Was Jonathan Kuminga restricted free agency’s biggest loser? Our writers weigh in

This offseason, four restricted free agents’ negotiations with their teams dragged into September. Two of the players, Brooklyn Nets guard Cam Thomas ($6 million) and Philadelphia 76ers guard Quentin Grimes ($8.7 million), signed one-year qualifying offers that will make them unrestricted free agents in July. Another, Chicago Bulls guard Josh Giddey (four years, $100 million), signed a long-term deal that indicated a true partnership between team and player.

The Golden State Warriors and forward Jonathan Kuminga (two years, $48.5 million, with a team option for 2026-27) split the difference.

The season has gone differently for the quartet’s members, who will be linked at least for this season. Thursday is the first day when the Warriors are allowed to trade Kuminga — a subject of much speculation for a team head coach Steve Kerr recently called “a fading dynasty.” Kuminga is the Warrior making the most money on the roster who is not essential to the team.

With that in mind, The Athletic’s Nick Friedell (Warriors), Tony Jones (76ers) and Joel Lorenzi (Bulls) got together to talk about the four players, how they have performed, whether the sides would do the deals again and whether restricted free agency is a useful tool for teams and players alike.

Friedell: Guys, since I’m swimming in the drama every day out here in the Bay with this team, I’m curious about your views outside the water: What do you think of Jonathan Kuminga as a player?

Lorenzi: I’m not swooning over JK. The interest stems from potential, like most young guys, right? What could be. He’s a good-sized athlete with flashes of talent, but more left to be desired as far as IQ and the ancillary skills that translate to wins. His image is also understandably hampered by what Kerr might think of him and the aforementioned drama. That he got drafted to a dynasty and became increasingly important to extending the window and maximizing the legacy of the greatest shooter ever seems … heavy. An easy next step? Seeing what he looks like in a lower-pressure environment.

Jones: There are multiple reasons that Golden State can’t wait to get him out of the building. He doesn’t want to be a role player. He wants to be a star, which is understandable because that’s how you get paid a boatload of money. But his self-awareness in that sense is nonexistent.

He’s not a ball-in-hand player. At this point in his career, he’s a power forward who can make some shots and put the ball on the floor to attack closeouts. Kerr wants him to put his athleticism to use and play off the gravity Steph Curry and Jimmy Butler create. Attack gaps. Move without the ball. Finish at the rim. Most importantly, defend with energy. He doesn’t do those things, and that’s fine. What he needs to understand is that the Warriors wouldn’t stop him from doing those things if he proved he could do them. He hasn’t, and he has not come to grips with that. That’s why Kuminga and the Warriors are in their current space.

Friedell: That’s a really good point, Tony. That’s really the key in the Kuminga situation: There’s a big difference between where Kuminga is as a player and where Kuminga thinks he is as a player. More power to any young player who believes he is better than what others believe — but Kuminga is five years into his career. He is the player he is, at least on Golden State. I’d be surprised if he develops into that much better of a player somewhere else, but at 23, I guess there’s always hope things will change.

At this point, I’d be surprised if the Warriors got a very good player in return. His value is at an all-time low. He has hardly played over the last month. His teammates all feel a divorce is on the horizon. It’s not hard to believe the breakup is finally here, given the years that led up to this point. It is hard to believe that he was actually in the starting lineup for the first month of the season and playing well to start. Kuminga needs a change of scenery and a team that needs another piece off the bench.

Jones: Similarly, are Cam Thomas’ days in Brooklyn numbered?

I’ll answer my own question. I don’t think Thomas’ situation is all that different from Kuminga’s. Basketball-wise, Thomas is more gifted offensively than Kuminga. But the on-court selfishness and lack of self-awareness add up to the same ending: Brooklyn is probably excited to move on from him.

