Want more ways to catch up on the latest in Bay Area sports? Sign up for the Section 415 email newsletter here and subscribe to the “Section 415″ podcast wherever you listen.
Two things combined while assembling this Mailbag column to make it slightly different than the ones I’ve done in the recent past.
• I committed to boiling this down to one column and not split it into two, which means I definitely focused on keeping my answers shorter than usual. (I didn’t 100% accomplish this, however.)
• I got a lot of very good questions that all happened to be fairly related to each other on a larger general topic — mostly, the controversies, complexities, tensions, and relationships of the latter stages of the Warriors’ Stephen Curry era. It’s a meaty topic!
I decided to answer as many of these similar questions as possible but not get too bogged down by any specific one. To let the whole group of answers — plus answers, of course, about the 49ers, Giants, and Sharks — cover the breadth of the topic, instead of too many individual 600-word bursts by me.
So if the answers seem snappier or pithier than normal to you for such heavy questions, that’s why. Let’s see how this works.
As always, questions are edited for clarity and length.
Is it possible Mike Dunleavy will be on the hot seat soon? We’re almost three years into his tenure. — @HyphyBayKid via X.
I’ll address this topic first because Dunleavy created some ripples — and drew a reaction from me (opens in new tab) — with his peppery news-conference answers last weekend about what the Warriors did or didn’t actually offer at the trade deadline.
But I sort of understood then and definitely deduce now that this was an outlier flashpoint that didn’t signify a new mode of Warriors defiance vs. the media or the truth in general.
In large part, this moment seems to have been mostly about Dunleavy just not wanting to say or concede the words “we were offering Draymond Green in a package to the Bucks for Giannis Antetokounmpo but they said no” and feeling he had the right to do this because the Warriors and Milwaukee never got far enough down the road to exchange specific names. (Though all sides knew if it got any further it would have to include either Draymond or Jimmy Butler for salary-matching purposes.)
Dunleavy’s stance seems a little superfluous after Draymond several times acknowledged he knew he could’ve been moved in a trade for Giannis. But Dunleavy simply didn’t want to be nudged into it himself. It didn’t come off well. So it goes.
Things can get tense around trade reporting and general-manager commenting. But Dunleavy has been relatively thoughtful about the Warriors’ thinking almost every other press availability and I don’t expect that to change now. He’s not alone among circumspect or even occasionally stonewalling GMs. (I didn’t even mind when, at the start of his GM tenure, Dunleavy said Jordan Poole wouldn’t be traded then traded Poole a few days later. It’s all poker. We can and did call him on it, but so what? He was working a position.)
As far as Dunleavy on the hot seat … I don’t think so. It takes a pretty steely GM to navigate through anxious times like these — Bob Myers walked away partly because he didn’t want to deal with it, and Myers was as strategically equipped as any executive in history.
Dunleavy is equipped to do it, too, but he also is a little more hard-boiled than Myers, and this is going to take that kind of approach at times. I also think Joe Lacob knows and appreciates that part of Dunleavy’s mindset.
So I don’t think Dunleavy is in trouble. I’d also note: He acquired Butler, discarded Poole to clear money, got something for Jonathan Kuminga, and is still chasing Giannis. What’s the big available move that he’s failed to make or the terrible trade he’s bumbled through in the meantime?
Hmm, can’t come up with a definitive answer.
But if things still feel a bit stalled a year from now, yes, the dynamics will be very different.
OK, that answer was too long. Onward, with some more brevity.
There were multiple reports of Kuminga refusing to play when asked by the Warriors, coming up with fake injuries. How common is this in the NBA? — @evanoreilly.bsky.
I don’t think anybody’s reported that Kuminga outright refused to play or faked an injury. In sports, these things come down to borderline areas — you got hurt, sit for a while, might be in some pain or feel a little limited, so what’s the level you can tolerate and still be effective?
That’s what the Kuminga play/not-play tension came down to, in my opinion. The Warriors weren’t counting on him and he somewhat checked out, then they had a game or two when they could’ve used him and the messaging back was that he wasn’t ready to play.
I don’t think it was a direct conversation. I don’t think the Warriors ever told Kuminga they thought he was letting them down. I don’t think Kuminga told them he just didn’t want to play. Even if both things were generally implied, I think it was between-the-lines communication — all part of the general Warriors/Kuminga disconnect over all these years.
