Gary Trent Jr. - Fair Contract Offer?

[Scase]

Toronto didn't want a 24 FRP, given they already had at least 3 at that point, and that seems to have been what the Knicks had on the table. As I shared with you in the same post, Utah was offering Ochai and Olynyk for Bruce but, again, we were looking for a pick. These are the trade discussions which advanced far enough for folks like us to hear about. Others doubtless took place. We didn't accept any of the offers for him. That doesn't mean he didn't have value. In fact, it demonstrates the exact opposite. Please tell me you see that. Rest assured, he still has value.

Alternatively, they only offered a 24 pick, because they don't particularly value Brown. I get that Masai wouldn't have interest in the pick, but that doesn't mean he's worth a FRP in a better draft either. If all Brown is worth is a mid 20's pick in a bad draft, I don't see how you get anything useful next year either.

Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you to grasp. Utah and New York made offers for Brown. Toronto wanted more than was offered, so the deals didn't happen. Clearly Brown had value last year. He's still a very useful player on the right team (Toronto right now is not the team) with a very useful mid sized expiring salary, great for salary filler in trades. His value may be lower this summer, it may be higher, but it certainly isn't zero.

How about instead you try and do it without being an ****?

Until then ignore my posts.

[YogurtProducer]

Alternatively, they only offered a 24 pick, because they don't particularly value Brown. I get that Masai wouldn't have interest in the pick, but that doesn't mean he's worth a FRP in a better draft either. If all Brown is worth is a mid 20's pick in a bad draft, I don't see how you get anything useful next year either.

Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you to grasp. Utah and New York made offers for Brown. Toronto wanted more than was offered, so the deals didn't happen. Clearly Brown had value last year. He's still a very useful player on the right team (Toronto right now is not the team) with a very useful mid sized expiring salary, great for salary filler in trades. His value may be lower this summer, it may be higher, but it certainly isn't zero.

How about instead you try and do it without being an ****?

Until then ignore my posts.

Pot, meet kettle.

[OAKLEY_2]

OKC or Houston would acquire Brown because he's a useful player who can provide many things their young teams need, even though he hasn't really shown it during his time here. Also, he's also an expiring salary which is large enough to be the basis for matching salary in a larger trade. These trades are entirely realistic, but Im not saying they're likely. They are presented to help you understand possibilities. At the same time, in the Trent to Orlando scenario presented, Trent would be signed and traded, so he'd be on at least a 3 year deal. Orlando would be trading Ingles, still playable at 37 but clearly nearing the end, for a young veteran who fills a significant need - shooting. Again, it's a realistic scenario which may or may not happen presented to show you that trades don't need to bring back fully matching salaries.



TPEs expire after a year, but there is no limit on the number them a team can use in a season. Washington, for example, has 7 TPEs currently on the books and used 2 of them already this year. Also, a cap space team must waive all existing TPEs and cannot generate new ones.



That's generally a bad plan, I agree. However, if you don't intend to retain Trent, for example, getting some assets back in a sign and trade makes sense. Similarly, with a player like Brown, who we know from the trade deadline just past has value, it makes more sense to get that value rather than letting him walk.

Fair enough on the examples of use, I appreciate the extra context. As for the TPE usage, thanks for the clarification as well, I think I may have misread that they can only use a TPE for a single MOVE, and not a single one per season. I am relatively ignorant when it comes to CBA/cap stuff.

As for Trent, I think a S&T is extremely unlikely, on top of the fact that his value in general is super low, as evidenced by the complete lack of trade talks with him over the last couple years. If we can send him out and not take back any salary and maybe some low picks, sure, I'm on board with that. But, he's not getting us back any useful players.

I don't think Trent will bring back useful players, either. As to his value, he still shoots well and teams do value that, including Toronto. I've been on the fence on bringing him back for a while, but his play the last few games has me leaning toward keeping him, pending the $ needed.

