MIL - SAC: Kuzma for Monk

MessiahUjiri · Post #1 » by **MessiahUjiri** » Thu Oct 2, 2025 2:00 am

With Kuminga in GS (for now), if Milwaukee wants to win with Giannis, they need to improve the backcourt.

Sacramento has a need for a PF, and they have Monk on the market.

The obvious trade is: Malik Monk for Kyle Kuzma.

You can add minor incentives to balance the deal, but it’s a clean win-win trade for 2 pretender teams who are trying to win.

tcheco · Post #2 » by **tcheco** » Thu Oct 2, 2025 6:16 pm

Kuzma is a negative asset, dont think he can net a net positive asset in a trade without playing decently at least till the trade deadline

MessiahUjiri · Post #3 » by **MessiahUjiri** » Fri Oct 3, 2025 12:11 am

tcheco wrote:Kuzma is a negative asset, dont think he can net a net positive asset in a trade without playing decently at least till the trade deadline

I don’t think Kuzma is a negative asset, especially with the rising cap. He gives you a reliable 15 & 6, and shoots just well enough (33% from 3) to create spacing for others.

Maybe the difference is a 2nd? It’s not much.

Another variation would be:

Kuzma + ‘31 MIL 1st (top 10 prot)
for
Monk + Carter

Godaddycurse · Post #4 » by **Godaddycurse** » Fri Oct 3, 2025 12:53 am

MessiahUjiri wrote:
tcheco wrote:Kuzma is a negative asset, dont think he can net a net positive asset in a trade without playing decently at least till the trade deadline

I don’t think Kuzma is a negative asset, especially with the rising cap. He gives you a reliable 15 & 6, and shoots just well enough (33% from 3) to create spacing for others.

Maybe the difference is a 2nd? It’s not much.

Another variation would be:

Kuzma + ‘31 MIL 1st (top 10 prot)
for
Monk + Carter

Kuzma is a negative player; advanced stats are horrible and the eye test matched that last year. If he's not negative then who is? lol

MessiahUjiri · Post #5 » by **MessiahUjiri** » Fri Oct 3, 2025 1:21 am

Godaddycurse wrote:
MessiahUjiri wrote:
tcheco wrote:Kuzma is a negative asset, dont think he can net a net positive asset in a trade without playing decently at least till the trade deadline

I don’t think Kuzma is a negative asset, especially with the rising cap. He gives you a reliable 15 & 6, and shoots just well enough (33% from 3) to create spacing for others.

Maybe the difference is a 2nd? It’s not much.

Another variation would be:

Kuzma + ‘31 MIL 1st (top 10 prot)
for
Monk + Carter

Kuzma is a negative player; advanced stats are horrible and the eye test matched that last year. If he's not negative then who is? lol

He’s a PF, and he’s a poor fit in Milwaukee next to Giannis. That was a weird move.

Monk isn’t fetching much either though, although I do like him more.

Kuzma + 1st for Monk + Carter isn’t good?

SacTown Kings · Post #6 » by **SacTown Kings** » Fri Oct 3, 2025 2:18 am

I do it for Kuz and a 1st. Monk is better and I'd hate losing him but kings need size and a 1st makes up the difference. I don't think Kuz is as bad as he showed last year.

Post #7 » by **Mavrelous** » Fri Oct 3, 2025 9:07 am

Kuzma is clear negative, but Monk also lools like one given how little.market he had.

Sactowndog · Post #8 » by **Sactowndog** » Fri Oct 3, 2025 9:50 pm

Mavrelous wrote:Kuzma is clear negative, but Monk also lools like one given how little.market he had.

I think Monks lack of value is a size thing. If you are a 6’3” guard then you better have an otherworldly skill or you better be able to run the point. 6’3” wings are no longer in demand.

JayMKE · Post #9 » by **JayMKE** » Sat Oct 4, 2025 4:36 pm

Bucks aren’t giving up a FRP pick to dump Kuzma, especially for Monk. Simple as that.

Maybe a 2nd, AJJ or Tyler Smith.

Take it or leave it

longfellow44 · Post #10 » by **longfellow44** » Sat Oct 4, 2025 6:46 pm

We will leave it.

Post #11 » by **jbk1234** » Sat Oct 4, 2025 10:25 pm

MessiahUjiri wrote:
tcheco wrote:Kuzma is a negative asset, dont think he can net a net positive asset in a trade without playing decently at least till the trade deadline

I don’t think Kuzma is a negative asset, especially with the rising cap. He gives you a reliable 15 & 6, and shoots just well enough (33% from 3) to create spacing for others.

Maybe the difference is a 2nd? It’s not much.

Another variation would be:

Kuzma + ‘31 MIL 1st (top 10 prot)
for
Monk + Carter

Kuzma definitely has negative trade value. He was traded to a desperate Bucks team for an expensive and broken Middleton. He doesn't shoot well enough by any metric (you let the guy who shoots .33 from 3 have that shot). He's not even adequate defensively.

giannis and 1 · Post #12 » by **giannis and 1** » Sun Oct 5, 2025 2:42 pm

MessiahUjiri wrote:
tcheco wrote:Kuzma is a negative asset, dont think he can net a net positive asset in a trade without playing decently at least till the trade deadline

I don’t think Kuzma is a negative asset, especially with the rising cap. He gives you a reliable 15 & 6, and shoots just well enough (33% from 3) to create spacing for others.

