RealGM

Milwaukee trade: Kuzma, Connaughton, 2026 swap
Milwaukee receive: Monk, Williams

OKC trade: 24, 44
OKC receive: 2026 swap w/ worse of NOP/MIL

Chicago trade: Williams, Smith
Chicago receive: Kuzma

Sacramento trade: Monk
Sacramento receive: Smith, Connaughton, 24, 44

Why for Milwaukee: add a starting guard and ?better 3/D wing to keep the team competitive
Why for OKC: roll forward asset
Why for Chicago: get out of williams deal, open up more capspace in 2026 offseason
Why for Sacramento: get front court depth and a pick for Monk

add 2nd(s) as needed

So the Bucks pretty much guarantee that they're picking at 29th or 30th in the next draft (they could legitimately be giving up a lottery pick here) and taking on the worst contract in this deal (Williams) all just for Malik Monk coming off his worst season in 3-years? Yeah, the value ain't right here.

Ron Swanson wrote:So the Bucks pretty much guarantee that they're picking at 29th or 30th in the next draft (they could legitimately be giving up a lottery pick here) and taking on the worst contract in this deal (Williams) all just for Malik Monk coming off his worst season in 3-years? Yeah, the value ain't right here.

you'd be swapping w/ houston or LAC most likely so closer to 25th

Godaddycurse wrote:

Ron Swanson wrote:So the Bucks pretty much guarantee that they're picking at 29th or 30th in the next draft (they could legitimately be giving up a lottery pick here) and taking on the worst contract in this deal (Williams) all just for Malik Monk coming off his worst season in 3-years? Yeah, the value ain't right here.

you'd be swapping w/ houston or LAC most likely so closer to 25th

And why would that be? You have the Bucks trading secondary swap rights to OKC on a pick they already owe to New Orleans. Like, at best the Bucks would forfeit 10-12 spots in the draft, and at worst, the Bucks pick 30th and OKC is getting theirs or the Pelicans Top-10 pick next year if both teams end up in the lottery.

Ron Swanson wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

Ron Swanson wrote:So the Bucks pretty much guarantee that they're picking at 29th or 30th in the next draft (they could legitimately be giving up a lottery pick here) and taking on the worst contract in this deal (Williams) all just for Malik Monk coming off his worst season in 3-years? Yeah, the value ain't right here.

you'd be swapping w/ houston or LAC most likely so closer to 25th

And why would that be? You have the Bucks trading secondary swap rights to OKC on a pick they already owe to New Orleans. Like, at best the Bucks would forfeit 10-12 spots in the draft, and at worst, the Bucks pick 30th and OKC is getting theirs or the Pelicans Top-10 pick next year if both teams end up in the lottery.

They traded worst 2026 1st ( ie their own) away already to philly in a prior trade. Idea for OP is for bucks to make playoff so its a drop of <10 spots

Feels like you’re treating Patrick Williams as a positive asset for MIL and a negative one for CHI

Saints14 wrote:Feels like you’re treating Patrick Williams as a positive asset for MIL and a negative one for CHI

No hes negative both ways. Kuzma is also negative though

Saints14 wrote:Feels like you’re treating Patrick Williams as a positive asset for MIL and a negative one for CHI

He's negative value and was clearly valued as such in the trade. But look at the Bucks roster--Williams would play meaningful minutes for him and while he's not good, he's also not useless. Holds up reasonably well defensively and can make open shots. So the fact that he's a 25+ mpg rotation guy for the Bucks is added value even if he's not worth his contract.

I think too often on this board we see guys who are bad contracts and forget that most of them do still offer something on the court. They aren't just boat anchors. And even better when you put a guy on a team where he has a clear role.

The Bulls still want to move Vucevic, and even though there's a Bulls trade fanatic who thinks they should take Nurkic instead he's wrong. So giving up up a young stretch backup 5 to clear Williams isn't the answer. They sure don't want Kuzma at $20M to be less of a team player because that holds back Buzelis who is the future. Better to have the NEGATIVE Williams who is a team player and unlike Kuzma not auditioning for his next contract.

Pass from Kings perspective. Think we can do better for Monk.

Texas Chuck wrote:

Saints14 wrote:Feels like you’re treating Patrick Williams as a positive asset for MIL and a negative one for CHI

He's negative value and was clearly valued as such in the trade. But look at the Bucks roster--Williams would play meaningful minutes for him and while he's not good, he's also not useless. Holds up reasonably well defensively and can make open shots. So the fact that he's a 25+ mpg rotation guy for the Bucks is added value even if he's not worth his contract.