As for Brown, the ideal time was to trade him last year, I think his value is a lot lower than people think, much like Siakam. He's got value in theory, in practice, it doesn't seem as though he does. The Knicks (I think it was you who mentioned it before) offer of a pick in 2024 was the extent of his value, and if Masai wasn't willing to take that back, I don't see how he's got any genuine value. Remains to be seen though.

Toronto didn't want a 24 FRP, given they already had at least 3 at that point, and that seems to have been what the Knicks had on the table. As I shared with you in the same post, Utah was offering Ochai and Olynyk for Bruce but, again, we were looking for a pick. These are the trade discussions which advanced far enough for folks like us to hear about. Others doubtless took place. We didn't accept any of the offers for him. That doesn't mean he didn't have value. In fact, it demonstrates the exact opposite. Please tell me you see that. Rest assured, he still has value.

Rest assured it is why Raps will pick up his option as they have some control over perceived value as well. Gary is a luxury we cannot afford.

[islandboy53]

Alternatively, they only offered a 24 pick, because they don't particularly value Brown. I get that Masai wouldn't have interest in the pick, but that doesn't mean he's worth a FRP in a better draft either. If all Brown is worth is a mid 20's pick in a bad draft, I don't see how you get anything useful next year either.

Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you to grasp. Utah and New York made offers for Brown. Toronto wanted more than was offered, so the deals didn't happen. Clearly Brown had value last year. He's still a very useful player on the right team (Toronto right now is not the team) with a very useful mid sized expiring salary, great for salary filler in trades. His value may be lower this summer, it may be higher, but it certainly isn't zero.

How about instead you try and do it without being an ****?

Until then ignore my posts.

Sorry, dude - poor phrasing. I certainly didn't intend to imply you were slow. It's just that you continue to insist that things that are obviously true, aren't. Sometimes that comes down to me not explaining the situation adequately, which I was trying to remedy if that was the issue. Other times I'm sure it is a matter of you refusing to accept that your understanding of a situation is not accurate. With that said, are you still maintaining that Brown has no value?

[islandboy53]

Fair enough on the examples of use, I appreciate the extra context. As for the TPE usage, thanks for the clarification as well, I think I may have misread that they can only use a TPE for a single MOVE, and not a single one per season. I am relatively ignorant when it comes to CBA/cap stuff.

As for Trent, I think a S&T is extremely unlikely, on top of the fact that his value in general is super low, as evidenced by the complete lack of trade talks with him over the last couple years. If we can send him out and not take back any salary and maybe some low picks, sure, I'm on board with that. But, he's not getting us back any useful players.

I don't think Trent will bring back useful players, either. As to his value, he still shoots well and teams do value that, including Toronto. I've been on the fence on bringing him back for a while, but his play the last few games has me leaning toward keeping him, pending the $ needed.

As for Brown, the ideal time was to trade him last year, I think his value is a lot lower than people think, much like Siakam. He's got value in theory, in practice, it doesn't seem as though he does. The Knicks (I think it was you who mentioned it before) offer of a pick in 2024 was the extent of his value, and if Masai wasn't willing to take that back, I don't see how he's got any genuine value. Remains to be seen though.

Toronto didn't want a 24 FRP, given they already had at least 3 at that point, and that seems to have been what the Knicks had on the table. As I shared with you in the same post, Utah was offering Ochai and Olynyk for Bruce but, again, we were looking for a pick. These are the trade discussions which advanced far enough for folks like us to hear about. Others doubtless took place. We didn't accept any of the offers for him. That doesn't mean he didn't have value. In fact, it demonstrates the exact opposite. Please tell me you see that. Rest assured, he still has value.

Rest assured it is why Raps will pick up his option as they have some control over perceived value as well. Gary is a luxury we cannot afford.

Agreed on Brown. On Trent, as I said, I'm on the fence or, perhaps more accurately, I'm back and forth.

[Scase]

Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you to grasp. Utah and New York made offers for Brown. Toronto wanted more than was offered, so the deals didn't happen. Clearly Brown had value last year. He's still a very useful player on the right team (Toronto right now is not the team) with a very useful mid sized expiring salary, great for salary filler in trades. His value may be lower this summer, it may be higher, but it certainly isn't zero.

