Warriors exploring S&T for Kuminga

[Onus]

He is. That said, I think they're very similar offensive players - elite scorers in bench roles with little creation upside. That said, I think JK is far better as an on-ball defender and both are pretty bad off-ball. In tandem, they are pretty similar players with the biggest difference being age and Naz's 3 year history of declining TS AND declining USG. One got a 'value' contract at 4/100 and the other is 'crazy' for wanting 25/yr on a SHORTER deal.

Similar in a general sense sure. Naz Reid creates space for others from the 3 point line, which teams are looking for. JK does not. So yes they finish plays, but how they finish plays are completely different. JK finishes in the paint. Naz finishes from 3. Their offensive games are nothing alike.

I don't disagree with that. I also agree that 3pt shooting is more valuable in today's NBA than rim finishing. But JK is also a far better defender, at least, on ball, so I don't think the shooting discrepancy is the only difference. Again, I'm not saying they're the same player, but are comparable, and, probably, will get paid similar amounts over their next contract. My only point was about Naz's contract being called 'good value' and while I'm seeing half the board think that $25M/yr for JK is asinine. That's before you get to age, which, for most teams, is a big plus.

Who called Naz good value? I wouldn't want to pay him that. He's like a slightly better Post just because he has more experience than Post.

[vvoland]

How old are you?

How about I'll answer this question after you tell me why JK and Tyson Chandler belong in the same conversation about TS and USG? How does a center with a usage near 10 compare to a forward with a usage in the mid 20s?

My dad just turned 82. Are you old enough to be my father? I'm still waiting for an answer. Son.

Based on the way you write and your general level of discourse, I can only guess he had you in his late 60s?

[EvanZ]

Good 'ol (but not actually old) vvoland created a red herring and now we're all paying for it with his crap posts.

[EvanZ]

How about I'll answer this question after you tell me why JK and Tyson Chandler belong in the same conversation about TS and USG? How does a center with a usage near 10 compare to a forward with a usage in the mid 20s?

My dad just turned 82. Are you old enough to be my father? I'm still waiting for an answer. Son.

Based on the way you write and your general level of discourse, I can only guess he had you in his late 60s?

Looks like I won that debate eh. Guessing you're in your early 20s. Tell me I'm wrong son.

[vvoland]

Similar in a general sense sure. Naz Reid creates space for others from the 3 point line, which teams are looking for. JK does not. So yes they finish plays, but how they finish plays are completely different. JK finishes in the paint. Naz finishes from 3. Their offensive games are nothing alike.

I don't disagree with that. I also agree that 3pt shooting is more valuable in today's NBA than rim finishing. But JK is also a far better defender, at least, on ball, so I don't think the shooting discrepancy is the only difference. Again, I'm not saying they're the same player, but are comparable, and, probably, will get paid similar amounts over their next contract. My only point was about Naz's contract being called 'good value' and while I'm seeing half the board think that $25M/yr for JK is asinine. That's before you get to age, which, for most teams, is a big plus.

Who called Naz good value? I wouldn't want to pay him that. He's like a slightly better Post just because he has more experience than Post.

Sure, but we're not talking about your opinion. We're talking about what the league thinks. Most people I heard speak on that deal (Lowe, Simmons, Athletic crew) seem to think it's an ok deal, some think it's 'good value', but I haven't heard anyone say it was an overpay, or anything like that.

[vvoland]

My dad just turned 82. Are you old enough to be my father? I'm still waiting for an answer. Son.

Based on the way you write and your general level of discourse, I can only guess he had you in his late 60s?

Looks like I won that debate eh. Guessing you're in your early 20s. Tell me I'm wrong son.

wait, so i'm supposed to believe your father is 82? just because you said it? But you also said things that were quickly proven to be incorrect so is this something else?

[EvanZ]

Based on the way you write and your general level of discourse, I can only guess he had you in his late 60s?

Looks like I won that debate eh. Guessing you're in your early 20s. Tell me I'm wrong son.

wait, so i'm supposed to believe your father is 82? just because you said it? But you also said things that were quickly proven to be incorrect so is this something else?

Bro, notice how only one of us has actually said anything. You are hiding your age because I nailed it. son

[Old_Blue]

wait, so i'm supposed to believe your father is 82? just because you said it? But you also said things that were quickly proven to be incorrect so is this something else?

vvoland, you're going off the rails again. Is there anything we can do to turn that frown upside down, little buckaroo?

[vvoland]

Looks like I won that debate eh. Guessing you're in your early 20s. Tell me I'm wrong son.

wait, so i'm supposed to believe your father is 82? just because you said it? But you also said things that were quickly proven to be incorrect so is this something else?