There’s a reason the Nets are bringing him off the bench since his return from a hamstring injury. They want the ball to move. Thomas and Kuminga have to understand that their style of play works only when executed by the most efficient high-usage players in the league. If you aren’t in the absolute top tier, you can’t be heliocentric. You have to bring other skills to the table. Thomas can score, but unless he adds something to the luggage, he’s going to top out as a sixth man.

Lorenzi: Quit hogging the mic, Tony. But overall, that’s a fair assessment. I can’t see Thomas as a positive asset at this point, and I’m not the visionary to know where he belongs to maximize his skills or — perhaps more dauntingly — change who he is. Kuminga and the Warriors being at odds about Kuminga’s identity is one thing. For what it’s worth, there are likely teams (ahem, the Bulls) that could grant Kuminga more on-ball opportunities in a lower-pressure environment. But Thomas has been getting meaningless buckets for a minute, and his niche only grows less useful the better a team is that you mock him to.

Sixth man feels like the best-case scenario, considering he’s not a remarkable defender or effort guy. Think of how strenuous a task his next suitor will have trying to get him to play more selflessly in a refined role while working on his complementary skills. If these two players’ scenarios boil down to who can contribute to winning sooner, I would be more comfortable betting on Kuminga. We’ve already seen Thomas in the floor-raising fantasy.

Friedell: I covered Thomas during my time in Brooklyn, and I’m out on him. I don’t trust him as anything more than a guy who wants to get up as many shots as possible. Thomas can score, but what else is he doing to help a team win each night? I am with you there, Joel.

How about Giddey? Do you guys think that he puts the Bulls on a different level? From what I’ve seen, he feels like another piece to the mediocre puzzle that is the Bulls organization.

Jones: I certainly like Giddey more than I like the first two guys. And for what it’s worth, I think the Bulls have at least done a good job of putting him in position to maximize what he does well. Giddey has improved as a player. He has gotten better off the dribble, and that skill improvement has allowed his best skill — his passing — to matter.

Josh Giddey, who signed a four-year, $100 million contract with Chicago as a restricted free agent over the summer, had an All-Star case before suffering a hamstring injury in December. (Jordan Godfree / Imagn Images)

I continue to wonder whether he’s just a good player on a meh team, or if he can actually drive winning for a good team. If he couldn’t be the focal point with Oklahoma City, who obviously had Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, can he now help a team like OKC? The answer three years ago was no. That’s why he got traded. What’s the answer now?

Lorenzi: Asset management, to me, was at the root of the Giddey trade. A team destined for mediocrity didn’t need an aging ceiling raiser in Alex Caruso. But a team clawing at entry-level playoff success (or Play-In Tournament success?) could use a floor raiser.

Giddey, for all his flaws, gets you to a certain baseline with his production. He gives you a fun playstyle to lean into, which Chicago pivoted to last season. Without him, this roster is in contention for one of the most forgettable in recent league memory. With him, the Bulls can aim a little higher, likely continuing their Play-In streak this season. Normal mediocrity, not historically unremarkable. Just regular, Chicago Bulls bland, but more fun than these fans knew with the Zach LaVine teams.

Alas, Giddey’s limitations force you to build a certain type of team. The Bulls haven’t found the players he needs to drive team success. He hasn’t had a true pick-and-roll partner. The Bulls were late to find a double-big lineup (some of that due to injury). Giddey’s spent the season alongside an injury-riddled, turnover-prone scorer in Coby White. Matas Buzelis, among the few prized prospects in Chicago, was only recently unlocked as a wing when both Giddey and White were out. Also, this team doesn’t remotely resemble a standard NBA defense, which Giddey needs as a below-average defender for his size.

Giddey needs some mix of defenders and ballhandlers around him, though he’s improved as an off-ball guy and standstill shooter, which should alleviate some of the concerns that trailed him in OKC. But he’ll need to get better at using his size, considering his lack of burst. We need to see what he can be with real pieces. All that being said, housing a fringe All-Star at $25 million is good asset management, and it makes him a better asset than the other two we discussed.

