Yes, I dislike Draymond because of the numerous incidents of bad behavior, but emotions have nothing to do with the opinion that the Warriors are better off without him moving forward. If the Warriors were to move on from him, many would disagree, but it would be a reasonable business decision by the organization. Opposing view points can both be reasonable.
What makes it an emotional statement is the "the Warriors are better off without him" part. The Warriors have 4 rings that they likely do not have without him. So, from a winning titles perspective, you can't draw a logical conclusion that they are better off without him.
If by "better off without him" you mean that the team and its fans wouldn't have to deal with the fact that at least once or twice a season, he does or says something that embarrasses the organization and its fans, you can make a logical case for that.
But then you are also giving up 4 titles. I'd be willing to bet that you are part of an extremely small group of Warriors fans...like almost a group of one level small, that would be good with that.
In an odd way, Draymond showed his worth to the team in the 2016 finals when he got himself suspended and the Warriors lost. Most point to that as part of the reason.