Maybe the difference is a 2nd? It’s not much.

Another variation would be:

Kuzma + ‘31 MIL 1st (top 10 prot)
for
Monk + Carter

Absolutely not. Bucks do not need more guards.

Golabki · Post #13 » by **Golabki** » Mon Oct 6, 2025 1:15 pm

MessiahUjiri wrote:
Godaddycurse wrote:
MessiahUjiri wrote:

I don’t think Kuzma is a negative asset, especially with the rising cap. He gives you a reliable 15 & 6, and shoots just well enough (33% from 3) to create spacing for others.

Maybe the difference is a 2nd? It’s not much.

Another variation would be:

Kuzma + ‘31 MIL 1st (top 10 prot)
for
Monk + Carter

Kuzma is a negative player; advanced stats are horrible and the eye test matched that last year. If he's not negative then who is? lol

He’s a PF, and he’s a poor fit in Milwaukee next to Giannis. That was a weird move.

Monk isn’t fetching much either though, although I do like him more.

Kuzma + 1st for Monk + Carter isn’t good?

Monk is a bad contract, in that he's a useful player, but a bit overpaid for what he does. Kuzma is a bad contract in that if he didn't have guaranteed money he would be playing in China.

Kuzma + assets for Monk does make sense to me, if it's part of a bigger deal. But the Bucks 1st is too much unless they are also getting a decent SF somehow. And I don't think Carter solves it. He'd be like the 5th PG in a bad PG rotation on the Bucks after this deal.

tcheco · Post #14 » by **tcheco** » Mon Oct 6, 2025 4:39 pm

The difference between Kuzma and Monk in value is definitely a first. If Bucks are willing or not to pay that is another discussion.
The team is lacking so much that they need to hit the move when trading Kuzma and their pick.

Post #15 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Oct 6, 2025 5:28 pm

Golabki wrote:Monk is a bad contract, in that he's a useful player, but a bit overpaid for what he does. Kuzma is a bad contract in that if he didn't have guaranteed money he would be playing in China.

Kuzma + assets for Monk does make sense to me, if it's part of a bigger deal. But the Bucks 1st is too much unless they are also getting a decent SF somehow. And I don't think Carter solves it. He'd be like the 5th PG in a bad PG rotation on the Bucks after this deal.

Maybe a pick swap is the difference. Each team bets on their doing a better job than the other guy by 2031 with Sacramento being able to make the swap if they end of being the better team that year.

bpcox05 · Post #16 » by **bpcox05** » Sun Oct 12, 2025 5:22 pm

Does MIL even have a tradeable 2nd that isn’t a top 55 protected 2nd? I didn’t think they did but their trade history is messy as it relates to picks so I could be wrong.

I think this framework might make some more sense for all…

Kyle Kuzma
Tyler Smith
2030 1st Pick Swap (option to swap with the less favorable between MIL and POR 1sts)

For

Malik Monk

Giannis gets some much needed backcourt help while also keeping their 2031 1st in case they want to take another swing down the road.

Kings rebalance their roster and open up more minutes for Carter & Clifford to get time. They also shed the last year on Monk’s deal since Kuzma comes off the books 1 year earlier and sets the Kings up for some significant cap space during the 2027 off-season since LaVine, DeRozan, Kuzma, & Schroder will all be expiring. On top of that, they took a look at Smith and add a future pick swap.

AussieBuck · Post #17 » by **AussieBuck** » Mon Oct 13, 2025 9:14 pm

You dudes need to watch some Bucks preseason games. Our 5 best perimeter guys are guards and they work well together in three guard lineups. We do not need another one. If you're not coming up with something for a big wing defender who can shoot, you're not filling a need for the Bucks.

kalenclayton · Post #18 » by **kalenclayton** » Wed Oct 15, 2025 6:20 pm

If there were a time for the kings to pull the trigger on Kuzma, it would be now with Keegan out.

Post #19 » by **gswhoops** » Wed Oct 15, 2025 6:26 pm

AussieBuck wrote:You dudes need to watch some Bucks preseason games. Our 5 best perimeter guys are guards and they work well together in three guard lineups. We do not need another one. If you're not coming up with something for a big wing defender who can shoot, you're not filling a need for the Bucks.

It's moderately damning that Kuzma is not among the Bucks' top 5 perimeter guys given his salary and the Bucks' overall talent level at the 1-3 spots

AussieBuck · Post #20 » by **AussieBuck** » Wed Oct 15, 2025 8:59 pm

gswhoops wrote:
AussieBuck wrote:You dudes need to watch some Bucks preseason games. Our 5 best perimeter guys are guards and they work well together in three guard lineups. We do not need another one. If you're not coming up with something for a big wing defender who can shoot, you're not filling a need for the Bucks.

It's moderately damning that Kuzma is not among the Bucks' top 5 perimeter guys given his salary and the Bucks' overall talent level at the 1-3 spots

He's a PF really, and other than that he's just a salary slot to trade.