the league. We'd be playing Curry/Melton/Caruso/Butler/Dray.

Nuggets are going to be really good this year.

I don't think Jimmy or Dray would have survived 35 games of that lineup after the trade last year and certainly not for 82 games this season. Playing them at 4/5 will be the move come playoff time but for the RS, I would not press that button. It is also quite short on shooting. Would the defense be enough? probably. That's a hard way to play. That's before we get to the fact that Melton and JB can't be on this team at the same time (last season) as we needed the former's salary to trade for the latter.

Again, on balance, you think caruso is that much better than what we had to start the year 12 months ago : Melton, Podz, Buddy, and MM.

Pressure defense is how you win in the regular season. That's what OKC was able to do and they were able to win a ton of games based on just forcing a ton of turnovers.

Barring injuries, I think we'll do better than the nuggs.

Bold take!

If melton, steph, dray, and jimmy were all 27 and under, I'd say go for it.

Is it really that bold of a take?

i'll take steph/jimmy over jokic/murray.

dray/horford/podz over braun/cam/brown

our bench: buddy, JK, melton, post, moody (in no particular order)
their bench: holmes, JV, strawther, picket, naji

On paper, it's not even that close, at least to my taste.

I think our defense is significantly better than denver's and the offense should be in a similar ballpark.

[Onus]

I don't think Jimmy or Dray would have survived 35 games of that lineup after the trade last year and certainly not for 82 games this season. Playing them at 4/5 will be the move come playoff time but for the RS, I would not press that button. It is also quite short on shooting. Would the defense be enough? probably. That's a hard way to play. That's before we get to the fact that Melton and JB can't be on this team at the same time (last season) as we needed the former's salary to trade for the latter.

Again, on balance, you think caruso is that much better than what we had to start the year 12 months ago : Melton, Podz, Buddy, and MM.

Pressure defense is how you win in the regular season. That's what OKC was able to do and they were able to win a ton of games based on just forcing a ton of turnovers.

Barring injuries, I think we'll do better than the nuggs.

Bold take!

If melton, steph, dray, and jimmy were all 27 and under, I'd say go for it.

Is it really that bold of a take?

i'll take steph/jimmy over jokic/murray.

dray/horford/podz over braun/cam/brown

our bench: buddy, JK, melton, post, moody (in no particular order)
their bench: holmes, JV, strawther, picket, naji

On paper, it's not even that close, at least to my taste.

I think our defense is significantly better than denver's and the offense should be in a similar ballpark.

I think we'll be close, but really just have to take into account that Steph, Jimmy, Dray should be playing about 60-65 games. Really just want us to be healthy for the playoffs. Think Steph is a top 5 player and jimmy is probably one of the if not the best 2nd option in the league.

[vvoland]

This whole thing we want to be good 15 years after Steph, is crazy to me. The odds of us getting another top 10 player of all time is so slim and that fact that you’re not going all out to win while you still have a top 10 player of all time while playing at a top 5 player level is just insane.

People think we’ll attract free agents, sf is not the place to be for young millionaires. There’s no places to go. You literally have to fight for women because there are so few and you’re also going against tech money for their attention. We are not going to be a destination in the future.

Dallas has an owner that was treating everyone to five star treatment and they couldn’t attract anyone. Great ownership is not what attracts young nba players.

The bulls have been trash since mj. They had the front office, they have the history, and no one wants to take that mantle.

There is no guarantee that we get another top 10 player of all time in the next 20 years and people are ok with not giving everything for our literal franchise goat and people really think this is going to be a destination? This just gives off vibes of we’re planning for the future at all times so if you come here we’re already thinking about how we can replace you and that’s supposed to be attractive?

Do you live in SF Bay Area?

Nothing to do? No places to go? Fighting for women?

I moved here in the late 80's and was swimming in the dating pool!

Sound like a you thing...

Used to live in NYC now. NYC is infinitely better for going out. There really is no contest between the 2. I really don't want this to delve into this conversation but as the saying goes, a SF 10 is a LA 6.

NYC is better for going out. Definitely. It is open all night and SF closes right as NBA games end. On virtually all other metrics, i'll take SF.

Also, you're comparing what it's like for you and I to spend our time and not multi-millionaire 20 year olds. They club, women, booze, drugs, parties, etc. come to them, not the other way around. Maybe it is tough to recreate the NYC club experience in your OKC mansion. In SF, I doubt you'd have much trouble.

Yes, the cities with a strong film/modeling industry tend to attract better looking women. I don't think that's the factor you think it is for folks that no longer talk to women in person.

[vvoland]

Pressure defense is how you win in the regular season. That's what OKC was able to do and they were able to win a ton of games based on just forcing a ton of turnovers.



Bold take!

