Andrew Bogut says Kevin Love wouldn’t have helped the Warriors much
The Warriors’ center made it sound like Love is barely better than David Lee, who is now riding Golden State’s bench. But Bogut was really saying the Warriors didn’t need Love’s skill set and are better for not acquiring him in a trade.
The Golden State Warriors made headlines last summer by not pulling the trigger on a Kevin Love trade, and in hindsight, that non-trade couldn't have worked out any better. Not only did Klay Thompson take another step forward in his development, but Draymond Green blossomed into a playmaking stretch-4 and Defensive Player of the Year runner-up.
As Grantland's Zach Lowe notes, none of the Warriors would trade Green for Love straight up right now. Lowe talked to Warriors center Andrew Bogut about the possible trade, and the big Aussie is especially thankful the team didn't make a deal for Love:
"I don't know if that trade would have gotten us to this point. I didn't think it would be a huge upgrade," Bogut said. "David Lee provides the same output, besides the 3-point shooting. I thought we could have just found a stretch-4 at the veteran's minimum -- someone like James Jones."
Bogut appears to be throwing serious shade at Love by making those comparisons. Lee is out of the rotation in Golden State and Jones is only playing a handful of minutes every game as a one-dimensional shooter.
But Bogut was also just suggesting that Green is a better fit for their team. Love is clearly a better player than Lee and wouldn’t have found himself out of the rotation with the Warriors, but the two players share defensive weaknesses that throw off what the team likes to do on that end.
Golden State had become a strong defensive team even with Lee as the starter, but the emergence of Green took them to best defense in the league levels. Lowe’s descriptor of Green as a “human Tetris piece” is apt, as the forward can switch onto just about any player in the league and can guard multiple positions effectively. Even at just 6’7, his versatility allows him to play center. Those super-small lineups have been the ace up Steve Kerr’s sleeve all season.
Green’s versatility also helped the Warriors take their offense to the next level. He’s not the outside shooter Love is, but he’s been good enough to make teams pay for leaving him alone beyond the arc on pick-and-pops. If he doesn’t take the three, he’s good at making plays in space and finding open shooters with drive-and-kicks. He’s not particularly effective in the post, but he can take advantage of mismatches down low.
Some of Green's weaknesses have been on display in the Finals. His three-point shot has abandoned him, he has struggled to finish in the paint and he has made some ill-advised passes going to the basket. The Cavaliers have dared him to beat them from the outside, or even just from mid-range, but he hasn't made a single shot outside the paint through two games.
But this is a small sample size, and we have a full season of evidence that says Green can be a difference-maker offensively on an elite offensive team. A couple of substandard showings against a team playing at the top of its defensive game doesn’t change that. Golden State will surely make adjustments, and it wouldn’t be a big surprise if they exploded in Game 3.
We’ll never know for sure how the Warriors would’ve looked with Love, but Bogut’s assessment, while harsh, makes some sense. The offense still would’ve been very good, but losing this version of Thompson would’ve hurt on both ends of the floor. The defense certainly would’ve been weaker and Green (assuming he wasn’t included in the trade) likely doesn’t become the force he is today. If Kerr got real bold and Green wound up in the starting lineup anyway, then Love’s impact would’ve been diminished off the bench.
What we do know is Golden State is a historically great team without Love and remain the favorite to win the title. The emergence of Green is a big reason why.
SB Nation presents: How to construct an NBA champion
See More:
