Warriors exploring S&T for Kuminga

[Old_Blue]

Giddey was also traded because OKC didn't think they would be able to re-sign him.

Giddey committing statutory rape with a 15 year old and then weaseling himself out of being charged might also have had something to do with him being traded.

[AirP.]

The way I look at this is the FO has zero incentive to move off their stance right now. The only value JK has left is if he is on a tradable contract and that means a 2nd year TO and waiving the NTC. If he's not amenable to those terms, then there's really nothing to talk about. Let him take the QO and sit him all year.

What incentive does JK have to move off his stance?

Exactly. He's got 7 weeks to make a decision. Do the Warriors really want to wait that long?

Why wouldn't they? The players that are waiting to sign are vets and enjoying their summers.

GS is currently 36,891,673 under the 2nd apron with only 9 players signed, so 5 players have to be signed which includes at least 2 non vet minimums of Kuminga (?) and Horford TPMLE (5,685,000) with probably a little more than the vet minimum going to PG2 since they have Bird rights on him.

So signing Horford on TPMLE leaves 31,206,673 under the 2nd apron. (10 roster players)
GP2 9 year vet min = 3,303,774, leaving 27,902,899 (11 roster players)
Melton 7 year vet min = $3,080,921 leaving 24,821,978 (12 players)

So now with 24,821,978 left under the 2nd apron, GS has to sign Kuminga and 1 more player...

For a 2 year contract to be worth 45 mil, meaning an 8% increase the 2nd year you're looking around just over 21.6 million for the first year leaving Golden State with ~3.2 million which can get 7 year vet and depending on the exact numbers GS offered Kuminga on the 2 year 45 mil contract, Brogdon (9 year vet) may or may not be able to be signed under the 2nd apron at $3,303,774.

So, there's a reason GS isn't offering Kuminga a couple million more and are standing pat on what they've offered him money wise, now adding in a 2nd year of possibly half guaranteed might be something they need to add in to get it done with Kuminga.

[Onus]

Giddey was also traded because OKC didn't think they would be able to re-sign him.

Giddey committing statutory rape with a 15 year old and then weaseling himself out of being charged might also have had something to do with him being traded.

Giddey was what 19 and the girl was 15 and they met at a club? That doesn't really seem like the worst situation an athlete has been put in.

[Onus]

What incentive does JK have to move off his stance?

Exactly. He's got 7 weeks to make a decision. Do the Warriors really want to wait that long?

Why wouldn't they? The players that are waiting to sign are vets and enjoying their summers.

GS is currently 36,891,673 under the 2nd apron with only 9 players signed, so 5 players have to be signed which includes at least 2 non vet minimums of Kuminga (?) and Horford TPMLE (5,685,000) with probably a little more than the vet minimum going to PG2 since they have Bird rights on him.

So signing Horford on TPMLE leaves 31,206,673 under the 2nd apron. (10 roster players)
GP2 9 year vet min = 3,303,774, leaving 27,902,899 (11 roster players)
Melton 7 year vet min = $3,080,921 leaving 24,821,978 (12 players)

So now with 24,821,978 left under the 2nd apron, GS has to sign Kuminga and 1 more player...

For a 2 year contract to be worth 45 mil, meaning an 8% increase the 2nd year you're looking around just over 21.6 million for the first year leaving Golden State with ~3.2 million which can get 7 year vet and depending on the exact numbers GS offered Kuminga on the 2 year 45 mil contract, Brogdon (9 year vet) may or may not be able to be signed under the 2nd apron at $3,303,774.

So, there's a reason GS isn't offering Kuminga a couple million more and are standing pat on what they've offered him money wise, now adding in a 2nd year of possibly half guaranteed might be something they need to add in to get it done with Kuminga.

The biggest thing we lose if JK signs the QO is the salary slot. Can we then turn around and offer GP2 a large 1 year contract as the salary slot and sign Horford, Melton, and Brogdon?

[Old_Blue]

Giddey was also traded because OKC didn't think they would be able to re-sign him.

Giddey committing statutory rape with a 15 year old and then weaseling himself out of being charged might also have had something to do with him being traded.

Giddey was what 19 and the girl was 15 and they met at a club? That doesn't really seem like the worst situation an athlete has been put in.

