RealGM

Sacramento trade: Monk
Sacramento receive: Hachimura

LAL trade: Hachimura
LAL receive: Hart

NYK trade: Hart
NYK receive: Monk

Why for Sacramento: add a PF and improve spacing
Why for NYK: add a playmaker
Why for LAL: add a wing defender/glue guy around their offensively focused big 3

Knicks won't trade Hart and have no need too sadly.

SlimShady83 wrote:Knicks won't trade Hart and have no need too sadly.

They could use another playmaker next to Brunson. Monk gives them that without being a liability on the other end. I actually like this trade for all three teams. I just don't know if Sacramento likes this.

I would think the Kings just cut LAL out and take Hart for themselves vs. an expiring Hachimura.

Spacing will be brutal in the starting lineup for the Lakers, but they'll rebound the living shot out of the ball...
I think Kings owe Lakers minore compensation, but value is fine, I just don't see the Knicks doing the trade for fit and relationahip reaaons.

Id rather have Hart than Monk not even factoring in the Nova connection, so dont see NY doing this.

Wait...why does NYK want Monk? Didn't they just sign Clarkson? I feel like Monk can be somewhat redundant with some of their roster now.

Why would the Knicks want Malik Monk? He's barely going to get any playing time on that team, even with Mike Brown as a coach. Also, the Knicks are not going to downgrade from Hart to Monk without a real incentive even if they can find significant minutes for him. Also, the Lakers are sucking a lot of value from the Knicks with Josh Hart. We can say what we want about Josh Hart during the playoffs vs the Pacers, but he's a far better player than Rui Hachimora.

bpcox05 wrote:Wait...why does NYK want Monk? Didn't they just sign Clarkson? I feel like Monk can be somewhat redundant with some of their roster now.

I think clarkson isnt good enough to be a 6 man anymore for a winning team

Cutting LA out and taking Hart myself.

Would also include a few 2nds to make this happen.

This doesn't make sense for New York, but if they would do it the kings cut the Lakers out of the deal.

Why do we need Monk ? We have Jordan Clarkson already .... And Hart is more vaulable then anyone in the trade

Godaddycurse wrote:Sacramento trade: Monk
Sacramento receive: Hachimura

LAL trade: Hachimura
LAL receive: Hart

NYK trade: Hart
NYK receive: Monk

Why for Sacramento: add a PF and improve spacing
Why for NYK: add a playmaker
Why for LAL: add a wing defender/glue guy around their offensively focused big 3

RUI has the best 3% and plays defense that annoys Jokic
So no

What’s up with the GOD add y(why) curse
seems ANTI

PistolPeteJR wrote:

SlimShady83 wrote:Knicks won't trade Hart and have no need too sadly.

They could use another playmaker next to Brunson. Monk gives them that without being a liability on the other end. I actually like this trade for all three teams. I just don't know if Sacramento likes this.

Hart is far better than Monk at shooting and rebounding, just as good at defense, and nearly equal in playmaking. Why the heck would we want to replace him with Monk?

taikibansei wrote:

PistolPeteJR wrote:

SlimShady83 wrote:Knicks won't trade Hart and have no need too sadly.

They could use another playmaker next to Brunson. Monk gives them that without being a liability on the other end. I actually like this trade for all three teams. I just don't know if Sacramento likes this.

Hart is far better than Monk at shooting and rebounding, just as good at defense, and nearly equal in playmaking. Why the heck would we want to replace him with Monk?

They're completely different players. Hart's TS% is at 61% (last year) because he slashes a ton. He's a worse three-point shooter than Monk is, as well as being a worse playmaker, not slightly worse. Monk made great strides in that department last season. Sure, he's a better rebounder, no doubt at all, but what does it matter now that Robinson is back and you have a much bigger glaring hole in the form of a combo guard who can playmake next to Brunson so that the onus doesn't fall strictly on him, draining him especially come playoff time?

PistolPeteJR wrote:

taikibansei wrote:

PistolPeteJR wrote:
They could use another playmaker next to Brunson. Monk gives them that without being a liability on the other end. I actually like this trade for all three teams. I just don't know if Sacramento likes this.

