Golden State’s posture ahead of the Feb. 5 NBA trade deadline is starting to crystallize into something more specific than the usual “we’re exploring options” refrain. According to Anthony Slater, Warriors team sources have indicated in recent days they’d be willing to keep Jonathan Kuminga past the deadline if nothing appealing materializes, a line that reads like patience on the surface, but functions as a negotiating stance with real downside.
The risk is obvious, and Slater put it in the same breath. Kuminga, who carries a $22.5 million number this season, has been largely invisible in Steve Kerr’s rotation, playing only 10 total minutes over the past month.
When a team signals it can live with keeping a player whose role has essentially vanished, it’s either a show of confidence in internal resolution, or a message to the market that Golden State won’t sell low just because the optics look uncomfortable.
This is where the Kuminga situation becomes uniquely modern: it’s not simply “good player on the block.” It’s a collision of timing, salary mechanics, and identity. Golden State’s front office, now operating with the urgency of a win-now core, has to decide whether Kuminga is a piece to re-integrate or a contract to deploy.
The contract matters almost as much as the player. Kuminga’s current cap hit is $22.5 million, and reports of his deal structure indicate a second year built around a team option in the mid-$20 millions range, making the salary slot both substantial and potentially flexible in roster-building terms.
For teams trying to match money in bigger conversations, that number can function as a clean “bridge” contract; for the Warriors, it can also serve as a tool in upgrades that require real dollars moving out.
But Kerr’s rotation choices have put a spotlight on the other half of the equation: if Kuminga is truly central to Golden State’s future, why has his present shrunk so dramatically?
It’s not the kind of usage pattern that typically precedes a “we believe in him” campaign. It looks more like a roster caught between two impulses: maximizing a tight rotation for immediate results, while trying not to crater the trade value of a young talent whose development has been uneven.
That’s why Slater’s reporting reads less like reassurance and more like strategy. “We can keep him” is often code for “we won’t accept your offer.” It’s leverage, especially with rival teams hoping the Warriors feel forced into a deal because the role has dried up.
And there are, undeniably, teams circling. The Sacramento Kings are a leading suitor, and other league chatter has tied multiple teams to varying levels of interest. Whether that interest turns into something “appealing enough” depends on what Golden State is actually hunting: a two-way wing who can play in Kerr’s ecosystem right now, frontcourt help, or simply the best mix of picks and controllable contracts to keep the Curry timeline alive without torching the future.
So what happens if the Warriors don’t trade him?
Keeping Kuminga past Feb. 5 would be a bet that one of two things changes quickly: either his place in the rotation stabilizes and the relationship resets, or the Warriors are comfortable carrying a large salary slot that isn’t consistently helping them on the floor, hoping the offseason (or a later mechanism) produces cleaner opportunities. It would also be a bet against a basic market truth: the longer a player looks marginalized, the more every opposing executive feels entitled to discount him.
