Klay Thompson ought to be re-signed by the Golden State Warriors. That’s my stance, and I really do believe it. There are many folks who have totally different feelings than you. This post isn’t meant to persuade you to feel a different way; however, I will most likely write one of those articles tomorrow or later this week.

The purpose of this post is to refute some false information that has been circulating among Warriors supporters as they go on a six-month journey to restore the squad and put the Dubs back in the running. Many fans that I’ve spoken to believe the Warriors should let go of Thompson and spend the cash on another well-known star.

That is not something they can do. For better or worse, if you’ve suggested bringing Klay back, the Warriors are unable to accomplish it. Though it is, it’s not because the free agency market is deficient. Not because a one-and-done postseason meltdown will make them less of a top choice for free agents—though that may happen.

For they are absolutely incapable of doing that.

Let’s perform some hurried, rough, back-of-the-napkin math. The Warriors have eight players under contract for the 2024–25 season, assuming Gary Payton II chooses to opt into his $9.13 million deal. This entails letting the players with non-guaranteed team options (Chris Paul and Gui Santos) go, allowing the free agents walk, including Thompson, and declining to pick up Kevon Looney’s partially guaranteed contract.

A total of $134 million was spent on those four contracts. $141 million is the salary cap for the next campaign.

For anyone unfamiliar with the CBA, the Warriors are permitted to exceed the salary cap, something they seem ready to do once again this year. They only face severe tax penalties rather than being forbidden from exceeding the cap.

However, unless they are on minimum contracts, they are not allowed to sign outside free agents above the cap. They will need to re-sign their own players, that is, the ones over whom they have Bird rights, if they are willing to spend much. They are free to act foolishly and pay Thompson $40 million if they so choose. It’s entirely acceptable if they wish to rework Paul’s contract and bring him back for $15 million year. However, what if they were to pay even $8 million to sign Pascal Siakam? No way, friend.


They could be able to reduce their salary cap obligations and create more room in other ways. Payton’s contract may be modified to save a million or two. Theoretically, they could trade Draymond Green or Andrew Wiggins, but the likelihood that a team will: A) have the cap capacity to take on such a contract; B) genuinely want those contentious, highly compensated players; and C) be okay not losing payroll in exchange seems remote. Even if they were to pull off a spectacular trade and, say, deal Green, they would still be stuck attempting to persuade a well-known free agent to join a team that just finished in tenth place in the Western Conference after getting rid of Green, Thompson, Paul, and Looney. Meanwhile, Steph Curry is about to start his 37th season.

Oh, and there are still six roster positions that need to be filled. They also cost money.


There are good reasons to believe that the Warriors might be better off letting go of their boat-loving, bulldog Splash Brother. Maybe you believe that the Warriors should start separating themselves from the dynasty and make more of an investment in young players. It’s possible that you believe Thompson is no longer good, even yet his 2023–24 numbers are better than you might have thought. Perhaps you want to keep Joe Lacob and the ownership group as far away from tax penalties as you can, so that when Curry and Green’s contracts expire and the real deal starts, they’ll be in a strong financial position.

These are sensible, comprehensible, and logical beliefs. But wanting to give up a Hall of Fame player to the Dubs so they can spend the cash elsewhere?