Is this common in the NBA? Yeah, much more so with teams less spotlighted than the Warriors. But it can happen any time a player and team are going in different directions.
Do you think the whole Kuminga experience will change anything about Joe Lacob’s approach to running the Warriors? — @carlosanimals via X.
He owns the team. He pays the bills. He hires smart people who know they’ll hear from him all of the time.
He is sometimes right. He is sometimes wrong. He really likes Kuminga. It helped shape the way the Warriors played this. But it’s not like Lacob ordered Kuminga into the lineup or threw a crazy contract his way. Then Lacob was part of the management group that traded Kuminga.
No, I don’t think this experience will change his approach.
It feels like in light of the Kuminga trade, some national and local media have really pushed the blame onto Lacob for the Warriors’ current state of affairs. How much do you believe is on him, and how is Lacob reacting to being blamed? — @KentPaisley via X.
Shrug emoji. Ninety percent of the mistake on Kuminga came when the Warriors drafted him. But also, drafting is hard. Drafting to add new stars to a dynasty on the fly is almost impossible.
Everything else in the Kuminga situation unfolded from there, and if Lacob is blamed for it, then Myers, Steve Kerr, and yes, even Kuminga should and will be blamed, too. It took most of five years to sort it out. The Warriors probably should’ve traded Kuminga months ago, and Lacob was surely part of that decision; but Kuminga also didn’t get completely pushed out of the picture until after the Warriors acquired Butler, which is when Kuminga’s lasting disengagement began.
Everybody gets blame.
And I don’t think Lacob cares much about getting blamed. The whole point is to win. When the Warriors win, everybody gets credit for it. But the Warriors haven’t won enough lately. So the blame hits everybody.
Have you ever sensed Kerr being frustrated by the Warriors’ decision making on draft picks and roster construction, and/or Lacob’s role in these efforts? — @robml.
2 days ago
6 days ago
Tuesday, Feb. 3
The Lacob part of this comes with the territory. He weighs in, for sure. I think Kerr is mostly fine with it and sometimes not thrilled with it, but this is still one of the best coaching jobs in sports, partly because Lacob provides and demands so much.
I would guess that Lacob feels similarly — he mostly loves what Kerr does as a coach, sometimes he doesn’t, but Lacob knows it would be almost impossible to hire a better coach for Curry and this whole run.
Do the recent trades and non-trades and any summertime potential trades make it more or less likely Kerr returns to coach next season? — @davidvonstroh.bsky.
So many factors will go into that decision. It’s really mostly up to Kerr.
But I’ll repeat that the single thing that could’ve dramatically increased the chances of a Kerr departure next summer would’ve been keeping Kuminga on this roster past last week. That didn’t happen.
Kerr is the perfect guy to figure out how to get Kristaps Porzingis worked into the Warriors’ flow. And if the Warriors feel like they’re going to land a star in July, they definitely would want Kerr blending him in with Curry and Butler. And I’m quite sure that Kerr would want to do it.
Kerr has a .641 regular season winning percentage with the Warriors. | Source: Amber Pietz/The Standard
Whenever Kerr eventually leaves, who would be the most likely candidates to replace him? Does a Kerr departure impact how long Steph continues to play? — @davidvonstroh.bsky.
Second question first: I don’t think the coaching situation will alter how long Curry wants to play, but it theoretically might affect how long he wants to play for the Warriors. Which is a hint that management will have every reason to keep Kerr as the coach at least for another year.
I’ve always thought Mike Brown was the likeliest Kerr successor, but obviously he’s employed elsewhere now. Beyond that, if we’re looking for successful former interims, there’s Luke Walton, but I’m not sure on that one.
I think once this whole thing is over and it’s time for a restart, Lacob might be tempted to hire a young, analytics-driven guy in the mold of Utah’s Will Hardy, San Antonio’s Mitch Johnson, Phoenix’s Jordan Ott, or Boston’s Joe Mazzulla.
Just throwing out a random name: How about Florida’s Todd Golden?
I always think of Steph’s “window” as a window where he is a No. 1 (i.e., the two years you always talk about). Could you see him have a subsequent window as more of a No. 2 or No. 3? Can you think of any examples of clear stars smoothly transitioning down like that? — @tkgriffith.bsky.
Curry has mentioned this a few times (opens in new tab)— he could see himself as a key role player when and if there’s a prime superstar carrying the biggest load.
And that’s a path already tread by Tim Duncan in San Antonio and, less successfully, Dirk Nowitzki in Dallas.