Jones: And then there is Quentin Grimes, who is my favorite player on this list for one reason: He has a defined niche as a good two-way role player. He understands that role within the scope of a team. He’s not a perfect player. (If you are a Sixers fan, you do not want him trying to make plays for others.) But he defends, he can shoot and he can start or come off the bench. What are the thoughts on Grimes?

Friedell: I am with you, Tony. Grimes continues to grow on both ends of the floor. The self-awareness that you pointed out is key for any young player, but it’s especially big when you’re still trying to find your way in a new place. At 25, he is a player I would feel comfortable investing in, because I believe he can be even better than what we’ve seen.

Jones: If I were a team looking for a fifth starter and my vacancy is in the backcourt, I’m looking at Grimes. I think he would be a perfect fit for Utah, which currently doesn’t have a starting-level shooting guard. I’m interested to see what happens with the Sixers and whether they make a real attempt to keep Grimes this offseason, given they have Tyrese Maxey as well as VJ Edgecombe and Jared McCain still on rookie contracts.

Quentin Grimes ultimately could be a reliable option in the backcourt for a team looking for a starter. (Emilee Chinn / Getty Images)

Friedell: So did restricted free agency work as it was intended here? Personally, this period of any young player’s career is always interesting to me because it usually gives an indicator of what kind of contract somebody is looking at down the line. What do you guys think of the process?

Jones: RFA has become the opposite of unrestricted free agency in that the power rests with the teams. A player used to be able to at least get a contract and force the incumbent team to match. Now, with the way the collective bargaining agreement rules are set up, opposing teams don’t want to tie up their cap space for two days. It’s made RFA extremely difficult for basketball’s middle class, which is where these four players roughly reside.

It is all or nothing for guys on rookie deals. Either they are good enough that giving them the rookie max extension is a no-brainer, or they are hurtling toward a qualifying offer. I’m not sure that is all that good for the game, and I don’t think we’ve seen the last contentious situation between player and team during RFA.

Lorenzi: You’re right to a degree, but I’m not sure every class will be a sweep as far as middle-class guys with such low trade interest. I think it’s more nuanced than what this year’s group represents. More contentious situations in the future? Absolutely. Will there be more tradable middle-class guys in future classes who can leverage that? Probably. I just can’t imagine such little cap space being a variable in future summers. This class was uniquely hamstrung.

OK, let’s take a vote: Who was the biggest loser in all this? Who wound up happiest?

My vote for the former is Kuminga and the Warriors, who are both waiting on someone to bet on Kuminga. Both parties twiddle their fingers with Kuminga grumbling while picking up DNPs and hoping someone like the Sacramento Kings pulls the trigger. It’s all dramatic, nasty and drawn out, with the potential to extend even further.

Friedell: It’s got to be the Warriors for the unhappiest part. The Kuminga questions have hovered over them all season — hell, for several seasons. The protracted contract negotiations weren’t fun for either side over the summer, and that frustration reappeared after Kuminga fell out of Kerr’s rotation again.

I don’t see an obvious winner. All of the players we’ve discussed have flaws, as do their teams. Giddey has to be the happiest since he landed a $100 million deal, but how happy can you be professionally when the team you play for is going nowhere?

Jones: Kuminga and the Warriors are the biggest losers because Kuminga was a top-10 pick and had star potential. The Warriors had two lottery picks that season and came away with a single fringe rotation player in Moses Moody and another whom they are looking to move. No matter how you look at it, that’s bad drafting. And we haven’t even talked about taking James Wiseman over LaMelo Ball. You can’t whiff on lottery picks, and Golden State whiffed badly on three of them.

The Warriors may not have anyone to blame but themselves for the two-timeline project falling flat. Kuminga never developed and doesn’t have the right mentality for what his current NBA skills are. He has to eat that part of it. But either way, that situation sticks out a lot more than the other three.