Bro, notice how only one of us has actually said anything. You are hiding your age because I nailed it. son

You say 'things' all the time. Most of them are 'nothings'. I'm 43 and I really hope you were joking about your father being in his 80s. If this is how you talk to people and you're pushing 60, jesus. h. f'ing. christ.

[vvoland]

wait, so i'm supposed to believe your father is 82? just because you said it? But you also said things that were quickly proven to be incorrect so is this something else?

vvoland, you're going off the rails again. Is there anything we can do to turn that frown upside down, little buckaroo?

Where'd you come from, blue?

[vvoland]

Looks like I won that debate eh. Guessing you're in your early 20s. Tell me I'm wrong son.

wait, so i'm supposed to believe your father is 82? just because you said it? But you also said things that were quickly proven to be incorrect so is this something else?

Bro, notice how only one of us has actually said anything. You are hiding your age because I nailed it. son

Still refusing to explain what biedrins and chandler have to do with JK. guess that's because you were talking out of an orifice that wasn't your mouth.

[EvanZ]

wait, so i'm supposed to believe your father is 82? just because you said it? But you also said things that were quickly proven to be incorrect so is this something else?

Bro, notice how only one of us has actually said anything. You are hiding your age because I nailed it. son

You say 'things' all the time. Most of them are 'nothings'. I'm 43 and I really hope you were joking about your father being in his 80s. If this is how you talk to people and you're pushing 60, jesus. h. f'ing. christ.

Ok, you're 43. I'm 49. So you remember Monta Ellis. You should remember how players get worse with higher usage. Whereas Steph was able to have both high usage and maintain high efficiency. That's why he's a superstar future HOFer.

I'm going to teach you something today because it seems like you never got this lesson. It's called the usage-efficiency tradeoff. Myself and others have written ad nauseum about it over the past decade or more. You can' really refute it. We see with our own eyes and the data shows that Kuminga can't sustain higher efficiency with higher usage.

At this point, you seem to be out on a ledge by yourself with the belief that he can do something that nobody else thinks he can. If you want to die on that hill so be it.

[ChuckDurn]

Trying to get this back on-track…..

For the capologists on here…. Let’s say Chicago wants to sign Kuminga for $25M, and agrees to a structure that would bring back both Smith ($9M) and Dosunmu ($7.5M) to the Warriors. How much more salary would the Warriors have to send out to make the deal work, (due to Kuminga’s BYC situation) and would it hard cap us in a way that would prevent us from presumably signing Horford for the TPMLE and Melton for a minimum deal?

I’d have no real problem sending out TJD and Santos (total of just under $4.5M between them) to make that happen, if other things work…..

[EvanZ]

Trying to get this back on-track…..

For the capologists on here…. Let’s say Chicago wants to sign Kuminga for $25M, and agrees to a structure that would bring back both Smith ($9M) and Dosunmu ($7.5M) to the Warriors. How much more salary would the Warriors have to send out to make the deal work, and would it hard cap us in a way that would prevent us from presumably signing Horford for the TPMLE and Melton for a minimum deal?

I’d have no real problem sending out TJD and Santos (total of just under $4.5M between them) to make that happen, if other things work…..

His salary would count for $12.5M for us. So we'd have to send back ~$4M to equal those two.

[vvoland]

Bro, notice how only one of us has actually said anything. You are hiding your age because I nailed it. son

You say 'things' all the time. Most of them are 'nothings'. I'm 43 and I really hope you were joking about your father being in his 80s. If this is how you talk to people and you're pushing 60, jesus. h. f'ing. christ.

Ok, you're 43. I'm 49. So you remember Monta Ellis. You should remember how players get worse with higher usage. Whereas Steph was able to have both high usage and maintain high efficiency. That's why he's a superstar future HOFer.

I'm going to teach you something today because it seems like you never got this lesson. It's called the usage-efficiency tradeoff. Myself and others have written ad nauseum about it over the past decade or more. You can' really refute it. We see with our own eyes and the data shows that Kuminga can't sustain higher efficiency with higher usage.

At this point, you seem to be out on a ledge by yourself with the belief that he can do something that nobody else thinks he can. If you want to die on that hill so be it.

That's a lot of words to NOT explain why you brought up chandler and biedrins in your comp to JK. Also why you can't explain why JK's TS stayed consistent while his usage varied.