How about instead you try and do it without being an ****?

Until then ignore my posts.

Sorry, dude - poor phrasing. I certainly didn't intend to imply you were slow. It's just that you continue to insist that things that are obviously true, aren't. Sometimes that comes down to me not explaining the situation adequately, which I was trying to remedy if that was the issue. Other times I'm sure it is a matter of you refusing to accept that your understanding of a situation is not accurate. With that said, are you still maintaining that Brown has no value?

All good, it happens, and I appreciate the apology.

I'm not saying Brown has literally zero value, I'm just of the mind that his value is rather low. Your suggestion that he wasn't traded because they wanted more than offered aligns more with his value being low, rather than the FO being picky. The FRPs being offered for Brown were for 2024, which is a notoriously weak draft. So the Knicks offering a FRP in 2024 is likely because they don't value it as much as say, a 2025 or beyond.

Not all picks are created equal, so just because there was an offer for a 24 FRP, doesn't mean there will be one for 25 in a stronger draft. Additionally, Masai has been pretty bad with overvaluing assets and holding onto them longer than he should as of late, so I'm more inclined to assume that his value is not that high based on the offers, and Masai is just hoping someone will be desperate to offer more.

A players value is what the market is willing to pay, not what you're willing to sell at, and so far, that value isn't very high.

[TimeForChange]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=qt3Vqy7rNbyneoNo3e4Wsw

[agkagk]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=qt3Vqy7rNbyneoNo3e4Wsw

Theres a lot to like about his profile and resume.

Given the weak free agent crop, i suspect there will be a lot of competition for his services.

Theres a good possibly we lose him and his cap hold for nothing.

4 years and 20 per is my guess

[agkagk]

Can someone explain the cap ramifications of trent signing elsewhere.

My understanding is that we wouldn’t retain his cap space and our subsequent cap ceiling would lower.

Am i close?

[dagger]

Can someone explain the cap ramifications of trent signing elsewhere.

My understanding is that we wouldn’t retain his cap space and our subsequent cap ceiling would lower.

Am i close?

No, not close. First, whatever $ figure he receives has to fit within the cap space of a team, unless he is moved by a sign and trade, which happens less often under the current cap rules. He's not a likely candidate of that. If he were to get, for sake of argument, another deal starting at his current salary of $18 million, another team would have to have $18 million in cap space to acccommodate that. Six teams out of 29 - aside from Toronto - might have sufficient cap space to sign him for that number, but that presumes he would be a priority for them rather than re-signing their own free agents or players at other positions, or not using so much of their cap space on one guy because they have a lot of extensions coming up. If he leaves Toronto, signing with another team, it has no effect on reducing the Raptors' cap ceiling. Every team has the same salary cap, some will operate below it and many above it. They also have the same luxury tax thresholds. The projected cap, just confirmed, for next season is $141 million, and the tax line is $172 million. If Trent stays or goes, the Raptors' salary cap number is $141 million and there are various things they can do to use the full amount. Much of that is spoken for already, or assumed (IQ will get a new contract, our draft picks have to be accounted for, etc etc.) If Trent is resigned, the Raptors can use his Bird rights to go over the salary cap but likely will stay below the $172 million tax line, Same for retaining Brown. If they were to lose Trent and not pick up Brown's option, they would have more available signings space under the cap number. But the cap and tax numbers define the maximums of what they can do.

[agkagk]

Can someone explain the cap ramifications of trent signing elsewhere.

My understanding is that we wouldn’t retain his cap space and our subsequent cap ceiling would lower.

Am i close?