Hart is far better than Monk at shooting and rebounding, just as good at defense, and nearly equal in playmaking. Why the heck would we want to replace him with Monk?

They're completely different players. Hart's TS% is at 61% (last year) because he slashes a ton. He's a worse three-point shooter than Monk is, as well as being a worse playmaker, not slightly worse. Monk made great strides in that department last season. Sure, he's a better rebounder, no doubt at all, but what does it matter now that Robinson is back and you have a much bigger glaring hole in the form of a combo guard who can playmake next to Brunson so that the onus doesn't fall strictly on him, draining him especially come playoff time?

Really?

Last season, Hart shot .333 from 3 last season, Monk shot .325. I.e., neither are good from distance, but Hart is less bad. But unlike Hart (.611 TS%), Monk cannot shoot from anywhere else on the floor either--.549 TS% last season.

The huge rebounding gap you acknowledge--good on you. Defense is a wash, which leaves us play-making. Hart averaged the second-highest number of assists (5.9) for the Knicks last season, which is actually more than Monk. Now, this is explained partly by Hart's higher average minutes, but if you watched the games, Hart is actually a very good passer whose skills in this area were underutilized by Thibs. Still, Monk squeaks out a win in this one category because he's a significantly better ball-handler. That said, considering the large gaps in other areas, yeah, the Kings can keep Monk.

taikibansei wrote:

PistolPeteJR wrote:

taikibansei wrote:
Hart is far better than Monk at shooting and rebounding, just as good at defense, and nearly equal in playmaking. Why the heck would we want to replace him with Monk?

They're completely different players. Hart's TS% is at 61% (last year) because he slashes a ton. He's a worse three-point shooter than Monk is, as well as being a worse playmaker, not slightly worse. Monk made great strides in that department last season. Sure, he's a better rebounder, no doubt at all, but what does it matter now that Robinson is back and you have a much bigger glaring hole in the form of a combo guard who can playmake next to Brunson so that the onus doesn't fall strictly on him, draining him especially come playoff time?

Really?

Last season, Hart shot .333 from 3 last season, Monk shot .325. I.e., neither are good from distance, but Hart is less bad. But unlike Hart (.611 TS%), Monk cannot shoot from anywhere else on the floor either--.549 TS% last season.

The huge rebounding gap you acknowledge--good on you. Defense is a wash, which leaves us play-making. Hart averaged the second-highest number of assists (5.9) for the Knicks last season, which is actually more than Monk. Now, this is explained partly by Hart's higher average minutes, but if you watched the games, Hart is a very good passer whose skills in this area were actually underutilized by Thibs. Still, Monk squeaks out a win in this one category because he's a significantly better ball-handler. That said, considering the large gaps in other areas, yeah, the Kings can keep Monk.

Monk took WAY more off-the-dribble 3s vs C&S on Hart's end, so let's contextualize the quality of shots they were taking within the offense. To put it in perspective, as per NBA.com, Monk attempted 2.7 pull-up 3PA/g on last season and only made 28% of them; Hart, 0.9 3PA/g, 33% made. On top of that, let's remember that Monk's role changed drastically midseason due to the Fox fiasco and their head coach getting fired midseason. In addition, Monk's last 4 seasons (prior to '24-25, 38.1 3P% on 5.5 3PA/g) showed he was a very good shooter. Hart, prior to '24-25, 4 seasons prior, 32.3 3P% on 3.4 3PA/g).

I want to make sure I am reiterating here: I never claimed Monk was tiers better as a shooter, but the large sample size shows he's more reliable from deep. As for playmaking, as I mentioned, Monk made great strides last season post-Fox, and in that half-a-season showed some amazing playmaking chops, averaging 6.7apg in the same MPG as Hart. Finally, on defense, I think they're a wash as well, and Hart definitely is the better rebounder. I think both players would provide some similar benefits to NY and some different ones.

Taking the Sacramento situation into consideration, which resulted in no continuity at all and improv ball, Monk would be a good fit. On top of that, let's remember that NY's scheme last season was very often a 5-out scheme, the perks of having a guy like KAT play the 5. Sabonis is very unreliable from deep, resulting in less space for shooters. I'm not saying Monk would be a better fit than Hart, that depends on what your new head coach wants to run, really, so who knows?