I'm amazed how you think you're some gatekeeper to these numbers and literacy costs money for the rest of us. You, literally, refuse to engage in the very basic question of, if it's a function of usage, why did his TS not change as his usage went from 19 to 24. Just the basic numbers anyone with a 3rd grade reading level can see on basketball-reference. Why you think those numbers suggest something different is beyond me.

[Old_Blue]

wait, so i'm supposed to believe your father is 82? just because you said it? But you also said things that were quickly proven to be incorrect so is this something else?

Bro, notice how only one of us has actually said anything. You are hiding your age because I nailed it. son

Still refusing to explain what biedrins and chandler have to do with JK. guess that's because you were talking out of an orifice that wasn't your mouth.

vvoland, calm down. You're acting out of control.

[vvoland]

Trying to get this back on-track…..

For the capologists on here…. Let’s say Chicago wants to sign Kuminga for $25M, and agrees to a structure that would bring back both Smith ($9M) and Dosunmu ($7.5M) to the Warriors. How much more salary would the Warriors have to send out to make the deal work, (due to Kuminga’s BYC situation) and would it hard cap us in a way that would prevent us from presumably signing Horford for the TPMLE and Melton for a minimum deal?

I’d have no real problem sending out TJD and Santos (total of just under $4.5M between them) to make that happen, if other things work…..

Any deal before the trade deadline would have us bringing back 50% of his salary in a trade. If he signs for 25, that's 12.5. If it's 30, it's 15M. And so on. It's why there's an argument that a contract that's too small isn't good for the dubs as it really limits what they can bring back in a trade. If he does sign for 15M, like some one here would like, we can only get 7.5M back in a S&T or the full amount at the deadline.

[statsman]

Trying to get this back on-track…..

For the capologists on here…. Let’s say Chicago wants to sign Kuminga for $25M, and agrees to a structure that would bring back both Smith ($9M) and Dosunmu ($7.5M) to the Warriors. How much more salary would the Warriors have to send out to make the deal work, and would it hard cap us in a way that would prevent us from presumably signing Horford for the TPMLE and Melton for a minimum deal?

I’d have no real problem sending out TJD and Santos (total of just under $4.5M between them) to make that happen, if other things work…..

Thank you get trying to get this back on-track, but I suspect it will get pushed down.

The BYC value for Kuminga would be half of $25M (assuming this is the starting salary), or $12.5M. If that $25M is the average per year, then it depends on where the contract would start (with raises - ascending, with decreases - descending, flat per year).

So, the Warriors would need to send out at least $16,518,518 in order to avoid being hard capped at the 1st apron, assuming a $12.5M BYC value. The Warriors would need to add at least $4,018,518.

[vvoland]

Bro, notice how only one of us has actually said anything. You are hiding your age because I nailed it. son

Still refusing to explain what biedrins and chandler have to do with JK. guess that's because you were talking out of an orifice that wasn't your mouth.

vvoland, calm down. You're acting out of control.

I just can't contain myself! Somebody stop me!

[EvanZ]

You say 'things' all the time. Most of them are 'nothings'. I'm 43 and I really hope you were joking about your father being in his 80s. If this is how you talk to people and you're pushing 60, jesus. h. f'ing. christ.

Ok, you're 43. I'm 49. So you remember Monta Ellis. You should remember how players get worse with higher usage. Whereas Steph was able to have both high usage and maintain high efficiency. That's why he's a superstar future HOFer.

I'm going to teach you something today because it seems like you never got this lesson. It's called the usage-efficiency tradeoff. Myself and others have written ad nauseum about it over the past decade or more. You can' really refute it. We see with our own eyes and the data shows that Kuminga can't sustain higher efficiency with higher usage.

At this point, you seem to be out on a ledge by yourself with the belief that he can do something that nobody else thinks he can. If you want to die on that hill so be it.

That's a lot of words to NOT explain why you brought up chandler and biedrins in your comp to JK. Also why you can't explain why JK's TS stayed consistent while his usage varied.

I'm amazed how you think you're some gatekeeper to these numbers and literacy costs money for the rest of us. You, literally, refuse to engage in the very basic question of, if it's a function of usage, why did his TS not change as his usage went from 19 to 24. Just the basic numbers anyone with a 3rd grade reading level can see on basketball-reference. Why you think those numbers suggest something different is beyond me.

Look up the word literally. I’m not sure you know what it means. I’ve literally explained enough about usage-efficiency tradeoff for any reasonable person of moderate intelligence to understand why Biedrns, Chandler, Monta, Steph and Kuminga are relevant to the argument. Maybe you’re not reasonable or of at least moderate intelligence. I don’t know. That’s on you.