I think too often on this board we see guys who are bad contracts and forget that most of them do still offer something on the court. They aren't just boat anchors. And even better when you put a guy on a team where he has a clear role.

Pat is an expiring, he understandably had negative value last year (especially when other GMs knew the Bucks wanted to move him to get under the 2nd apron), but shouldn't anymore (0.0 VORP)

Kuz has 2y/42m left and is a bad player (-0.7 VORP)

Monk has 2y/41m left and is roughly replacement level (0.6 VORP)

Williams has 3y/54m left and is a bad player (-0.7 VORP)

why would the Bucks want to add a bunch of bad salary to their future books and give up a potentially somewhat valuable swap in the process??? To win like 3 more games next year?

why would we want give Monk minutes over GTJ (if he returns) or AJ Green???

try seeing something from the Bucks' perspective for once

(and no VORP isn't a great stat, but it paints a close enough picture here)

I wonder if its possible for me to look at things from the Bucks perspective but see it differently from you? Curious if that's okay or are you the sole aribiter?

Also worth nothing at no point did I even comment on if the Bucks should do this or not. I was just pointing out that Williams would have utility for the Bucks and despite VORP numbers I feel comfortable he would play. But that's literally all I commented on while stating clearly he has negative value.

So to sum up, I expressed no opinion on the trade yet your conclusion is I never look at things from the Bucks perspective.

Uh....okay?

JonHeist wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

Saints14 wrote:Feels like you’re treating Patrick Williams as a positive asset for MIL and a negative one for CHI

He's negative value and was clearly valued as such in the trade. But look at the Bucks roster--Williams would play meaningful minutes for him and while he's not good, he's also not useless. Holds up reasonably well defensively and can make open shots. So the fact that he's a 25+ mpg rotation guy for the Bucks is added value even if he's not worth his contract.

I think too often on this board we see guys who are bad contracts and forget that most of them do still offer something on the court. They aren't just boat anchors. And even better when you put a guy on a team where he has a clear role.

Pat is an expiring, he understandably had negative value last year (especially when other GMs knew the Bucks wanted to move him to get under the 2nd apron), but shouldn't anymore (0.0 VORP)

Kuz has 2y/42m left and is a bad player (-0.7 VORP)

Monk has 2y/41m left and is roughly replacement level (0.6 VORP)

Williams has 3y/54m left and is a bad player (-0.7 VORP)

why would the Bucks want to add a bunch of bad salary to their future books and give up a potentially somewhat valuable swap in the process??? To win like 3 more games next year?

why would we want give Monk minutes over GTJ (if he returns) or AJ Green???

try seeing something from the Bucks' perspective for once

(and no VORP isn't a great stat, but it paints a close enough picture here)

Monk can play PG. neither GTJ or Green can.

PWill plays/guards SF better than Kuzma can and shoots better from 3

I’m a big fan of moving the ‘26 swap for an actual 1st, but I’m then interested in packaging that with the ‘31 1st or other assets to go after a bigger fish.

What does #24 + an unprotected ‘31 1st get you?

Godaddycurse wrote:

Spoiler:

JonHeist wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
He's negative value and was clearly valued as such in the trade. But look at the Bucks roster--Williams would play meaningful minutes for him and while he's not good, he's also not useless. Holds up reasonably well defensively and can make open shots. So the fact that he's a 25+ mpg rotation guy for the Bucks is added value even if he's not worth his contract.

I think too often on this board we see guys who are bad contracts and forget that most of them do still offer something on the court. They aren't just boat anchors. And even better when you put a guy on a team where he has a clear role.

Pat is an expiring, he understandably had negative value last year (especially when other GMs knew the Bucks wanted to move him to get under the 2nd apron), but shouldn't anymore (0.0 VORP)

Kuz has 2y/42m left and is a bad player (-0.7 VORP)

Monk has 2y/41m left and is roughly replacement level (0.6 VORP)

Williams has 3y/54m left and is a bad player (-0.7 VORP)

why would the Bucks want to add a bunch of bad salary to their future books and give up a potentially somewhat valuable swap in the process??? To win like 3 more games next year?

why would we want give Monk minutes over GTJ (if he returns) or AJ Green???

try seeing something from the Bucks' perspective for once

(and no VORP isn't a great stat, but it paints a close enough picture here)

Monk can play PG. neither GTJ or Green can.

PWill plays/guards SF better than Kuzma can and shoots better from 3

C'mon man

kuz and pwill both suck, why are we giving up an asset for an extra year of 18million dollars worth of suck?? especially when two seasons from now is the one offseason we'll have cap space?

monk *can* play PG, but I'd much rather have KPJ or Rollins or Giannis do that