Sure, if you're comparing Giddey to Karl Malone - who once got a 13 year old pregnant. But, what the f@ck kind of measuring stick is that to go through life?

https://sports.yahoo.com/article/fu-g-full-time-patrick-144534771.html

[Onus]

Giddey committing statutory rape with a 15 year old and then weaseling himself out of being charged might also have had something to do with him being traded.

Giddey was what 19 and the girl was 15 and they met at a club? That doesn't really seem like the worst situation an athlete has been put in.

Sure, if you're comparing Giddey to Karl Malone - who once got a 13 year old pregnant. But, what the f@ck kind of measuring stick is that to go through life?

https://sports.yahoo.com/article/fu-g-full-time-patrick-144534771.html

It's like a graduating senior dating a sophmore. I'm sure that happens a lot. So when she turns 18 and he's 22 then you're all good with that type of relationship? 18 is such an arbitrary cut off. Like they could've went to high school together whatever there's a lot worst things to be up in arms about.

[Old_Blue]

Giddey was what 19 and the girl was 15 and they met at a club? That doesn't really seem like the worst situation an athlete has been put in.

Sure, if you're comparing Giddey to Karl Malone - who once got a 13 year old pregnant. But, what the f@ck kind of measuring stick is that to go through life?

https://sports.yahoo.com/article/fu-g-full-time-patrick-144534771.html

It's like a graduating senior dating a sophmore. I'm sure that happens a lot. So when she turns 18 and he's 22 then you're all good with that type of relationship? 18 is such an arbitrary cut off. Like they could've went to high school together whatever there's a lot worst things to be up in arms about.

I'm not having this conversation with you. You're starting to sound like a pervert.

[Onus]

Sure, if you're comparing Giddey to Karl Malone - who once got a 13 year old pregnant. But, what the f@ck kind of measuring stick is that to go through life?

https://sports.yahoo.com/article/fu-g-full-time-patrick-144534771.html

It's like a graduating senior dating a sophmore. I'm sure that happens a lot. So when she turns 18 and he's 22 then you're all good with that type of relationship? 18 is such an arbitrary cut off. Like they could've went to high school together whatever there's a lot worst things to be up in arms about.

I'm not having this conversation with you. You're starting to sound like a pervert.

Oh no high school seniors go to school with high school freshmen and sophomores. The outrage!!! Why do we allow this in America? Once you turn 18 you automatically are just different than everyone younger than 18. Once you turn 18 you have to go where it's 18+ so the real pedophiles can legally "date" you, but heaven forbid if you date down now you're a pedophile.

Leo Di Caprio is **** gross. Jay Z grooming Beyonce when she was 18 and he was 30 is **** gross. Those are the real pedophiles and groomers not when you could be in school with them.

[EvanZ]

Short answer: sometimes—but it depends heavily on the state and the facts, and it never makes the conduct “OK.” Statutory-rape (often called “unlawful sexual intercourse”) is usually a strict-liability crime: a minor cannot legally consent. That said, courts and statutes in some places recognize defenses or factors that can reduce charges or penalties.

Here are the big buckets you’ll see in U.S. law (with California examples because you’re in CA):
• Close-in-age (“Romeo & Juliet”) exceptions

Many states reduce or eliminate criminal liability when the parties are close in age (often 2–4 years). Details vary by state. CA does not have a blanket “Romeo & Juliet” exception in the statute, but it does scale penalties by age gap.  
• “Mistake of age” (reasonable belief the minor was 18+)

Some states allow this; others forbid it. California’s Supreme Court recognized a reasonable, good-faith mistake-of-age defense (People v. Hernandez, 1964). Modern jury instructions reflect that the prosecution must disprove a reasonable, actual belief the other person was 18+. Availability and limits vary by jurisdiction.  
• Marriage/spousal exception

Many statutes (including California’s §261.5) define the offense as intercourse with someone who is not your spouse and under the age of consent. Separate family-law rules sometimes still allow marriage under 18 with court approval and parental consent—which can make the spousal exception relevant in a few cases. (This is controversial policy-wise, but it’s the law in CA.)  
• Sentencing mitigation (after guilt is established)