No, not close. First, whatever $ figure he receives has to fit within the cap space of a team, unless he is moved by a sign and trade, which happens less often under the current cap rules. He's not a likely candidate of that. If he were to get, for sake of argument, another deal starting at his current salary of $18 million, another team would have to have $18 million in cap space to acccommodate that. Six teams out of 29 - aside from Toronto - might have sufficient cap space to sign him for that number, but that presumes he would be a priority for them rather than re-signing their own free agents or players at other positions, or not using so much of their cap space on one guy because they have a lot of extensions coming up. If he leaves Toronto, signing with another team, it has no effect on reducing the Raptors' cap ceiling. Every team has the same salary cap, some will operate below it and many above it. They also have the same luxury tax thresholds. The projected cap, just confirmed, for next season is $141 million, and the tax line is $172 million. If Trent stays or goes, the Raptors' salary cap number is $141 million and there are various things they can do to use the full amount. Much of that is spoken for already, or assumed (IQ will get a new contract, our draft picks have to be accounted for, etc etc.) If Trent is resigned, the Raptors can use his Bird rights to go over the salary cap but likely will stay below the $172 million tax line, Same for retaining Brown. If they were to lose Trent and not pick up Brown's option, they would have more available signings space under the cap number. But the cap and tax numbers define the maximums of what they can do.

Thanks for the detailed response.

Regarding the tax line — so do we have his bird rights or not and did my previous question demonstrate a basic understanding about bird rights?

To expand what i read was that we didnt have his bird rights, hence his affect on our “cap ceiling” as we could go over to sign him otherwise, but in this instance, we cannot.


As a side bar; 4x80 starting next to lamelo makes sense for charlotte, i think!

Otherwise, love how you explained the lack of potential suitors!

Cheers!

[JB7]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=qt3Vqy7rNbyneoNo3e4Wsw

Theres a lot to like about his profile and resume.

Given the weak free agent crop, i suspect there will be a lot of competition for his services.

Theres a good possibly we lose him and his cap hold for nothing.

4 years and 20 per is my guess

If that is the case, we should count our blessings, like letting FVV walk. Let someone else overpay GTJ.

[Mak]

If he is back 90% of people will hate the deal. I would like to see him back for anything under 20, we need good players, however flawed Gary is.

[Badonkadonk]

The MLE is going to be ~$13M next year and people are thinking he's going to get just $14M-$16M (currently leading in votes)

He's shot 39% from deep on over 2,000 attempts on his career and he just turned 25, which means he's not close to decline yet.

It only takes one team, but even that aside, he's easily going to have $20M+ value in an open market.

[brownbobcat]

Can someone explain the cap ramifications of trent signing elsewhere.

My understanding is that we wouldn’t retain his cap space and our subsequent cap ceiling would lower.

Am i close?

No, not close. First, whatever $ figure he receives has to fit within the cap space of a team, unless he is moved by a sign and trade, which happens less often under the current cap rules. He's not a likely candidate of that. If he were to get, for sake of argument, another deal starting at his current salary of $18 million, another team would have to have $18 million in cap space to acccommodate that. Six teams out of 29 - aside from Toronto - might have sufficient cap space to sign him for that number, but that presumes he would be a priority for them rather than re-signing their own free agents or players at other positions, or not using so much of their cap space on one guy because they have a lot of extensions coming up. If he leaves Toronto, signing with another team, it has no effect on reducing the Raptors' cap ceiling. Every team has the same salary cap, some will operate below it and many above it. They also have the same luxury tax thresholds. The projected cap, just confirmed, for next season is $141 million, and the tax line is $172 million. If Trent stays or goes, the Raptors' salary cap number is $141 million and there are various things they can do to use the full amount. Much of that is spoken for already, or assumed (IQ will get a new contract, our draft picks have to be accounted for, etc etc.) If Trent is resigned, the Raptors can use his Bird rights to go over the salary cap but likely will stay below the $172 million tax line, Same for retaining Brown. If they were to lose Trent and not pick up Brown's option, they would have more available signings space under the cap number. But the cap and tax numbers define the maximums of what they can do.

Thanks for the detailed response.

Regarding the tax line — so do we have his bird rights or not and did my previous question demonstrate a basic understanding about bird rights?

To expand what i read was that we didnt have his bird rights, hence his affect on our “cap ceiling” as we could go over to sign him otherwise, but in this instance, we cannot.


As a side bar; 4x80 starting next to lamelo makes sense for charlotte, i think!

Otherwise, love how you explained the lack of potential suitors!

Cheers!

