Kuminga sign and trade Bulls interest

[jnrjr79]

I can't wrap my head around the idea that that starting lineup (I'll ignore C for now which makes sense) has enough perimeter defense or 3 point shooting/spacing to be very good. Who is the primary POA defender? Coby? Kuminga? NO THANKS!

The primary things we need are more shooting and better defense. Kuminga doesn't provide either of those any better than guys like Okoro, Ayo, and Patrick IMO.

I'm actually chuckling now thinking about how a Giddey - Coby - Matas - Kuminga - Vooch lineup would look defensively. They might give up 150 points a game.

Substituting one guy is supposed to make all the difference? Huerter win a DPOY I don’t know about?

When you guys don’t like an idea, you’ll just say anything.

Did you think the Bulls were good defensively last season? Would it be smart to double down on the lack of defensive talent, while also taking away some three-point shooting?

[jnrjr79]

I’m not going to try to pretend I know enough about Kuminga to say he’s a black hole or won’t play D, but I’ve watched him play basketball. Originally with the thought that I wondered why, with all the great things I was hearing about what a freak athlete he was and how much GS loved him, he didn’t play more. But then the more I watched - admittedly not some deep catalogue of games here - the more I wondered about all those reports I had originally heard about he great and talented he was. Because I wasn’t seeing a guy like that very often.

I kinda just don’t really see it. Not even being specific, just in general. What am I missing?

And with Matas already on the roster, doesn’t make sense unless they are just taking Pat.

Isn't it the same as what was said about Giddey, with him not being played in the playoffs.

I didn't make that argument about Kuminga and I hate that argument when used with Giddey, so I'd say no. Playoffs are about matchups and you gotta do what you gotta do in a single series. And in Giddey's case it went down in OKC the way it did, not because of Giddey, but because Giddey's value-add role was replaced by a top 3 player in the world.

In Kuminga's case it could also be about matchups and just about his stage of development. Giddey, though the shot was raw, was a pretty advanced player coming in even as s rookie. Kuminga more of a project.

I'm of the opinion that unless that flat out not talented, or too old, we need to be asset building and provided that the costs is reasonable, we see if it works out.

I agree. I've advocated trading for him, but only in two scenarios. 1. Pat goes out, offsetting a considerable amount of Kuminga's salary while giving Kuminga an opportunity to boost his value; or 2. You give up nothing of significant value (no Coby, no firsts) thereby increasing the likelihood you can pump and flip him for better assets than you sent out.

No way GS does option #2 and hard to imagine #1 is real appealing to them either without sweetener I wouldn't offer.

There are reasons to trade for him, but to me they are narrow and come with some real risk. But I understand the asset accumulation theory and strategy and we should be on the hunt. Though, to do that here, for me it has to be a bit of a sweetheart deal for the Bulls. Honestly, and believe me I'm not counting on this, if Pat can simply just be a little bit better/consistent than he was earlier in his career I'd rather have him $18 million. But again, not something I'm relying on. I'd trade Pat for Kuminga over lunch this afternoon if I could.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but given the BYC rule, isn't trading Pat for Kuminga going to require the Bulls to sign Kuminga to a contract well over $30 million?

[ghostinthepost1]

27 pages for a player who probably won't ever play a game for the Bulls.

Ahhh summer.

[DuckIII]

Isn't it the same as what was said about Giddey, with him not being played in the playoffs.

I didn't make that argument about Kuminga and I hate that argument when used with Giddey, so I'd say no. Playoffs are about matchups and you gotta do what you gotta do in a single series. And in Giddey's case it went down in OKC the way it did, not because of Giddey, but because Giddey's value-add role was replaced by a top 3 player in the world.

In Kuminga's case it could also be about matchups and just about his stage of development. Giddey, though the shot was raw, was a pretty advanced player coming in even as s rookie. Kuminga more of a project.

I'm of the opinion that unless that flat out not talented, or too old, we need to be asset building and provided that the costs is reasonable, we see if it works out.

I agree. I've advocated trading for him, but only in two scenarios. 1. Pat goes out, offsetting a considerable amount of Kuminga's salary while giving Kuminga an opportunity to boost his value; or 2. You give up nothing of significant value (no Coby, no firsts) thereby increasing the likelihood you can pump and flip him for better assets than you sent out.