If melton, steph, dray, and jimmy were all 27 and under, I'd say go for it.

Is it really that bold of a take?

i'll take steph/jimmy over jokic/murray.

dray/horford/podz over braun/cam/brown

our bench: buddy, JK, melton, post, moody (in no particular order)
their bench: holmes, JV, strawther, picket, naji

On paper, it's not even that close, at least to my taste.

I think our defense is significantly better than denver's and the offense should be in a similar ballpark.

I think we'll be close, but really just have to take into account that Steph, Jimmy, Dray should be playing about 60-65 games. Really just want us to be healthy for the playoffs. Think Steph is a top 5 player and jimmy is probably one of the if not the best 2nd option in the league.

Sure, the age is an issue but between murray and gordon (that's who I forgot), they have enough injury questions for us to be ~even. Putting Gordon in for bruce brown and moving brown to the bench makes the above comparison closer but i'd still pick the dubs combo in all 3 areas.

[Onus]

Do you live in SF Bay Area?

Nothing to do? No places to go? Fighting for women?

I moved here in the late 80's and was swimming in the dating pool!

Sound like a you thing...

Used to live in NYC now. NYC is infinitely better for going out. There really is no contest between the 2. I really don't want this to delve into this conversation but as the saying goes, a SF 10 is a LA 6.

NYC is better for going out. Definitely. It is open all night and SF closes right as NBA games end. On virtually all other metrics, i'll take SF.

Also, you're comparing what it's like for you and I to spend our time and not multi-millionaire 20 year olds. They club, women, booze, drugs, parties, etc. come to them, not the other way around. Maybe it is tough to recreate the NYC club experience in your OKC mansion. In SF, I doubt you'd have much trouble.

Yes, the cities with a strong film/modeling industry tend to attract better looking women. I don't think that's the factor you think it is for folks that no longer talk to women in person.

I really don't. I'm old and married. I have no clue what dating is like now. But really it's a numbers game there's 400,000 women in SF compared to 1.9M in LA and 4.4M in NYC. It makes sense why there's more quantity and quality in those cities.

[vvoland]

Used to live in NYC now. NYC is infinitely better for going out. There really is no contest between the 2. I really don't want this to delve into this conversation but as the saying goes, a SF 10 is a LA 6.

NYC is better for going out. Definitely. It is open all night and SF closes right as NBA games end. On virtually all other metrics, i'll take SF.

Also, you're comparing what it's like for you and I to spend our time and not multi-millionaire 20 year olds. They club, women, booze, drugs, parties, etc. come to them, not the other way around. Maybe it is tough to recreate the NYC club experience in your OKC mansion. In SF, I doubt you'd have much trouble.

Yes, the cities with a strong film/modeling industry tend to attract better looking women. I don't think that's the factor you think it is for folks that no longer talk to women in person.

I really don't. I'm old and married. I have no clue what dating is like now. But really it's a numbers game there's 400,000 women in SF compared to 1.9M in LA and 4.4M in NYC. It makes sense why there's more quantity and quality in those cities.

For us, mere mortals, those are the numbers. In the case of the young and the rich, their dating pool is the 4 billion women in the world, or, to be less hyperbolic, the 2 billion that are on instagram.

[Onus]

NYC is better for going out. Definitely. It is open all night and SF closes right as NBA games end. On virtually all other metrics, i'll take SF.

Also, you're comparing what it's like for you and I to spend our time and not multi-millionaire 20 year olds. They club, women, booze, drugs, parties, etc. come to them, not the other way around. Maybe it is tough to recreate the NYC club experience in your OKC mansion. In SF, I doubt you'd have much trouble.

Yes, the cities with a strong film/modeling industry tend to attract better looking women. I don't think that's the factor you think it is for folks that no longer talk to women in person.

I really don't. I'm old and married. I have no clue what dating is like now. But really it's a numbers game there's 400,000 women in SF compared to 1.9M in LA and 4.4M in NYC. It makes sense why there's more quantity and quality in those cities.

For us, mere mortals, those are the numbers. In the case of the young and the rich, their dating pool is the 4 billion women in the world, or, to be less hyperbolic, the 2 billion that are on instagram.

It's not the same flying someone out to come see you vs being in a city and just going out. Again I don't go out anymore, but I've been out with NBA players. This was before social media so I don't know what it's like in this era but it's not the same vibe.

[Onus]

Oh man I forgot that lacob wanted Steph to take a discount on his first large extension and had to be talked out of it. Just remember from listing to the +/- podcast.

[xdrta+]

This whole thing we want to be good 15 years after Steph, is crazy to me. The odds of us getting another top 10 player of all time is so slim and that fact that you’re not going all out to win while you still have a top 10 player of all time while playing at a top 5 player level is just insane.