Yes, they have his Bird rights - he will have played the minimum 3 years on the same contract (or series of contracts if not switching teams)

In a nutshell, the money available to re-sign Gary (and exercise the team option for Brown) is not necessarily available for other free agents. The team can only spend to the $141M cap when accounting for its own capholds + other free agents.

If it only has to worry about its own capholds, then it can far exceed that cap.

[dagger]

Can someone explain the cap ramifications of trent signing elsewhere.

My understanding is that we wouldn’t retain his cap space and our subsequent cap ceiling would lower.

Am i close?

No, not close. First, whatever $ figure he receives has to fit within the cap space of a team, unless he is moved by a sign and trade, which happens less often under the current cap rules. He's not a likely candidate of that. If he were to get, for sake of argument, another deal starting at his current salary of $18 million, another team would have to have $18 million in cap space to acccommodate that. Six teams out of 29 - aside from Toronto - might have sufficient cap space to sign him for that number, but that presumes he would be a priority for them rather than re-signing their own free agents or players at other positions, or not using so much of their cap space on one guy because they have a lot of extensions coming up. If he leaves Toronto, signing with another team, it has no effect on reducing the Raptors' cap ceiling. Every team has the same salary cap, some will operate below it and many above it. They also have the same luxury tax thresholds. The projected cap, just confirmed, for next season is $141 million, and the tax line is $172 million. If Trent stays or goes, the Raptors' salary cap number is $141 million and there are various things they can do to use the full amount. Much of that is spoken for already, or assumed (IQ will get a new contract, our draft picks have to be accounted for, etc etc.) If Trent is resigned, the Raptors can use his Bird rights to go over the salary cap but likely will stay below the $172 million tax line, Same for retaining Brown. If they were to lose Trent and not pick up Brown's option, they would have more available signings space under the cap number. But the cap and tax numbers define the maximums of what they can do.

Thanks for the detailed response.

Regarding the tax line — so do we have his bird rights or not and did my previous question demonstrate a basic understanding about bird rights?

To expand what i read was that we didnt have his bird rights, hence his affect on our “cap ceiling” as we could go over to sign him otherwise, but in this instance, we cannot.


As a side bar; 4x80 starting next to lamelo makes sense for charlotte, i think!

Otherwise, love how you explained the lack of potential suitors!

Cheers!

We have his Bird rights, which basically allow a team to offer any contract up to his maximum regardless of the team's tax status. (If a team has a lot of cap space, sufficient to fit the contract it is offering, Bird rights aren't really important). An example of how Bird rights might work for Toronto, at the start of free agency in July, Immanual Quickley will have a cap hold (a minimum charge against the 2024-25 season salary cap) of about $12 million. If the Raptors have cap space beyond that, they can fill it and then use Quickley's Bird rights to go over the cap with a new contract. The assumption is that he will be in a $25-27 million range for the first year of a new contact. There are a number of ways the team might not wish to have cap space (so long as it doesn't pass the luxury tax threshold), and some combination of picking Bruce Brown's option, signing Trent and Quickley would be ways to do that. As for what makes sense for Charlotte, they would likely have to forgo Miles Bridges (who has a very large cap hold) at a minimum to have enough cap space to make Gary a significant offer. Bridges may be an a-hole, but he is almost certainly a better player than Gary and only a few months older.

Charlotte has a first round pick charge coming of around $8 million, and needs a quality big man. I think it's iffy Gary would fit into that picture.

[JB7]