What’s behind the improved play of Gui Santos? Is “high-level role player” in his future? — @joeyjojoejohnson.bsky.
Santos is never going to be a top scorer, but he’s expanded his game over the last month or so by attacking the basket much more often. He’s not always going to convert against bigger, more athletic defenders. But the last thing the Warriors need is another passive offensive player. Santos is at least trying. Trying is good.
Santos is shooting more, driving more, attacking traffic near the rim a whole lot more — and averaging 14.7 points over the last seven games for a team desperate for offensive activity. You add that to his already-set role as a hustle-screen-and-shoot-3s guy, and yeah, I could see Santos getting 10 to 20 minutes a game for many more years.
The Warriors selected Gui Santos with the 55th pick of the 2022 NBA Draft. | Source: Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images
Pretend you’re John Lynch. Which side of the ball gets priority attention this offseason: the offense (to better deal with Seattle’s D) or defense (to better deal with Stafford & Co.)? — @nobs23.bsky.
I’d say the fastest way the 49ers can push themselves into true Super Bowl contention next season would be to acquire a game-breaking wide receiver — to match Seattle’s Jaxon Smith-Njigba and the Rams’ Puka Nacua. I just don’t see the 49ers making a big leap with the WRs they’ve got (and they might lose Jauan Jennings to free agency, too).
Is the blueprint for the upcoming 49ers season finding pieces to help overcome Seattle’s defense or is it to start building one like it? — @johnnydulicious.bsky.
It’s not just about Seattle or just about anybody. The 49ers need better, healthier players. That’s always the blueprint.
Why does John Lynch gets such a long leash? He’s charismatic but is lacking at drafting (especially compared to the Rams and Seahawks). Is there not a better candidate that both Shanahan and Jed York like personally? — @peterphan.bsky.
Fire Lynch after the 49ers went 12-5 and knocked out the Eagles in Philadelphia in a season that included massive injuries to their stars? That seems … hasty.
The 49ers’ drafts have not been tremendous for a few years now, no doubt. But they have Brock Purdy for the long-term and a tremendous locker room culture with stars who trust Lynch and Shanahan.
You’ve also referred to a practical reality: Lynch is the GM Shanahan wants and believes in. The 49ers’ program is admired around the league. Before Shanahan and Lynch got here, that was not the case.
Isn’t the 49ers success on offense overly reliant on Christian McCaffrey and Trent Williams with no elite talent being developed on the horizon due to injury (Ricky Pearsall) or AWOL (Brandon Aiyuk?) It feels like a crash waiting to happen. — @dishavingfun.bsky.
Maybe. The 49ers definitely have some old stars. They won’t last forever.
But they’ve tried to add new people and most of them haven’t quite hit. It’s not like the 49ers want to be as old as possible. It’s just that their older players remain their best players. They’re going to keep playing McCaffrey and Williams and other older players for as long as they can. It’d be kind of self-destructive not to.
Christian McCaffrey led the NFL with 413 touches this season. | Source: Harry How/Getty Images
Are the Niners specifically against trading Mac Jones in division? If not, would he make sense for the Cardinals? — @mrmartinoakland.bsky.
Teams can’t get too stuck on keeping players out of their division. You have to concentrate on the best return possible — if it’s from a rival, so be it.
If Shanahan and Lynch could get a second- or third-round pick from Arizona for Jones, I don’t think they’d hesitate. Then they could use the draft pick to land a player who can help beat the Cardinals, Seahawks, or Rams 10 or 20 times into the future.
Conspiracy theories aside, any idea about the injuries regarding training, practices, medical, nutrition, strength, bad luck? Or maybe Shanahan/Lynch have a sixth sense for drafting injury-prone guys? — @chelcfc.bsky.
Football is a violent sport. Guys get hurt. The 49ers are not the only team to suffer waves of injuries, even over a few years. Just check the Ravens’ medical list. Or the Chargers. Or any number of teams. And the 49ers didn’t have many major injuries as recently as 2023.
Still, yes, the 49ers do seem to get it worse than most teams. One factor I’ve discussed is that Shanahan and Lynch are sometimes over-optimistic about certain favored but oft-injured players like Jason Verrett years ago, or Yetur Gross-Matos last season, or maybe even Pearsall.
If you count on injured players who remain injured, you’re doing it to yourself, at some point.
