SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Klay's defense is great but his career playoffs have been disappointing and he isn't versatile on offense. If he was going to be our 4th best player, I'd be fine with it. I don't think we'd have anything GSW would want anyway.

he'd be our best player by a country mile if we added added him

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Klay's defense is great but his career playoffs have been disappointing and he isn't versatile on offense. If he was going to be our 4th best player, I'd be fine with it. I don't think we'd have anything GSW would want anyway.

he'd be our best player by a country mile if we added added him

Yeah that's not a good role for him

I think he can be your second or third best player like he was a few years ago when they won the title. Playoffs performaces are great but one series can change the numbers from good to bad because of the small sample size.

Now if I am the warriors I'd try to cash in for a cheaper shooter/better all around player and a pick. The problem is finding those type of players.

The league actually changed the cap projection solely to try to drive Durant off of the Warriors roster. I think that was a massive mistake and it will backfire on the league. If anything, I think it will galvanize Durant and Curry to leave money on the table and try to keep a consistent contender together.

You can be super rich and contend. Or you can be super rich plus X and not contend.

I think you will see a trend where more players are just going to leave more money on the table going forward.

When you are a guy like Lance Thomas, you take the biggest and longest deal you can, wherever you have to go to sign. I get that.

Durant and Curry have way more options. They can leave money on the table, take short term deals with option years moving forward, and try to contend and if the tea leaves blow another way, they can go for another contender or just the biggest contract they can find if it comes to that.

As the story guys, lots of guys talked to Kevin Garnett when he was on the Celtics. Fantastic player, kind of a blithering idiot when you put a mic in his face though. Garnett would tell guys he SHOULD have left the Timberwolves sooner, but he was stuck on his notions of loyalty. What Garnett doesn't say is that he would go to his owner and say, I really want to play with Marko Jaric, I really want to play with Troy Hudson, so get these guys, we can make it work. Which goes back to my point that franchise players should not be defacto GMs in place on their rosters. You get village idiots like LBJ, Garnett, Gary Payton and etc deciding the future of a franchise when they would just run a team into the ground. Michael Jordan is proof positive that a great NBA player doesn't instantly mean he's a great executive or personnel evaluator.

Money is everything when you just are looking for security.

But the NBA players at the top of the food chain, the money is going to be there. It's the rest that's the issue. Are you happy being here? Are you winning? Can you get a ring? Do you want to uproot your family?

Is an extra 35 million worth going to the Knicks and that level of dysfunction?

It's not leaving 35 million on the table. For the top shelf guys, its BUYING other things as opportunity cost. It's BUYING a chance to win, a chance to contend, a chance to play where you want to play, with who you want to play with, on your terms as much as possible. You are BUYING freedom.

I certainly could be wrong, but I think Durant and Curry leave chunks of money on the table. If it means they can extend their window and keep guys like Iggy on the roster, I think they just weigh it out and do it.