Why a Michael Porter Jr. Trade Would Be the Wrong Move for the Warriors
The Golden State Warriors are at a crossroads this season. While Stephen Curry remains an elite force and Jimmy Butler continues to hold the offense together, the team clearly needs secondary scoring and a wing presence who can space the floor. Naturally, rumors have circulated that the Warriors might look to acquire Michael Porter Jr. from the Brooklyn Nets, potentially sending Jonathan Kuminga in return. At first glance, this seems like a promising idea: Porter is having an excellent season, and his ability to stretch the floor could complement Golden State’s superstar-heavy lineup. But digging deeper, a trade for Porter would likely be a serious mistake.
On paper, Michael Porter Jr. looks like a good fit. At 6-foot-10 with a deadly three-point stroke, he provides floor spacing and scoring versatility—exactly what the Warriors need beyond Curry and Butler. He’s averaging 25.9 points per game, 7.5 rebounds, and shooting over 40% from three this season, demonstrating that he can contribute on multiple levels. He’s also shown an ability to play off the ball, which theoretically could allow him to slot into Golden State’s motion-heavy offense without disrupting Curry’s rhythm.
Yet, the problem is deeper than just statistics. Porter’s NBA history suggests that his fit next to ball-dominant stars is far from ideal. During his tenure with the Denver Nuggets, he initially seemed like a perfect complementary piece. He could score off the ball, stretch defenses, and provide a high-level second option to Nikola Jokić. Over time, however, that relationship soured. Denver gradually phased Porter out of their long-term plans, ultimately trading him in part because of fit concerns. He often struggled when asked to defer or adjust his role within a team that already had a dominant star controlling touches and pace.
This historical context raises serious questions about his potential in Golden State. The Warriors’ offense is, at its core, built around Curry. While Curry’s gravity opens up opportunities for shooters like Thompson and Kuminga, adding Porter creates a different challenge. He is accustomed to being a focal point, even when playing off the ball. Transitioning to a system where Curry monopolizes touches and sets the pace requires a level of adaptation that is historically inconsistent for Porter. The risk is that he would become a high-paid complementary player who underperforms relative to expectations—a familiar narrative from Denver.
Another factor is Golden State’s salary cap situation. Porter carries a massive contract this season and the next, meaning any trade would lock the Warriors into significant financial commitments for the duration of Curry’s remaining prime. While Kuminga has a controllable contract and still carries upside as a young player, sending him out for Porter reduces flexibility and mortgaging potential future roster moves. The Warriors would be essentially betting on Porter being the perfect fit for the next several years—an assumption that has not held true in his past stops.
Moreover, there’s a strategic question about how Porter’s presence affects the rotation. Golden State already has Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, and Curry anchoring the offense. Integrating Porter into that mix could create friction over touches and spacing, especially in high-pressure playoff situations. The postseason magnifies such fit issues; when Curry and Butler dominate the ball in crucial moments, Porter might see a dip in efficiency or confidence, limiting the net gain from the trade. In Denver, his performance dipped in similar scenarios, which provides a cautionary tale for the Warriors.
This is not to say Kuminga should necessarily be traded. He represents a young, versatile wing who can defend multiple positions, contribute as a secondary scorer, and provide financial flexibility. Trading him is a smart move if the Warriors can receive value in return, but pairing him specifically with Porter appears problematic. The trade doesn’t solve the deeper issue of fit—it simply exchanges a controllable young asset for a high-priced player who may struggle to adapt to the system.
If the Warriors are serious about improving, they need to evaluate moves that address both their secondary scoring and depth without creating long-term salary headaches or fit problems. There may be other trade targets or internal solutions—such as developing Kuminga further or finding complementary veterans—that accomplish this more efficiently. A Porter trade, though flashy and headline-grabbing, does not necessarily move the needle meaningfully.
In short, while Michael Porter Jr. has the talent to succeed in the right situation, his history suggests that he is a high-risk acquisition for a team like Golden State. The combination of his contract, previous fit issues with other star-heavy lineups, and the Warriors’ unique offensive ecosystem makes this an ill-advised trade. Trading Jonathan Kuminga for Porter would not be the “upgrade” it appears to be on paper; it would likely constrain the team financially and strategically without guaranteeing a meaningful boost in performance.
The takeaway is clear: Golden State needs a plan that balances talent, fit, and financial flexibility. Porter might look like the perfect scoring addition, but history and context indicate otherwise. The right trade—if any—will improve the Warriors’ chances without creating systemic problems that could jeopardize both the present and future. Porter is talented, but the Warriors’ offseason and trade deadline focus should remain on smart, complementary acquisitions rather than headline-chasing moves that carry unnecessary risk.