No way GS does option #2 and hard to imagine #1 is real appealing to them either without sweetener I wouldn't offer.

There are reasons to trade for him, but to me they are narrow and come with some real risk. But I understand the asset accumulation theory and strategy and we should be on the hunt. Though, to do that here, for me it has to be a bit of a sweetheart deal for the Bulls. Honestly, and believe me I'm not counting on this, if Pat can simply just be a little bit better/consistent than he was earlier in his career I'd rather have him $18 million. But again, not something I'm relying on. I'd trade Pat for Kuminga over lunch this afternoon if I could.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but given the BYC rule, isn't trading Pat for Kuminga going to require the Bulls to sign Kuminga to a contract well over $30 million?

I can't correct you because I don't know. If we have to pay him more than we have to pay Giddey to get him in the door, then hard pass. The only appealing reasons to acquire him are to get him cheaply and then hope you can then flip him, or someone worse than him, for more than you traded out to acquire him.

[Am2626]

You actually brought up a point I've been thinking of. I think most of us in here are evaluating Kuminga on stats rather actually having seen him a ton. Giddey looks like a different player on the Bulls, and even better after Zach left. Warriors are a ball movement offense with good to great distributors. Wouldn't think Kuminga would be used much as playmaker there. Same with defense. He played next to Draymond a lot I assume, not a traditional big center. They run a different defensive system. Don't think you need to be a great playmaker at PF anyway.

Stats tell a lot, but when players go to completely different teams, with different systems and responsibilities, You get a different player a lot. Sometimes worse, sometimes better but his fit and usage would be different here.

Just my two cents. Kerr said his problem was system and player fit basically. Not skill.

Certainly the upside scenario is that is true.

The downside scenario is that he's a low efficiency volume scorer that can't shoot, is below average defensively, has a horrible basketball IQ,and won't get better at any of those things merely by switching teams and systems. If he doesn't get better at several of these things (a lot better), then he's absolutely worthless as a basketball player. He might as well be THT at that point, THT was a vet min player.

For a 22 year old that came into the league at 18 aren’t these areas that he can improve and develop? Lonzo Ball significantly improved his 3 point shooting. Mental and basketball IQ can be improved with maturity and time but physical traits are things you either have or don’t have.

[burlydee]

I'm actually chuckling now thinking about how a Giddey - Coby - Matas - Kuminga - Vooch lineup would look defensively. They might give up 150 points a game.

Substituting one guy is supposed to make all the difference? Huerter win a DPOY I don’t know about?

When you guys don’t like an idea, you’ll just say anything.

Did you think the Bulls were good defensively last season? Would it be smart to double down on the lack of defensive talent, while also taking away some three-point shooting?

I think being a middle of the pack team, the Bulls need to acquire the most talent possible. People seem to make two contradictory arguments simultaneously - (1) the Bulls are miles away from a championship and (2) every move they make must immediately improve them on the court or it is a irreversible mistake. I think the Bulls won't have a good defense until Vuc is gone. I think if you can replace the 30 minutes a game you were giving to PWill, Terry and THT with Kuminga, that is a win. I think Kuminga is a good enough athlete and young enough that he can become solid on that end. I think he has upside that is rare for a young guy on the move. And from all accounts, this is actually one of the places he wants to be.

On the court, I think its actually a pretty good fit offensively between him, Vuc, Matas, Coby and Giddey. What a nightmare team to play small against. Team should be very good uptempo as well.

I think the most salient point against pursuing Kuminga was made by MikeDC concerning what it would do to the Bulls salary structure to have PWill and Kuminga. But as far as on the court, I think there is a lot of potential upside.

[dougthonus]

For a 22 year old that came into the league at 18 aren’t these areas that he can improve and develop? Lonzo Ball significantly improved his 3 point shooting. Mental and basketball IQ can be improved with maturity and time but physical traits are things you either have or don’t have.

Sure. They can be improved, but he's been playing in the league for four years with non stop team and personal training as a full time job. Prior that, he also likely spent a massive amount of time honing these abilities. Last season we saw a considerable drop off in his performance. Why assume at this point that he will continue progressing upwards? He's likely well beyond the 10,000 hour mark of mastery and has hit a regression, not just stagnation.

