The Golden State Warriors will have to sacrifice if they want to get out of the current Kristaps Porzingis disaster they've found themselves in, whether it be through draft capital, losing another player, their free agency flexibility or a combination of all three.
Myles Turner is emerging as a prominent trade target for the Warriors, particularly after Sam Amick and Nick Friedell of The Athletic reported on Wednesday that they've already held discussions with the Milwaukee Bucks.
Warriors will have to sacrifice free agency flexibility for Myles Turner
While Turner wasn't specifically mentioned within the report, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out that he's the player Golden State would likely be targeting in a Porzingis trade. The former Indiana Pacers big man is the same type of player, was made available by Milwaukee during the offseason, makes a relatively similar annual salary, and was a player of interest for the Warriors in the past.
There's plenty of signs that point to a potential Porzingis-Turner trade, though the Warriors would have to include another contract and give up draft capital. They would also be sacrificing their flexibility heading into free agency next year, having been very deliberate in setting themselves up for a chance to completely revamp their team and build another contender around Stephen Curry.
That's the issue with Turner who comes with three years and $83 million left on the contract he signed with Milwaukee last year. That instantly eats into Golden State's projected cap space, having been aided by Curry taking slightly less on his two-year extension prior to the season.
It's also why the Warriors may have a path to a Turner trade, albeit The Athletic reports the Bucks have little interest at this stage. Without Turner's deal being considered a 'bad one', a trade wouldn't be realistic, at least not without Golden State throwing in multiple first-round picks.
Myles Turner isn't the player to sacrifice free agency flexibility
There is an argument that cap space in free agency is overrated, particularly for a team like the Warriors who've failed to attract big name players over recent years. However, they would have gone into this believing that if they were to sacrifice the flexibility by moving their expiring contracts before February's mid-season deadline, it would be for a far more valuable player than Turner.
This is another situation where Golden State need to effectively choose between the present and future. Even after a rough year in Milwaukee, Turner would bring an obvious boost to this season as a starting center. Do they go down that path, or just completely waste this year and continue to focus on next offseason?
These are the existential questions the Warriors will be asking themselves right now, and whether taking on the final three years of Turner's deal is something they're truly willing to digest.
Add us as a preferred source on Google