RealGM

Ill offer this idea for:
-Bucks to get a true veteran wing given the Giannis and Turner make up starting frontcourt
-Celtics get a replacement for Tatum while further lower costs
-Kings create more 2026 cap flexibiloty to getting ghe expiring Simons

To Milwaukee (Trade Kuzma)
-DeMar DeRozan (2 years, $50.5 million)
-2026 Sacramento 2nd round pick
-2027 Sacramento 2nd round pick

To Boston (Trade Simons)
-Kyle Kuzma (2 years, $42.7 million)

To Sacramento (Trade DeRozan, 2 2nds)
-Anfernee Simons (1 year, $27.7 million)

Why?
-Milwaukee adds the veteran wing who can start at the 3 as Kuzma is more a 4. The 2nds give Bucks cheap depth moving forward in navigating Dame dead cap hit.

Porter/Anthony
Trent/Harris/Rollins/Green
DeRozan/Livingston/Jackson
Giannis/Portis/Prince/
Turner/Sims

-Boston adds a 4 man to replace Tatum while lowering short term costs

White/Pritchard/
Brown/Baylor/Schieman
Hauser/Minott/Gonzalez
Kuzma/Niang/Tatum
Tillman/Garza/Queta

-The Kings create more 2026 summer flexibility and get younger by swapping DDR for a younger undersized SG who can come off the bench.

Schroder/Carter
Monk/Simons/Davis
LaVine/Ellis/Clifford
Murray/Saric/FA?
Sabonis/Eubanks/Jones

Boston isn’t going to take on the 2nd year of Kuzma. They can reduce Simons’ salary hit a lot easier and cheaper.

I’d rather cut the Kings out frankly

Is Demar cool with coming off the bench? If not there's no point the Bucks acquiring him.

Another SG, just what Sac needs. Kings just take Kuz, at least he is a forward.

Why would the Celtics trade 1 year of Simons for 2 years of Kuzma? Cap savings isn't worth it.

Only scenario I see BOS trading Simons for Kuzma is if there are other deals with Hauser and Niang such that the relatively minor savings from Simons to Kuzma for this year make the difference in being below the tax line or not. Avoiding the tax this year means they save the money and then also pay regular rates rather than repeater next year if you assume they'll go back into the tax next year with Tatum back. So they can probably justify the 2nd year of Kuzma in that case (presumably with the idea of using his expiring salary with picks in a trade next year for an upgrade). But absent of those other moves, they'd need real incentive to swap 1 year of Simons for 2 years of Kuzma.

Simons is a more valuable player than Kuzma. Salry wise, Simons contract is higher but 1yr shorter, hence not worth for the celtics.
I believe that BOS could stand by the trade deadline and keep Simons till then.

IF the Kings want to send DeRozan to the Bucks for Kuzma, it works straight up and last year, DeRozan was a much better player so probably don't need to send 2nds even though Kuzma is younger and his salary declines next year while DeRozan's goes up.

This makes no sense for the kings, we give up a player that can play at small forward for yet another undersized shooting guard, Why? We don't want any more undersized shooting guards to come off the bench, we alread have: Monk, Ellis, Carter, and they are all behind Lavine who is the starter.

Derozan is also only partially guaranteed for next season so if the goal was to save money this doesn't do much for the kings.

Celts17Pride wrote:Why would the Celtics trade 1 year of Simons for 2 years of Kuzma? Cap savings isn't worth it.

a) Kuzma reaplces Tatum in starting lineup short term
b) There is a $5.3 million cap difference for 20252-26. Im not sure on exact math based on overall savings with tax implications
c) Kuzma is on a decling contract He makes $20 million in 26-27. Its a tradeable deal for a guy that will still be in his prime at 31.

Bucks need to send the Celtics a first to make this fair

Bentley1225 wrote:

Celts17Pride wrote:Why would the Celtics trade 1 year of Simons for 2 years of Kuzma? Cap savings isn't worth it.

a) Kuzma reaplces Tatum in starting lineup short term
b) There is a $5.3 million cap difference for 20252-26. Im not sure on exact math based on overall savings with tax implications
c) Kuzma is on a decling contract He makes $20 million in 26-27. Its a tradeable deal for a guy that will still be in his prime at 31.

Kuzma is deep negative asset. He doesn’t replace Tatum at all.
The Celtics add 20 million of useless salary for 26/27. Takes away any possible flexibility. Absolutely no way in hell the Celtics consider this without significant compensation. Better to just resign Simons next year.

brackdan70 wrote:

Bentley1225 wrote:

Celts17Pride wrote:Why would the Celtics trade 1 year of Simons for 2 years of Kuzma? Cap savings isn't worth it.

a) Kuzma reaplces Tatum in starting lineup short term
b) There is a $5.3 million cap difference for 20252-26. Im not sure on exact math based on overall savings with tax implications
c) Kuzma is on a decling contract He makes $20 million in 26-27. Its a tradeable deal for a guy that will still be in his prime at 31.

Kuzma is deep negative asset. He doesn’t replace Tatum at all.
The Celtics add 20 million of useless salary for 26/27. Takes away any possible flexibility. Absolutely no way in hell the Celtics consider this without significant compensation. Better to just resign Simons next year.

You lost me at deep negative asset.....He replaces Tatum in terms of position/ability to play the 4 in 22-28 mpg as a starter, not based on production. Kuzma is a greater need than Simons. If the Celtics want more flexibility next summer, they'd be better off dealing Derrick White.

Bentley1225 wrote:

brackdan70 wrote:

Bentley1225 wrote:
a) Kuzma reaplces Tatum in starting lineup short term
b) There is a $5.3 million cap difference for 20252-26. Im not sure on exact math based on overall savings with tax implications
c) Kuzma is on a decling contract He makes $20 million in 26-27. Its a tradeable deal for a guy that will still be in his prime at 31.

Kuzma is deep negative asset. He doesn’t replace Tatum at all.
The Celtics add 20 million of useless salary for 26/27. Takes away any possible flexibility. Absolutely no way in hell the Celtics consider this without significant compensation. Better to just resign Simons next year.

You lost me at deep negative asset.....He replaces Tatum in terms of position/ability to play the 4 in 22-28 mpg as a starter, not based on production. Kuzma is a greater need than Simons. If the Celtics want more flexibility next summer, they'd be better off dealing Derrick White.

You aren’t making any sense to me.
The Celtics are not wining anything this year. They don’t need to replace Tatum for one year at the cost of future flexibility.
They have flexibility, they are in good shape. Adding Kuzma at 20 million for next year takes that away.
The Cs are focused on being competitive for 26/27 when Tatum is back. Vacant Roster spot is better than Kuzma at 20 million.
The Celtics won’t do stupid **** like the OP.

I could see it, but cut out the Celtics;
Kuzma for Derozan straight up; at least it helps Sac get rid of the SG glut.

Sac can slide Murray to the 3; Derozan is a big upgrade for MIL at the 3, even if he’s a bit out of position. MIL might still need to add something.