And while Kuminga is definitely an excellent athlete, like better than say Pat Williams, and definitely a plus athlete overall, he's not a unicorn athlete. For a non unicorn athlete that has this many problems after this much time, the odds of him getting beyond them to become a great player are extremely small. To be a good player, maybe not small, but probably no more than 50/50.

Again, last year had these traits:
Non playmaker
Below average defender
Very poor shooter
Overall low efficiency offense

What is the market for a player if he doesn't improve significantly in at least two of those traits? Clearly the odds of him being a good play maker or good shooter are extremely small at this point, so you're really just hoping he figures out how to apply his athletic traits to be a great defender and gets back to scoring efficiently. However, even so, you're left with a guy who is now worth the contract you sign him to (but likely not more) and is still a poor fit next to Giddey (assuming we bring him back).

[jnrjr79]

I didn't make that argument about Kuminga and I hate that argument when used with Giddey, so I'd say no. Playoffs are about matchups and you gotta do what you gotta do in a single series. And in Giddey's case it went down in OKC the way it did, not because of Giddey, but because Giddey's value-add role was replaced by a top 3 player in the world.

In Kuminga's case it could also be about matchups and just about his stage of development. Giddey, though the shot was raw, was a pretty advanced player coming in even as s rookie. Kuminga more of a project.



I agree. I've advocated trading for him, but only in two scenarios. 1. Pat goes out, offsetting a considerable amount of Kuminga's salary while giving Kuminga an opportunity to boost his value; or 2. You give up nothing of significant value (no Coby, no firsts) thereby increasing the likelihood you can pump and flip him for better assets than you sent out.

No way GS does option #2 and hard to imagine #1 is real appealing to them either without sweetener I wouldn't offer.

There are reasons to trade for him, but to me they are narrow and come with some real risk. But I understand the asset accumulation theory and strategy and we should be on the hunt. Though, to do that here, for me it has to be a bit of a sweetheart deal for the Bulls. Honestly, and believe me I'm not counting on this, if Pat can simply just be a little bit better/consistent than he was earlier in his career I'd rather have him $18 million. But again, not something I'm relying on. I'd trade Pat for Kuminga over lunch this afternoon if I could.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but given the BYC rule, isn't trading Pat for Kuminga going to require the Bulls to sign Kuminga to a contract well over $30 million?

I can't correct you because I don't know. If we have to pay him more than we have to pay Giddey to get him in the door, then hard pass. The only appealing reasons to acquire him are to get him cheaply and then hope you can then flip him, or someone worse than him, for more than you traded out to acquire him.

When has actually knowing anything been required to correct someone on this board?

To my understanding, the base-year compensation rule means that only 50% of Kuminga's new contract will count for salary-matching purposes with whoever trades for him. So that means the salary you'd send the Warriors in this trade would need to be ~50% of whatever you're comfortable signing Kuminga for. On this front, KC has noted in his reporting that despite the Dubs' prior interest, Vooch isn't a viable trade piece for Kuminga, because Kuminga's new salary would have to be roughly double Vooch's, so approaching $40 million or whatever. Pat doesn't make much less than Vooch, so it'd be the same scenario. This is why Ayo gets brought up as a potential salary in the deal - his is low enough that if you double it, it's still (arguably, for some) not resulting in Kuminga being too expensive.

[drosestruts]

Warriors often get a pass due to their success but outside of their core they haven't really excelled at developing young talent and their whole "Two timelines" strategy has been a pretty big failure.

Now it could just be bad drafting that none of Wiseman, Kuminga, or Moody are all that good. Wiggins and Barnes also went through a lot of inconsistency during their time in Golden State. Jordan Poole as well, though his situation is a little different.

Where this boards apetite for upside? If Kuminga was good at everything, he simply wouldn't be available.

He's young

I do think he's a plus athlete, he seems to elevate just so fast and he can get up and down the court incredibly quick

I do think he needs to get a lot better from a basketball iq standpoint on both side of the ball

He can be a black-hole on offense

He is inefficient (particularly so this past season)

I'm not sure anyone all that excited about the prospect of trading for the 2024-25 version of Kuminga

But can you get the guys who shot 37% from 3 in year 2 combined with the guy from years 1 and 4 with the very good free-throw rate, and year 3 had 140 dunks and shot 75% at the rim.