Judges/prosecutors often consider: small age gap; a prior dating relationship; no coercion/force; lack of criminal record; documented deception about age; acceptance of responsibility; and rehabilitation prospects. These don’t excuse the crime but can affect charging (misdemeanor vs. felony where the statute allows) and the sentence.
• Sex-offender registration (a major consequence)

Whether registration is mandatory can turn on the statute and the facts. In California, statutory rape under §261.5 is not automatically a registrable offense, but a judge may order registration in appropriate cases under Penal Code §290.006 (discretionary registration). A 2024 bill (SB 1128) that would have made registration mandatory in certain §261.5 cases did not pass.   
• Baseline rule to remember

In California, age of consent is 18; penalties escalate with larger age gaps (e.g., misdemeanor when ≤3-year gap; “wobbler” or higher when the gap is larger; harsher still if the minor is under 16 and the adult is 21+). Laws are gender-neutral. 

If you’re asking about a real situation, the precise state, ages, and facts matter enormously. This is general information, not legal advice—talk to a licensed criminal-defense attorney in your state for guidance specific to the case.

[wco81]

Giddey was also traded because OKC didn't think they would be able to re-sign him.

Giddey committing statutory rape with a 15 year old and then weaseling himself out of being charged might also have had something to do with him being traded.

He wasn't playing well at OKC. He didn't shoot well nor play defense.

He had his best stretch with the Bulls or else it would be questionable that they'd give him a 8-figure contract.

[Twinkie defense]

Player option vs team option really doesn’t seem like jk is willing to bet on himself. It really shouldn’t matter in the end to him if hes betting on himself. He obviously is trying to secure that 2nd year.

I agree, but in some fantasy scenario I guess Kuminga could be thinking, when people see me play this season they're gonna want to give me a max contract, why should I have to play for $23 mil?

But then that doesn't explain why he was ok signing for Phoenix and Sacramento for less

Jk’s starting salary next year would have to start at 36M for him to break even playing on the qo.

And in order to get that kind of money he would have to sign with a team with enough outright cap space to sign him.

[statsman]

I agree, but in some fantasy scenario I guess Kuminga could be thinking, when people see me play this season they're gonna want to give me a max contract, why should I have to play for $23 mil?

But then that doesn't explain why he was ok signing for Phoenix and Sacramento for less

Jk’s starting salary next year would have to start at 36M for him to break even playing on the qo.

And in order to get that kind of money he would have to sign with a team with enough outright cap space to sign him.

Or come back to the Warriors on another contract, who would still own his full Bird rights!

Oddly enough, if Kuminga played for the QO and was stuck on the Warriors for the entire season, a S&T would remain a possibility next summer if most/all of the teams had used up their cap space by the time July 1, 2026 rolled around. And maybe those teams with some cap space went in another direction.

[Twinkie defense]

I’m truly curious at what happened that the front office is completely done with jk, that they’re willing to bring him back completely miserable trying to play for another contract in 26.

I'm curious, with Lacob being enamored with Kuminga starting on day 1, why the Warriors didn't offer a 3+ year contract this offseason. I get Kerr not wanting him there. Maybe MDJ and some of the stars too, despite what has been said publicly. But Lacob? I really wonder what he is thinking now.

They got burned with Jordan Poole and were always going to be very careful with Kuminga, especially as he's yet to prove himself.

[Twinkie defense]

Giddey was also traded because OKC didn't think they would be able to re-sign him.

Giddey committing statutory rape with a 15 year old and then weaseling himself out of being charged might also have had something to do with him being traded.

Giddey was what 19 and the girl was 15 and they met at a club? That doesn't really seem like the worst situation an athlete has been put in.

Giddey must've been 20 or 21? And the girl was a high school junior, so 17?

[Twinkie defense]

Short answer: sometimes—but it depends heavily on the state and the facts, and it never makes the conduct “OK.” Statutory-rape (often called “unlawful sexual intercourse”) is usually a strict-liability crime: a minor cannot legally consent. That said, courts and statutes in some places recognize defenses or factors that can reduce charges or penalties.