No, not close. First, whatever $ figure he receives has to fit within the cap space of a team, unless he is moved by a sign and trade, which happens less often under the current cap rules. He's not a likely candidate of that. If he were to get, for sake of argument, another deal starting at his current salary of $18 million, another team would have to have $18 million in cap space to acccommodate that. Six teams out of 29 - aside from Toronto - might have sufficient cap space to sign him for that number, but that presumes he would be a priority for them rather than re-signing their own free agents or players at other positions, or not using so much of their cap space on one guy because they have a lot of extensions coming up. If he leaves Toronto, signing with another team, it has no effect on reducing the Raptors' cap ceiling. Every team has the same salary cap, some will operate below it and many above it. They also have the same luxury tax thresholds. The projected cap, just confirmed, for next season is $141 million, and the tax line is $172 million. If Trent stays or goes, the Raptors' salary cap number is $141 million and there are various things they can do to use the full amount. Much of that is spoken for already, or assumed (IQ will get a new contract, our draft picks have to be accounted for, etc etc.) If Trent is resigned, the Raptors can use his Bird rights to go over the salary cap but likely will stay below the $172 million tax line, Same for retaining Brown. If they were to lose Trent and not pick up Brown's option, they would have more available signings space under the cap number. But the cap and tax numbers define the maximums of what they can do.

Thanks for the detailed response.

Regarding the tax line — so do we have his bird rights or not and did my previous question demonstrate a basic understanding about bird rights?

To expand what i read was that we didnt have his bird rights, hence his affect on our “cap ceiling” as we could go over to sign him otherwise, but in this instance, we cannot.


As a side bar; 4x80 starting next to lamelo makes sense for charlotte, i think!

Otherwise, love how you explained the lack of potential suitors!

Cheers!

We have his Bird rights, which basically allow a team to offer any contract up to his maximum regardless of the team's tax status. (If a team has a lot of cap space, sufficient to fit the contract it is offering, Bird rights aren't really important). An example of how Bird rights might work for Toronto, at the start of free agency in July, Immanual Quickley will have a cap hold (a minimum charge against the 2024-25 season salary cap) of about $12 million. If the Raptors have cap space beyond that, they can fill it and then use Quickley's Bird rights to go over the cap with a new contract. The assumption is that he will be in a $25-27 million range for the first year of a new contact. There are a number of ways the team might not wish to have cap space (so long as it doesn't pass the luxury tax threshold), and some combination of picking Bruce Brown's option, signing Trent and Quickley would be ways to do that. As for what makes sense for Charlotte, they would likely have to forgo Miles Bridges (who has a very large cap hold) at a minimum to have enough cap space to make Gary a significant offer. Bridges may be an a-hole, but he is almost certainly a better player than Gary and only a few months older.

Charlotte has a first round pick charge coming of around $8 million, and needs a quality big man. I think it's iffy Gary would fit into that picture.

The Magic are probably the team with the room and incentive to sign GTJ to FA contract. Raps were prepared to let him walk last year, and I don't expect anything different this year.

With the salary cap constraints, teams need to be cautious about how they spend their money. Most teams have about 6 players making $10M+, so committing $20M+ to a player like GTJ is limiting the teams potential.

[brownbobcat]

As for what makes sense for Charlotte, they would likely have to forgo Miles Bridges (who has a very large cap hold) at a minimum to have enough cap space to make Gary a significant offer. Bridges may be an a-hole, but he is almost certainly a better player than Gary and only a few months older.

Charlotte has a first round pick charge coming of around $8 million, and needs a quality big man. I think it's iffy Gary would fit into that picture.

Bridges' caphold is only 15M and only $5M of Bertans' salary is guaranteed next year - Charlotte could have enough space to offer GTJ a contract starting close to $18M/yr.

And there are other teams with cap space - Detroit has to spend that money on somebody, it's just a matter of which UFA snaps up the money and which one is left holding the bag. GTJ is a proven rotation player in this league, but not someone worth losing sleep over if he leaves. If you spend the money just because it's available, you're going to risk having an asset that no one else wants in the trade market and whose only value is as trade ballast. I'd make him a 3yr offer above MLE (~$45-50M) - maybe front load it or something to be more attractive, add player options - and let him test the market if he wants.

[Johnny Bball]

If any 3 point shooter is getting a bag thrown his way it should be Grayson Allen first.

[dagger]

If any 3 point shooter is getting a bag thrown his way it should be Grayson Allen first.

And his D is much more consistent than Gary's and the Suns are more limited than Toronto in what they can offer in a new contract. Just offering the most they can, it would cost Phoenix something like $70 million in salary and tax per season.