I'm going to premise this fanpost by saying. I like both players a lot. Both are exciting, both are very good, both are players I would pay to go see play. However my love of the Warriors goes beyond those two players. For the good of this team one of the two must be traded. Together they present too many flaws for this team to ever be more than a 40 win team, unless magically Dwight Howard or Lebron come join them.
First let's look at positives they present. Both have complimentary offensive games. Curry is an excellent shooter, Monta is a slasher who can get to the rim at will. Both can play with the ball or off the ball. Offensively, there is nothing to dislike about the tandem. They struggled earlier in season to play together because of lack or chemistry. But all players do at first.
With all that said, there is one GIGANTIC issue with the two playing together; DEFENSE. And more specifically neither can adequately guard a shooting guard.
"You guard KMart etc. No You!"
Both can be decent defenders on point guards. But because of physical limitations, neither will ever be able to guard an above average (not not even all star) shooting guard in NBA. The effort is there, and I love that, but when the end product isn't you have to consider a change.
Some may argue it's the style of play. we will allow points irregardless. That's true. However when you compare defense of 2006-7 "We Believe" team which started Baron with wing players like JRich, Pietrus, Barnes (even Dunleavey) and later Jackson, as well as 07-08 team which started Monta but with Baron and Jackson, to the warriors who start Monta and Curry. It's glaring;
2006-7 Warriors: 106.9
2007-8 Warriors: 108.4
2009-10 Warriors: 112.4
2006-7 Warriors: 107.4
2007-8 Warriors: 109.5
2009-10 Warriors: 111.7
Defensive rebounding was a factor, but not as big as you think. All 3 teams were awful. We all knew that. That also needs to change.
Defensive Rebounding Percentage
2006-7 Warriors: 69.6%
2007-8 Warriors: 70.3%
To take it one step farther, let's compare these 3 statistical categories to the Pheonix Suns (the team closest in terms of pace and style of play to our beloved Warriors). 2009-10 Phoenix Suns:
Defensive Rebounding Percentage- 70.8
Defensive Rating- 110.2
PPG Allowed- 105.2
There rebounding percentage is awful (and actually second worst only to the Warriors in entire NBA), and as that is a large factor for Defensive Rating, that would also explain the poor defensive rating. However the PPG allowed is much lower, largely to do with stronger perimeter defense. We all know that's not cause of Steve Nash, but players like JRich (miss you), Grant Hill, Dudley and on are much better defenders than monta (or Curry) are on SGs.
The other factor is they are a better/more efficient offensive team. They only average 1.4 more PPG however there offensive rating is much higher due to efficientcy of play of a certain 2 time MVP, Amare and of course a plethora of efficient 3 point shooters. Anyway you look at it, they may allow 105.2 PPG but they score 110.2, as opposed to the Warriors who scored 108.8 and allowed 112.4. In short, defense matters.
Another popular argument for keeping Monta/Curry back court intact is, what they lack defensively they make up for offensively. What Monta gives us on offense makes up for what we lose on defense. Again, an argument which is not necessarily true. Monta is a great offensive player, but this team doesn't "need" him.
This is evident by this minor detail:
Warriors PPG in 18 games without Monta- 109.4
Warriors PPG for seasons as a whole- 108.8
There are many factors you can use to explain this, but what I think are two strongest are:
1) Don Nelson is an offensive genius. Whether you like him or hate him, Larry Riley's quote about him is 100% dead on "Nellie teams always find ways to score". He knows how to match his team up to get easy baskets.
2) The Warriors roster is made up of almost all above average offensive players (and consequently below average defenders). Morrow, Reggie Williams, Azubuike, CJ Watson may not be as explosive or exciting as Monta. They are all capable of scoring 30 points in any given game, and shown to be efficient scorers over the haul of a season.
Now comparing the two as individual defenders, both are equally poor. Curry has a defensive rating of 111, Monta has one of 112. I suppose a team can get away with one poor perimeter defender, but when you regularly have 2 (or 3) you're team will not be good enough to ever get very far.
You can make the argument either one of the two should be traded. but I think it's clear that the combination of the two will never get this team very far. In my opinion you trade Monta. Not because I like Curry more, but because I think it's alot easier to find a normal sized SG who can defend, than a big PG who can run the offense and guard the SG on defense (like the Iverson phili days with Eric Snow and Aaron McKie). I think the longer the experiment goes on the lower Monta's value will go.
But as of now, the Warriors have talent but a very poorly constructed roster. It's not the worst situation, but it is bad if you have a GM uncapable of making the moves necessary to trade your excess talent (offense/quickness) for what you're lacking (length/defense).