The Warriors exchanged Stephen Curry for Lakers player Westbrook, such a deal may not be conceivable, if such a deal is really reached, Jenny Bass may wake up laughing every day. However, someone really proposed such a deal, and this also triggered a heated discussion among fans, and Curry's exchange for Westbrook sounded crazy enough.
Who made this happen? Columnist for SB Nation christian Reeves.
Christian Reeves wrote on social media: "The rise of Poole has made Curry's super big contract a heavy burden on the Warriors. In the long run, the wisest thing for the Warriors would be to trade Curry to the Lakers in exchange for Westbrook's final-year contract. ”
What the heck? Did the Warriors make the deal to release Stephen Curry's contract? In the offseason, Curry was awarded a four-year, $215 million contract — the second of his career to exceed $200 million. Curry's contract, dubbed the "super contract," allows him to still earn $60 million at age 38.
Why did the Warriors give Curry such a big contract? Putting aside his role as a three-time champion for the team, Stephen Curry's influence is among the best in the league, which allows him to make huge profits for the Warriors. The Warriors' commercial value has been increasing in recent years, which is directly related to Stephen Curry's role as the star of the house.
Curry's playing style is very ornamental, and he has a lively personality and likes to play treasure, which makes fans extremely supportive of him. So, will Curry's big contract really be a burden on the Warriors? In other words, if the Warriors hadn't renewed Curry's contract in the offseason, would any other team have offered him a contract?
Westbrook has a year left on his contract, and while trading the player, who is in contract year, could free up huge salary space for the Warriors after his contract expires, it's not the Warriors' top choice. Taking a step back, even if the Warriors had the idea of reducing luxury taxes and salary expenses through trades, Westbrook was not the best trading chip.
If the Warriors trade Stephen Curry, they would have had better alternatives anyway, rather than sacrificing the team's competitiveness and the team's future. So in every way, such a deal is nonsense — of course, as Lakers fans, this deal will make them rejoice.
The columnist later said he was just joking, making fun of serious fans.
Everyone knows that such trading proposals are worthless, so why are they still keen to discuss it? Perhaps we've overlooked a key issue — Jordan Poole's significant improvements this season have created a big problem for the Warriors' future. Not long ago, former NBA player Perkins also talked about a similar topic, arguing that the Warriors should trade Klay Thompson to make way for the younger Jordan Poole.
The Warriors built a lineup with a high salary, and the team had to pay a high luxury tax, and if Jordan Pooler was given a big contract, the Warriors would have to pay a sky-high price for it. In this sense, keeping Jordan Poole means slimming down in some positions, but why break up the Splash Brothers? It's not because all three are defender players.
Jordan Poole has a one-year contract left next season, and warriors management still has time to think. And everything is changing, and the Warriors are not at the point where they have to make a decision.
(Text/Yan Wujun)