vvoland wrote:If the 'ceiling' of this scenario is moving JK as an expiring, I don't find that to be a rational take. Yes, JK can get hurt but, even at that point, you'd want the 2nd year so he can recover while you still have his rights. No one would trade for an injured JK on a 1 year deal w/ no bird rights except as JUST as matching/expiring salary.
If I'm the Warriors I'm thinking 1) we can't screw up our cap, we're already operating under very tight restrictions and we have to be able to get Steph Curry some help. And 2) we already don't like Kuminga. It's a real risk having him on the roster (see: 1). So how can we utilize Kuminga's contract to get better, while minimizing the downside of having him on the team beyond the trade deadline?
And in that line of thinking, not budging on the team option for year two makes a lot of sense. What if he's garbage and no one wants to trade for him? They gotta send out assets just to get his contract off the books? If he's garbage but on an expiring contract you can still move him and make the team better. Or worst case, just make his contract disappear.
Now best case scenario he plays really well and the Warriors are able to trade him for real value. But which of these scenarios do you think is more likely? Assuming Kuminga doesn't sign the QO, I think you've got a 90-something percent chance of the former scenario playing out - he's basically a salary slot, that, depending on the player you get back, you might need to attach some other assets to. And you can just look at what teams are offering to see this is the current value proposition. And a less than 10% chance that he increases his value so much that there is a bidding war to acquire him.