The more Kuminga played last year, the better he played. In games where he played 30+ minutes (only 6 games last year) he put up 26/8/2.5 on 49/35/67 shooting splits and a TS% of 57.5% and was a +4

Bulls were 2nd in pace last year, Warriors we're 17th. (post all-star break we were 1st, Warriors were 19th)

Our uptempo system fits Kuminga.

He is far from perfect - and I don't know what the asking price would be for him, it's weird and complicated with the sign and trade rules.

But I see a young player with still 4 years in a great amount of potential that could possibly be had for a low price.

Isn't this the type of move we should be making?

[Drgaliza2]

Sign kuminga! We have yuki! Then kai sotto! See the connection? Then we get jalen green!!

[dougthonus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but given the BYC rule, isn't trading Pat for Kuminga going to require the Bulls to sign Kuminga to a contract well over $30 million?

No.

You have to match salaries within 7.5M in the range he will sign if you are a non tax payer team.

If Kuminga costs 23M in year one, then he's 11.5M for the Warriors. We need to send at least 15.5M (23M-7.5M) and the Warriors can take up to 19M (11.5+7.5). So a straight up PWill / Kuminga swap would likely be legal depending on his starting salary.

[NecessaryEvil]

Read on Twitter

Suns and Kings being the most aggressive

GS not enormed by the trades they’ve heard so far

[BullsSD]

Shams just reported both Suns and Kings have sent "concrete" trade offers to the Warriors for JK.

[nomorezorro]

If Kuminga costs 23M in year one, then he's 11.5M for the Warriors. We need to send at least 15.5M (23M-7.5M) and the Warriors need to take up to 19M (11.5+7.5). So a straight up PWill / Kuminga swap would likely be legal depending on his starting salary.

debating if it would be worth attaching draft capital to move pat if you're bringing back kuminga on a contract that's 3 years/$65-75 million

i think i could be talked into it if you have a team option on the third year and the pick protection is basically the same as the portland pick...

[kodo]

Read on Twitter

Suns and Kings being the most aggressive

GS not enormed by the trades they’ve heard so far

The no Chicago interest seems back up reports that the interest is coming mostly from Kuminga's camp. Shams said his #1 priorities are minutes & shots, I could see how he believes he can come in here and be our #1 scorer if White leave next summer.

I think any "Kuminga to Chicago" hypothetical died with the Okoro trade, Jake Fischer said Kuminga's camp wanted to S&T Kuminga to Chicago for Lonzo.

[dougthonus]

Shams just reported both Suns and Kings have sent "concrete" trade offers to the Warriors for JK.

Kind of funny that it might be two of the worst front office's in the league interested, and ours, also being a bottom 4 front office, has also been rumored to be interested. Couldn't listen to the report, but did they say the Suns/Kings have gotten Kuminga to a salary number he'd take or they're just figuring out trade compensation with GS first?

[dougthonus]

FWIW, Kuminga's agent said they never had a 30M AAV offer on the table last year and would have taken it if they did.

[sco]

Shams just reported both Suns and Kings have sent "concrete" trade offers to the Warriors for JK.

Kind of funny that it might be two of the worst front office's in the league interested, and ours, also being a bottom 4 front office, has also been rumored to be interested. Couldn't listen to the report, but did they say the Suns/Kings have gotten Kuminga to a salary number he'd take or they're just figuring out trade compensation with GS first?

I wonder if either team has a decent asset offered in the deal or just financial relief?

[dougthonus]

I wonder if either team has a decent asset offered in the deal or just financial relief?

Suns apparently offered Grayson Allen. Not sure if anything else is in there, but probably not. Not sure if people would view Grayson Allen as a positive or negative contract at this point.

[nomorezorro]

i've seen the allen contract characterized as a negative asset around the media, which has been one of the biggest signs of how quickly the cap environment has changed.

a few million over the MLE seems like it's a pretty unremarkable price for a very good 3pt shooter who's shown the ability to be a solid enough defender and has been a good 6th-7th man type on competitive teams, but all it took was one kind of underwhelming year (on a total ****show team) and apparently he's totally undesirable