No, letting Klay Thompson walk won’t allow the Warriors to sign a star

Golden State doesn’t have money, no matter what they do.

The Golden State Warriors should re-sign Klay Thompson. That’s my position and I believe it quite firmly. Many out there feel quite differently; you might be one of those people. This isn’t an article trying to convince you to feel differently, though I’ll probably write that article tomorrow, or later this week.

This is just an article to set the record straight on a bit of misinformation I’ve been seeing floating around Warriors fans as everyone sets about on the six-month mission of trying to figure out how to fix the team and get the Dubs back in contention. I’ve heard from a lot of fans who think the Warriors should move on from Thompson and use the money on a different high-profile player.

They cannot do that. For better (if you want Klay back) or for worse (if you’ve proposed such an idea), the Warriors cannot do that. Not because the free agency market is lacking, though it is. Not because a one-and-done postseason flameout will dissuade free agents from considering them a top tier destination, though that’s possible.

Because they, quite literally, cannot do that.

Let’s do some quick-and-dirty back-of-the-napkin math. Assuming Gary Payton II opts into his $9.13 million contract for 2024-25, the Warriors have eight players under contract for the upcoming season. That means letting the free agents — including Thompson — walk, letting the players with non-guaranteed team options (Gui Santos and Chris Paul) leave, and not picking up Kevon Looney’s partially-guaranteed deal.

The total of those four contracts? About $134 million. The salary cap for the upcoming season? $141 million.

As a CBA refresher, the Warriors are allowed to go over the salary cap — as they have for many years now, and appear prepared to do this year. They aren’t prohibited from going over the cap, they’re just penalized with a whole bunch of tax payments.

But they are prohibited from going over the cap to sign outside free agents, unless they’re on minimum contracts. If they want to spend heavy, it has to come from re-signing their own players — specifically, the ones whose Bird rights they have. If they want to get silly and give Thompson $40 million, they can do that. If they want to restructure Paul’s contract and bring him back for $15 million a year, that’s totally fine. But if they want to sign Pascal Siakam for even $8 million? No can do, pal.

There are other potential ways to lower their salary cap obligations and free up space. They could restructure Payton’s deal to shave off a million or two. They could, theoretically, trade Andrew Wiggins or Draymond Green, but the odds of a team A) having the cap space to take on such a contract, while B) actually wanting those controversial, highly-compensated players, and C) being fine not shedding salary in return seem slim-to-none. And even if they did pull off a stunning trade and, let’s say dealt Green, they’re stuck trying to convince a high-profile free agent to sign with a team that just finished 10th in the West, and then got rid of Green, Thompson, Paul, and Looney, while Steph Curry enters his age-37 season.

And oh yeah: they still have six roster spots they need to fill. Those cost money, too.

There are reasonable reasons for thinking the Warriors would be best served moving on from their bulldog and boat-loving Splash Brother. Perhaps you think the Warriors need to start disassociating from the dynasty, and commit further to young players. You might think Thompson, despite having better-than-you-think numbers in 2023-24, is simply not good anymore. Maybe you want Joe Lacob and the ownership group to avoid as many tax penalties as possible, so that they’re feeling flush when Curry and Green’s contracts expire, and the next era truly begins.

These are understandable, logical, and reasonable beliefs. But wanting the Dubs to part ways with one of their Hall of Famers so they can use the money elsewhere?

Not possible. Sorry.