Here are the big buckets you’ll see in U.S. law (with California examples because you’re in CA):
• Close-in-age (“Romeo & Juliet”) exceptions

Many states reduce or eliminate criminal liability when the parties are close in age (often 2–4 years). Details vary by state. CA does not have a blanket “Romeo & Juliet” exception in the statute, but it does scale penalties by age gap.  
• “Mistake of age” (reasonable belief the minor was 18+)

Some states allow this; others forbid it. California’s Supreme Court recognized a reasonable, good-faith mistake-of-age defense (People v. Hernandez, 1964). Modern jury instructions reflect that the prosecution must disprove a reasonable, actual belief the other person was 18+. Availability and limits vary by jurisdiction.  
• Marriage/spousal exception

Many statutes (including California’s §261.5) define the offense as intercourse with someone who is not your spouse and under the age of consent. Separate family-law rules sometimes still allow marriage under 18 with court approval and parental consent—which can make the spousal exception relevant in a few cases. (This is controversial policy-wise, but it’s the law in CA.)  
• Sentencing mitigation (after guilt is established)

Judges/prosecutors often consider: small age gap; a prior dating relationship; no coercion/force; lack of criminal record; documented deception about age; acceptance of responsibility; and rehabilitation prospects. These don’t excuse the crime but can affect charging (misdemeanor vs. felony where the statute allows) and the sentence.
• Sex-offender registration (a major consequence)

Whether registration is mandatory can turn on the statute and the facts. In California, statutory rape under §261.5 is not automatically a registrable offense, but a judge may order registration in appropriate cases under Penal Code §290.006 (discretionary registration). A 2024 bill (SB 1128) that would have made registration mandatory in certain §261.5 cases did not pass.   
• Baseline rule to remember

In California, age of consent is 18; penalties escalate with larger age gaps (e.g., misdemeanor when ≤3-year gap; “wobbler” or higher when the gap is larger; harsher still if the minor is under 16 and the adult is 21+). Laws are gender-neutral. 

If you’re asking about a real situation, the precise state, ages, and facts matter enormously. This is general information, not legal advice—talk to a licensed criminal-defense attorney in your state for guidance specific to the case.

Interestingly, the age of consent in Australia is 16 or 17 years old, depending on the state or territory. And similarly, in the US not all states set the age of consent at 18 - in fact in many states it's lower, including in Nevada (of course) at 16, and it's 17 in quite a few states.

Because they were both young, and by all accounts it was a consensual relationship (and CA police "were unable to corroborate any criminal activity" by Giddey and would not pursue charges), I don't think this is about being a pedo or a sex predator.

High school kids I think are still having sex these days - but not like we were back in the days!

Instead, it's a case of poor judgement - if you're a working professional it shows bad judgement to get in an intimate relationship with a high school girl, even if you're pretty close in age.

[HiRez]

Short answer: sometimes—but it depends heavily on the state and the facts, and it never makes the conduct “OK.” Statutory-rape (often called “unlawful sexual intercourse”) is usually a strict-liability crime: a minor cannot legally consent. That said, courts and statutes in some places recognize defenses or factors that can reduce charges or penalties.

Here are the big buckets you’ll see in U.S. law (with California examples because you’re in CA):
• Close-in-age (“Romeo & Juliet”) exceptions

Many states reduce or eliminate criminal liability when the parties are close in age (often 2–4 years). Details vary by state. CA does not have a blanket “Romeo & Juliet” exception in the statute, but it does scale penalties by age gap.  
• “Mistake of age” (reasonable belief the minor was 18+)

Some states allow this; others forbid it. California’s Supreme Court recognized a reasonable, good-faith mistake-of-age defense (People v. Hernandez, 1964). Modern jury instructions reflect that the prosecution must disprove a reasonable, actual belief the other person was 18+. Availability and limits vary by jurisdiction.  
• Marriage/spousal exception

Many statutes (including California’s §261.5) define the offense as intercourse with someone who is not your spouse and under the age of consent. Separate family-law rules sometimes still allow marriage under 18 with court approval and parental consent—which can make the spousal exception relevant in a few cases. (This is controversial policy-wise, but it’s the law in CA.)  
• Sentencing mitigation (after guilt is established)

Judges/prosecutors often consider: small age gap; a prior dating relationship; no coercion/force; lack of criminal record; documented deception about age; acceptance of responsibility; and rehabilitation prospects. These don’t excuse the crime but can affect charging (misdemeanor vs. felony where the statute allows) and the sentence.
• Sex-offender registration (a major consequence)

Whether registration is mandatory can turn on the statute and the facts. In California, statutory rape under §261.5 is not automatically a registrable offense, but a judge may order registration in appropriate cases under Penal Code §290.006 (discretionary registration). A 2024 bill (SB 1128) that would have made registration mandatory in certain §261.5 cases did not pass.   
• Baseline rule to remember

In California, age of consent is 18; penalties escalate with larger age gaps (e.g., misdemeanor when ≤3-year gap; “wobbler” or higher when the gap is larger; harsher still if the minor is under 16 and the adult is 21+). Laws are gender-neutral. 

