[Goose]

The thing I have never understood is that Kerr seems to be willing to accept this kind of behavior. Yes, he may have a role on the team, but at what cost? There are other guys that can bring what Draymond brings without the negatives. It could at least in the past be argued that Draymond's aggression was always directed outward, towards opponents. IMHO that wouldn't justify/excuse it, but that just isn't the case. He really crossed the line this year and should be gone. Unfortunately, he probably won't be.

The problem is there aren’t guys who can bring what Dray does. He is the best 1-5 defender in the league. He’s not the rim protector AD or JJJ or Bam is but his ability to guard fast guards and big centers is unmatched and has been the key to many of the warriors best lineups. He is one of one on the defensive end, and while his lack of shooting hurts his offense, his passing and ability to run the offense off the 4on3 makes people pay for leaving him alone. 
Not justifying his behavior. We can play the game of “do the warriors need his fire” or not, not sure what the answer is there. I also wouldn’t overpay too much to keep him since I don’t want to pay for past results but we definitely get worse without him, since with our cap situation we can’t sign someone else with that slot. Maybe we sign and trade him and get someone useful back in return.

I totally agree there is nobody else that can fill the exact role Draymond does. There are no "interchangeable pieces" out there. Whatever the Warriors do if Draymond is not on the team it will require an adjustment. I DO think there are players out there that could be integrated into the lineup and result in an equal or better net result. The Warriors will be required to do that pretty soon anyway. The question is whether keeping Draymond for up to 3 more years is a "good idea". It may be they can do a sign and trade, but it also may be they are stuck with his salary next year no matter what.
In the past, one could say Draymond made everybody better by this presence. This year, there is one potentially critical player for which the opposite was emphatically the case. It may be that was an over-reaction by that player, but if you are a team leader, you have to make that not happen. Draymond is supposed to be a "team leader", and he couldn't/didn't fix it. There is no reason to believe next year will be different. IMO the team has to fix that problem, one way or another.

[Goose]

The thing I have never understood is that Kerr seems to be willing to accept this kind of behavior. Yes, he may have a role on the team, but at what cost? There are other guys that can bring what Draymond brings without the negatives. It could at least in the past be argued that Draymond's aggression was always directed outward, towards opponents. IMHO that wouldn't justify/excuse it, but that just isn't the case. He really crossed the line this year and should be gone. Unfortunately, he probably won't be.

The problem is there aren’t guys who can bring what Dray does. He is the best 1-5 defender in the league. He’s not the rim protector AD or JJJ or Bam is but his ability to guard fast guards and big centers is unmatched and has been the key to many of the warriors best lineups. He is one of one on the defensive end, and while his lack of shooting hurts his offense, his passing and ability to run the offense off the 4on3 makes people pay for leaving him alone. 
Not justifying his behavior. We can play the game of “do the warriors need his fire” or not, not sure what the answer is there. I also wouldn’t overpay too much to keep him since I don’t want to pay for past results but we definitely get worse without him, since with our cap situation we can’t sign someone else with that slot. Maybe we sign and trade him and get someone useful back in return.

I totally agree there is nobody else that can fill the exact role Draymond does. There are no "interchangeable pieces" out there. Whatever the Warriors do if Draymond is not on the team it will require an adjustment. I DO think there are players out there that could be integrated into the lineup and result in an equal or better net result. The Warriors will be required to do that pretty soon anyway. The question is whether keeping Draymond for up to 3 more years is a "good idea". It may be they can do a sign and trade, but it also may be they are stuck with his salary next year no matter what.
In the past, one could say Draymond made everybody better by this presence. This year, there is one potentially critical player for which the opposite was emphatically the case. It may be that was an over-reaction by that player, but if you are a team leader, you have to make that not happen. Draymond is supposed to be a "team leader", and he couldn't/didn't fix it. There is no reason to believe next year will be different. IMO the team has to fix that problem, one way or another.