RealGM

Don't think i've seen a Kuminga to Indiana thread before so here's my attempt:

Indiana trade: Mathurin, Bradley
Indiana receive: Kuminga (S&T 4/84)

GSW trade: Kuminga (S&T 4/84), Moody
GSW receive: Mathurin, Anderson

Utah trade: Anderson
Utah receive: Moody, Bradley

Why for Indiana: take advantage of the suppresed market to pay Kuminga to be their starting 3 for (relatively) cheap vs potentially overpaying mathurin to come off the bench next year
Why for GSW: add a high upside prospect in return for Kuminga, who can lead the team post curry/butler
Why for Utah: add a 3/D wing and move Anderson to a contender
Why for Kuminga: freedom?

Add 2nd(s) as needed? should mathurin be worth more than kuminga/is indy owed value?

If Indiana still had Turner I would actually like the Kuminga fit. It really hinges on Huff being a starting caliber center. I won't say he is not, I just don't know given the small sample.

babyjax13 wrote:If Indiana still had Turner I would actually like the Kuminga fit. It really hinges on Huff being a starting caliber center. I won't say he is not, I just don't know given the small sample.

i think its a worthy gamble regardless to turn impending RFA mathurin into a cost controlled kuminga. Bunch of rebuilding teams will have capspace next year and Indy really shouldnt be matching potential offers for mathurin unless they plan on moving on from nembhard to free up starting spot for mathurin

kuminga also gives them more size if they play toppin at the 5

Godaddycurse wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:If Indiana still had Turner I would actually like the Kuminga fit. It really hinges on Huff being a starting caliber center. I won't say he is not, I just don't know given the small sample.

i think its a worthy gamble regardless to turn impending RFA mathurin into a cost controlled kuminga. Bunch of rebuilding teams will have capspace next year and Indy really shouldnt be matching potential offers for mathurin unless they plan on moving on from nembhard to free up starting spot for mathurin

kuminga also gives them more size if they play toppin at the 5

It also makes Mathurin flippable. Good idea : )

Can't see the warriors taking a smaller kuminga and going through the rfa process again next season.

Crazy-Canuck wrote:Can't see the warriors taking a smaller kuminga and going through the rfa process again next season.

difference is mathurin can shoot 3s and isnt in the doghouse. he can also play next to butler/draymond on court. I think he's a better alternative than whats on the table currently from kings/suns and >> Kuminga taking QO

Kuminga could make Walker available.

Godaddycurse wrote:

Crazy-Canuck wrote:Can't see the warriors taking a smaller kuminga and going through the rfa process again next season.

difference is mathurin can shoot 3s and isnt in the doghouse. he can also play next to butler/draymond on court. I think he's a better alternative than whats on the table currently from kings/suns and >> Kuminga taking QO

He'd be in the doghouse quickly. Kumingas lack of a 3 ball isnt why he's in the doghouse.

He lacks bbiq and doesn't have any team support skills which is exactly the same as mathurin. Its score and nothing else.

I believe the Pacers had interest in Kuminga pre Siakam. Not sure it’d make sense for them to do it now

NW wrote:I believe the Pacers had interest in Kuminga pre Siakam. Not sure it’d make sense for them to do it now

He'd have to be able to defend 3s

Obvious yes from Utah, but no idea how we're getting Moody for Anderson.

Godaddycurse wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:If Indiana still had Turner I would actually like the Kuminga fit. It really hinges on Huff being a starting caliber center. I won't say he is not, I just don't know given the small sample.

i think its a worthy gamble regardless to turn impending RFA mathurin into a cost controlled kuminga. Bunch of rebuilding teams will have capspace next year and Indy really shouldnt be matching potential offers for mathurin unless they plan on moving on from nembhard to free up starting spot for mathurin

kuminga also gives them more size if they play toppin at the 5

Nembhard wouldn’t be the person losing a starting spot. It would be Nesmith. As great as Nesmith played in the playoffs and “earned” a starting spot, he still is less integral than Nembhard is and was to success for this team.

What’s the rest of the deal though? Mathurin/Bradley can’t return Kuminga on that salary. I think Indy would have to include Huff or Sheppard to make it legal? And also, are we sure Kuminga would lock in a 4 year deal at that price? We’ve heard 3 year deals as that’s required for a sign and trade.

Mostly, I’m uncomfortable adding Kuminga in a year when Haliburton is out injured, and Kuminga has made it clear he wants to be “showcased” as a primary starter wherever he signs. That’s just not the type of play or focus that Indy embraces?

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:If Indiana still had Turner I would actually like the Kuminga fit. It really hinges on Huff being a starting caliber center. I won't say he is not, I just don't know given the small sample.

i think its a worthy gamble regardless to turn impending RFA mathurin into a cost controlled kuminga. Bunch of rebuilding teams will have capspace next year and Indy really shouldnt be matching potential offers for mathurin unless they plan on moving on from nembhard to free up starting spot for mathurin

kuminga also gives them more size if they play toppin at the 5

Nembhard wouldn’t be the person losing a starting spot. It would be Nesmith. As great as Nesmith played in the playoffs and “earned” a starting spot, he still is less integral than Nembhard is and was to success for this team.

What’s the rest of the deal though? Mathurin/Bradley can’t return Kuminga on that salary. I think Indy would have to include Huff or Sheppard to make it legal? And also, are we sure Kuminga would lock in a 4 year deal at that price? We’ve heard 3 year deals as that’s required for a sign and trade.

Mostly, I’m uncomfortable adding Kuminga in a year when Haliburton is out injured, and Kuminga has made it clear he wants to be “showcased” as a primary starter wherever he signs. That’s just not the type of play or focus that Indy embraces?

Mathurin + bradley = 12M, +7.5 = legal for 19.5 starting. 4 yr at 1.05 = 84M

The rumored offers from kings and suns were 4/90.. this isnt too far off i think

Why are we replacing a worse player in Kuminga for Nesmith in our starting lineup? Kuminga DOES NOT improve Indy. I would rather pay Nesmith 4/84, he just fits so nicely with Haliburton. As far as the OP goes I would rather just deal with Utah along the line of:
Mathurin for Filipowski and a lottery protected pick. That way we are addressing a spot of need, gain a mid draft pick and save a little money too.

I suppose I'd be ok with Mathurin if the rumored Monk/1st deal falls through, but I would really rather not go through this process again with another impending RFA who's going to be playing for his next contract.

Godaddycurse wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:
i think its a worthy gamble regardless to turn impending RFA mathurin into a cost controlled kuminga. Bunch of rebuilding teams will have capspace next year and Indy really shouldnt be matching potential offers for mathurin unless they plan on moving on from nembhard to free up starting spot for mathurin

kuminga also gives them more size if they play toppin at the 5

Nembhard wouldn’t be the person losing a starting spot. It would be Nesmith. As great as Nesmith played in the playoffs and “earned” a starting spot, he still is less integral than Nembhard is and was to success for this team.

What’s the rest of the deal though? Mathurin/Bradley can’t return Kuminga on that salary. I think Indy would have to include Huff or Sheppard to make it legal? And also, are we sure Kuminga would lock in a 4 year deal at that price? We’ve heard 3 year deals as that’s required for a sign and trade.

Mostly, I’m uncomfortable adding Kuminga in a year when Haliburton is out injured, and Kuminga has made it clear he wants to be “showcased” as a primary starter wherever he signs. That’s just not the type of play or focus that Indy embraces?

Mathurin + bradley = 12M, +7.5 = legal for 19.5 starting. 4 yr at 1.05 = 84M

The rumored offers from kings and suns were 4/90.. this isnt too far off i think

Yeah, the 7.5m range is a little wider (it grows at the same rate as the rate of cap increase), but still requires Kuminga to take decently less than he’s reportedly got offered from Sacramento (10%+) and for longer, which I just doubt he’s going to do. And when we factor in the cost it would really take, the salary matching doesn’t work.

I don't know, I feel like with Siakam, Toppin, Walker, Nesmith - we don't really need Kuminga. But this year specifically, with Haliburton out - we really do need Mathurin. He's probably going to start, and will have the opportunity to finally break out as our lead scorer.

We can make the hard decisions at the deadline or in the offseason if we feel like he isn't the long-term fit with the team. But moving him now for a guy who we really don't need? I don't see it.

Kuminga plays the same position as Siakam/Toppin.

Mathurin has an additional cheap year, is a better shooter, and has more time in the organization. I just have a hard time seeing them do something like this to help the Warriors.

Wizop wrote:Kuminga could make Walker available.

Why would that be? I don’t see Utah wanting Kuminga so what does Kessler have to do with a deal of Kuminga going to Indy?

Daddy 801 wrote:

Wizop wrote:Kuminga could make Walker available.

Why would that be? I don’t see Utah wanting Kuminga so what does Kessler have to do with a deal of Kuminga going to Indy?

He meant jarace walker i think