People think we’ll attract free agents, sf is not the place to be for young millionaires. There’s no places to go. You literally have to fight for women because there are so few and you’re also going against tech money for their attention. We are not going to be a destination in the future.

Dallas has an owner that was treating everyone to five star treatment and they couldn’t attract anyone. Great ownership is not what attracts young nba players.

The bulls have been trash since mj. They had the front office, they have the history, and no one wants to take that mantle.

There is no guarantee that we get another top 10 player of all time in the next 20 years and people are ok with not giving everything for our literal franchise goat and people really think this is going to be a destination? This just gives off vibes of we’re planning for the future at all times so if you come here we’re already thinking about how we can replace you and that’s supposed to be attractive?

Do you live in SF Bay Area?

Nothing to do? No places to go? Fighting for women?

I moved here in the late 80's and was swimming in the dating pool!

Sound like a you thing...

Used to live in NYC now. NYC is infinitely better for going out. There really is no contest between the 2. I really don't want this to delve into this conversation but as the saying goes, a SF 10 is a LA 6.

Sure, because you can easily categorize millions of women, by looks no less, into a category or two.

[wco81]

If the Warriors can't attract free agents after Curry retires, all the more reason for them to hang onto the picks.

[Onus]

Do you live in SF Bay Area?

Nothing to do? No places to go? Fighting for women?

I moved here in the late 80's and was swimming in the dating pool!

Sound like a you thing...

Used to live in NYC now. NYC is infinitely better for going out. There really is no contest between the 2. I really don't want this to delve into this conversation but as the saying goes, a SF 10 is a LA 6.

Sure, because you can easily categorize millions of women, by looks no less, into a category or two.

You’re a numbers person go ahead and compare 400,000 women to 4.4M women.

[vvoland]

Used to live in NYC now. NYC is infinitely better for going out. There really is no contest between the 2. I really don't want this to delve into this conversation but as the saying goes, a SF 10 is a LA 6.

Sure, because you can easily categorize millions of women, by looks no less, into a category or two.

You’re a numbers person go ahead and compare 400,000 women to 4.4M women.

That's too much, even for wilt. Let's just close the chapter on that line of thought.

I think JK starts tonight. Steph/Podz/Jimmy/JK/Dray.

It'll change by the Den game but that's what I'm thinking Kerr will go w/ today.

[HiRez]

This offseason feels like the longest one I can remember, which is crazy since the Warriors had 2 playoff rounds.

[whatisacenter]

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, JK is probably better than any player they could trade him for unless a superstar asks for a trade.

When Jonathan Kuminga and the Golden State Warriors finally agreed to their two-year, $48 million contract, it was widely assumed he would become a probable trade candidate as soon as he becomes eligible to be moved in mid-January. But the Warriors don't see many realistically available players they would trade Kuminga for during the season.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/282475/Warriors-Dont-See-Many-Potential-Trade-Candidates-For-Jonathan-Kuminga

[vvoland]

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, JK is probably better than any player they could trade him for unless a superstar asks for a trade.

When Jonathan Kuminga and the Golden State Warriors finally agreed to their two-year, $48 million contract, it was widely assumed he would become a probable trade candidate as soon as he becomes eligible to be moved in mid-January. But the Warriors don't see many realistically available players they would trade Kuminga for during the season.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/282475/Warriors-Dont-See-Many-Potential-Trade-Candidates-For-Jonathan-Kuminga

I believe there were 4 of us who believed that for most of this summer. We'll see if we were right or not by Feb.

[Larry Ellison]

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, JK is probably better than any player they could trade him for unless a superstar asks for a trade.

When Jonathan Kuminga and the Golden State Warriors finally agreed to their two-year, $48 million contract, it was widely assumed he would become a probable trade candidate as soon as he becomes eligible to be moved in mid-January. But the Warriors don't see many realistically available players they would trade Kuminga for during the season.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/282475/Warriors-Dont-See-Many-Potential-Trade-Candidates-For-Jonathan-Kuminga

JK looks good so far. I'm ready to eat crow! I was very encouraged by the reports that Jimmy is helping him.

[EvanZ]

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, JK is probably better than any player they could trade him for unless a superstar asks for a trade.

When Jonathan Kuminga and the Golden State Warriors finally agreed to their two-year, $48 million contract, it was widely assumed he would become a probable trade candidate as soon as he becomes eligible to be moved in mid-January. But the Warriors don't see many realistically available players they would trade Kuminga for during the season.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/282475/Warriors-Dont-See-Many-Potential-Trade-Candidates-For-Jonathan-Kuminga

You're right, he's better than most players that are available. That's because good players are usually not available.

Of course what you *actually* said is that JK is better than anyone making "as much money as he is". Clearly that's not true. I already showed you.