If you’re asking about a real situation, the precise state, ages, and facts matter enormously. This is general information, not legal advice—talk to a licensed criminal-defense attorney in your state for guidance specific to the case.

Interestingly, the age of consent in Australia is 16 or 17 years old, depending on the state or territory. And similarly, in the US not all states set the age of consent at 18 - in fact in many states it's lower, including in Nevada (of course) at 16, and it's 17 in quite a few states.

Because they were both young, and by all accounts it was a consensual relationship (and CA police "were unable to corroborate any criminal activity" by Giddey and would not pursue charges), I don't think this is about being a pedo or a sex predator.

High school kids I think are still having sex these days - but not like we were back in the days!

Instead, it's a case of poor judgement - if you're a working professional it shows bad judgement to get in an intimate relationship with a high school girl, even if you're pretty close in age.

And supposedly she said she was older in the club (no idea what she looks like but it's not at all uncommon for a 15-year-old to look 18 or even older)...I don't know if she told him that directly, or just to people around in general. I mean what is he supposed to do, check her ID? That's an automatic ****-blocker. I don't believe anyone who says yes, of course you would do that. I mean she's not even claiming she was assaulted or raped is she? To me this is more a case of bad parenting and lax club screening (both all too common unfortunately).

Allegations Against OKC Thunder’s Josh Giddey Raise Intrigue Regarding Age of Consent

Let's get this deal done, Lacob and MDJ!

[whatisacenter]

JK taking the QO really isn't even that bad. The biggest thing is that we lose the salary slot, but JK's value is 2 2nds so him taking the QO just means we lose out on 2 2nds whatever. This is why the warriors won't be conceding anything to JK. They already are paying JK the highest 1st year salary.

JK taking the QO isn't that bad?

I'm not even one of the fans who think this collection of geezers has a shot at competing for a title but bringing back JK on the QO would be the worst case scenario for this FO. They would have been better off rescinding the QO, not having $7.9M in dead cap space, and using that money elsewhere.

And if JK and the team don't come together on a short term deal and he plays on the QO then team won't have a medium sized salary to trade to improve the team next season.

Sure, someone might say the worst case scenario would be extending JK on a long term contract, but not even JK himself wants that.

Also, I don't ever take reports in the media as gospel, but saying JK's is value is 2 seconds is not even accurate. The reports were that the Kings would offer a FRP and a player who was drafted with the 13th pick(not that I like DC). Not even to mention that the return in a S&T was never going to be equal value and that if he was already under contract his return would probably be greater than that.

People are also bringing up how much $ JK could lose if he doesn't accept the Warriors current offer, and plays on the QO, but for all we know JK might feel like getting drafted by GS has already cost him a long term extension he very likely would have received by now if he had been drafted by 25 or so other organizations and losing another $14M to control his own future isn't as big a deal as some fans would like to think it is.

Say JK takes the Warriors current offer, Kerr gives him the same treatment next season, the Warriors still don't find a trade they like at the next deadline and then the team picks up the second year of his contract and he has to come back again as an expiring contract....that sounds like it would be a nightmare for him.

[Onus]

JK taking the QO isn't that bad?

And if JK and the team don't come together on a short term deal and he plays on the QO then team won't have a medium sized salary to trade to improve the team next season.

We can just sign GP2 to a larger expiring contract in that case and still sign Horford, Melton, Brogdon. Yea that's the only real down side to jk taking the qo.

Also, I don't ever take reports in the media as gospel, but saying JK's is value is 2 seconds is not even accurate. The reports were that the Kings would offer a FRP and a player who was drafted with the 13th pick(not that I like DC). Not even to mention that the return in a S&T was never going to be equal value and that if he was already under contract his return would probably be greater than that.