Do you think Jed will do anything at all to address the electric substation issue? Because this matter is not going away and will have an effect on free agency if not satisfactorily handled. — @iamthehir0 via X.
I don’t think York is going to do much about this unless there’s hard scientific evidence that it’s causing injuries and it’s not likely that such evidence will ever emerge. And I don’t think it’s going to affect free agency one iota. If the 49ers are the top bidder and right fit, they’ll get the free agent.
The 49ers have been practicing next to this substation for decades. The players are fully aware of it. The buzzing is unmistakable. They joke about it, but do you think a single player has made a career decision based on the substation’s placement? No.
The 49ers might eventually move to another practice site, though. They could use more room. The football office building is very old and cramped. I could see them eventually moving the football offices and fields to another, nearby location — not because of the substation, but because everything changes and gets updated eventually.
With the A’s essentially out of the Bay Area market, do you agree the Giants should be at minimum a top-10 MLB payroll? — @jlea0730.bsky.
I don’t believe in absolutes in this kind of thing — should the Giants usually be in the top 10 most years? Yes. They’ve made a ton of money for a while and are making more after the A’s departure. They should spend it correspondingly.
But that doesn’t mean they should spend unwisely just to get themselves to a certain placement. I understand why Buster Posey and Greg Johnson don’t love the idea of paying huge long-term money to pitchers — it’s not often a great investment.
Paying Framber Valdez $115 million over three years would’ve popped the Giants from their current 12th spot on the MLB 2026 payroll list well into the top 10, but it wouldn’t have scared the Dodgers, much. It also would’ve cost the Giants a high draft pick and possibly erased their chance to spend that money in a smarter way next season or at this year’s deadline.
They’ve invested a ton of money in Rafael Devers, Willy Adames, Matt Chapman, and Logan Webb. They didn’t like the big-money options this cycle. It’s rational to wait out one cycle, as long as it makes you even more ready for the next one, and the one after that.
The Giants acquired Rafael Devers with more than eight years and $250-plus million left on his contract. | Source: Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images
Do you feel the Giants will be competitive enough this season that Buster Posey will keep their pending free agents instead of trade them at the deadline, like he did last season? — @tellitgoodbye.bsky (opens in new tab). (opens in new tab)
If the Giants aren’t competitive by the time Aug. 3 rolls around, there will be bigger issues than whether Robbie Ray, Luis Arráez, Tyler Mahle, Jason Foley, and Sam Hentges are kept around.
A thought comes to mind in relation to Roger Craig’s worthiness as a Hall of Fame enshrinee — why not enshrine entire teams? The Packers of the 60’s, Steelers of the 70’s? All get their due. — @rustamtahir.bsky.
There’s a very good way that leagues commemorate great teams. They watch them win championships then give them trophies. Then they have parades and raise banners and are remembered forever.
Which seems like enough to me.
This young Sharks core is super fun to watch. Do they have your attention yet, or maybe next year? — @side-kick.bsky.
I think I said going into this season that Macklin Celebrini’s rise has my attention and would get even more if the team starts to get some traction and his superstardom is confirmed.
Well, yes, the Sharks have some traction — even if they don’t make the playoffs this season — and Celebrini’s superstardom is being confirmed on ice in Milan right now.
You answered my Sharks question before the season and thought they would compete for the playoffs next season. Would you say at this point you would change that assessment to competing this year? — @Leo78080404 via X.
Well, I guess this is a mini-gotcha question? All good. The Sharks finished with the fewest points in the league last season (and have already topped that 52-point total this season), so I don’t think I was being too mean saying that this could be a build-up period before possibly breaking through in 2026-27.
They’re competing for a playoff spot. They’re fun to watch and it’s even more entertaining to imagine what this might look like in a year or two. Wait, oops, I said it again.
I’m curious would you ever have Chuck Todd on your pod? He’s always talking about how local coverage should drive national coverage, as you do. — @improvisewithme via X.
Long live local. I’m not sure I’ll have Todd on “The TK Show,” but I appreciate what he’s saying.
Have you watched “Listers” yet? — @mattbarrows via X.
The subtitle of this documentary is sooooo Barrows: “A Glimpse into Extreme Birdwatching.”
And darn it, I think I’m going to watch it.
Also, as an appreciator of clever documentaries about unique people, this is a good chance to plug “Queen of Chess” on Netflix — detailing the rise of Judit Polgár, one of the greatest chess players ever.