DC + Saric + 2 2nds. The 1st wasn't offered until after Saric was no longer tradeable which meant the upgraded 1st was to take on Monk's contract and we don't even know if DC was included in that offer.

People are also bringing up how much $ JK could lose if he doesn't accept the Warriors current offer, and plays on the QO, but for all we know JK might feel like getting drafted by GS has already cost him a long term extension he very likely would have received by now if he had been drafted by 25 or so other organizations and losing another $14M to control his own future isn't as big a deal as some fans would like to think it is.

Say JK takes the Warriors current offer, Kerr gives him the same treatment next season, the Warriors still don't find a trade they like at the next deadline and then the team picks up the second year of his contract and he has to come back again as an expiring contract....that sounds like it would be a nightmare for him.

Then take the qo. Again the only thing the Warriors miss out on is a medium sized expiring contract and 2 2nds. Oh no .. the value we'll be losing if he signs the qo. Such a valuable asset. Since he canvassed the entire league we know his value and it's not a lot. Which is why we aren't guaranteeing the 2nd year. He's more valuable as an expiring contract than on a long term deal. We know that, he knows that which is why the only thing we're negotiating on is his the 2nd year option. That's why everyone should know he's bluffing saying the qo is attractive to him but he won't actually sign it. That 2nd year means a ton more to him while hamstringing us in a future trade, which is why we won't budge.

[whatisacenter]

JK taking the QO isn't that bad?

And if JK and the team don't come together on a short term deal and he plays on the QO then team won't have a medium sized salary to trade to improve the team next season.

We can just sign GP2 to a larger expiring contract in that case and still sign Horford, Melton, Brogdon. Yea that's the only real down side to jk taking the qo.

Also, I don't ever take reports in the media as gospel, but saying JK's is value is 2 seconds is not even accurate. The reports were that the Kings would offer a FRP and a player who was drafted with the 13th pick(not that I like DC). Not even to mention that the return in a S&T was never going to be equal value and that if he was already under contract his return would probably be greater than that.

DC + Saric + 2 2nds. The 1st wasn't offered until after Saric was no longer tradeable which meant the upgraded 1st was to take on Monk's contract and we don't even know if DC was included in that offer.

People are also bringing up how much $ JK could lose if he doesn't accept the Warriors current offer, and plays on the QO, but for all we know JK might feel like getting drafted by GS has already cost him a long term extension he very likely would have received by now if he had been drafted by 25 or so other organizations and losing another $14M to control his own future isn't as big a deal as some fans would like to think it is.

Say JK takes the Warriors current offer, Kerr gives him the same treatment next season, the Warriors still don't find a trade they like at the next deadline and then the team picks up the second year of his contract and he has to come back again as an expiring contract....that sounds like it would be a nightmare for him.

Then take the qo. Again the only thing the Warriors miss out on is a medium sized expiring contract and 2 2nds. Oh no .. the value we'll be losing if he signs the qo. Such a valuable asset. Since he canvassed the entire league we know his value and it's not a lot. Which is why we aren't guaranteeing the 2nd year. He's more valuable as an expiring contract than on a long term deal. We know that, he knows that which is why the only thing we're negotiating on is his the 2nd year option. That's why everyone should know he's bluffing saying the qo is attractive to him but he won't actually sign it. That 2nd year means a ton more to him while hamstringing us in a future trade, which is why we won't budge.

Do you think he will end up taking the current offer?

I don’t.

[Dubs 707]

It's like a graduating senior dating a sophmore. I'm sure that happens a lot. So when she turns 18 and he's 22 then you're all good with that type of relationship? 18 is such an arbitrary cut off. Like they could've went to high school together whatever there's a lot worst things to be up in arms about.

I'm not having this conversation with you. You're starting to sound like a pervert.

Oh no high school seniors go to school with high school freshmen and sophomores. The outrage!!! Why do we allow this in America? Once you turn 18 you automatically are just different than everyone younger than 18. Once you turn 18 you have to go where it's 18+ so the real pedophiles can legally "date" you, but heaven forbid if you date down now you're a pedophile.

Leo Di Caprio is **** gross. Jay Z grooming Beyonce when she was 18 and he was 30 is **** gross. Those are the real pedophiles and groomers not when you could be in school with them.

Woow he doubled down lol. You might be on the list brev...