Bucks Expected To Be Punished For Cap Circumvention With Gary Trent Jr

Post #1 » by **RealGM Wiretap** » Yesterday 2:22 pm

Read this story on RealGM.com.

TheCage4 · Post #2 » by **TheCage4** » Yesterday 6:19 pm

All this for a guy averaging 5.8 MPG.

kanyon · Post #3 » by **kanyon** » Yesterday 7:13 pm

Except this is in line with what he was making before being on the Bucks, who had an emerging Rollins, Porter Jr., and Green. Just seems wrong that you can't take a pay cut to make it on with cap restrictions while they have a MVP and an alleged championship window, which is what so many players/teams do. A lot of players take smaller contracts to earn a bigger one because of how the salary cap is doled out. Sometimes players ask too much and then all the teams run out of room and they have to sign for minimums. And it seems to be more an indicator that KLUTCH is way too powerful, it looks like they blackmailed them. Their punishment should be stuck with this pretty bad contract.

Pickled Prunes · Post #4 » by **Pickled Prunes** » Yesterday 10:17 pm

kanyon wrote:Except this is in line with what he was making before being on the Bucks, who had an emerging Rollins, Porter Jr., and Green. Just seems wrong that you can't take a pay cut to make it on with cap restrictions while they have a MVP and an alleged championship window, which is what so many players/teams do. A lot of players take smaller contracts to earn a bigger one because of how the salary cap is doled out. Sometimes players ask too much and then all the teams run out of room and they have to sign for minimums. And it seems to be more an indicator that KLUTCH is way too powerful, it looks like they blackmailed them. Their punishment should be stuck with this pretty bad contract.

I think they will be stuck with the contract either way. (The NBA didn't void Kawhi's contract.) This will cost them draft capital... a couple of 2nd's perhaps.

That said, I think you are missing the problem in this scenario. Trent didn't just take a pay cut to join a contender. He took a deal, with a wink and a nod that they would pay him extra on his next contract. NBA free agency opened on June 30th, 2026. It looks an awful lot like this deal was agreed upon in 2024. That is obvious cap circumvention and it has nothing to do with the player or how much they got paid.

I know you don't believe that MIL wanted to give Trent a 4yr/$64m contract... after a season where he averaged 8/1/1 on <39% shooting. NBA teams can not negotiate beyond a players current deal. This was small potatoes, but imagine the Lakers tried to steal Ant from MIN by offering him a full 35% max until his 42nd B-day. It's a slippery slope!

kanyon · Post #5 » by **kanyon** » Yesterday 11:23 pm

Pickled Prunes wrote:
kanyon wrote:Except this is in line with what he was making before being on the Bucks, who had an emerging Rollins, Porter Jr., and Green. Just seems wrong that you can't take a pay cut to make it on with cap restrictions while they have a MVP and an alleged championship window, which is what so many players/teams do. A lot of players take smaller contracts to earn a bigger one because of how the salary cap is doled out. Sometimes players ask too much and then all the teams run out of room and they have to sign for minimums. And it seems to be more an indicator that KLUTCH is way too powerful, it looks like they blackmailed them. Their punishment should be stuck with this pretty bad contract.

I think they will be stuck with the contract either way. (The NBA didn't void Kawhi's contract.) This will cost them draft capital... a couple of 2nd's perhaps.

That said, I think you are missing the problem in this scenario. Trent didn't just take a pay cut to join a contender. He took a deal, with a wink and a nod that they would pay him extra on his next contract. NBA free agency opened on June 30th, 2026. It looks an awful lot like this deal was agreed upon in 2024. That is obvious cap circumvention and it has nothing to do with the player or how much they got paid.

I know you don't believe that MIL wanted to give Trent a 4yr/$64m contract... after a season where he averaged 8/1/1 on <39% shooting. NBA teams can not negotiate beyond a players current deal. This was small potatoes, but imagine the Lakers tried to steal Ant from MIN by offering him a full 35% max until his 42nd B-day. It's a slippery slope!

Then, logically, why do BIRD rights even exist at all if you're not allowed to consider the NEXT contract?

I'm also sure the Bucks came back and were like yea, we gotta do a smaller deal, but KLUTCH probably threatened to withhold talent. They would have definitely wanted to forget the wink and the nod if KLUTCH would have let them.

kanyon · Post #6 » by **kanyon** » Yesterday 11:35 pm

I also just don't get how this is the same thing as Joe Smith, where things were written down and promised on paper, like an additional contract, basically. And the Kawhi situation includes like fraud and fake shell companies and pay-offs outside of the league, its completely in a different stratosphere of corruption compared to both this and Joe Smith IMO. This is like... just don't resign him and never get any KLUTCH clients or suffer the consequences of a terrible contract for a now below-average role player for years... that's the punishment. It seems more an illustration of the power the agencies hold and it's pretty insane

Also, GTJ was top 20 in 3pt% in his first year with the Bucks, way better than the year before with the Raps. And everyone sucked on the Bucks last year, except the younger players that eventually took the minutes from the struggling vets. It's all nuts to me, Bucks are paying more for Dame to NOT play than GTJ's yearly salary...and they have a new coach. Different rotations. No Giannis.

Pickled Prunes · Post #7 » by **Pickled Prunes** » Today 12:37 am

kanyon wrote:
Pickled Prunes wrote:
kanyon wrote:Except this is in line with what he was making before being on the Bucks, who had an emerging Rollins, Porter Jr., and Green. Just seems wrong that you can't take a pay cut to make it on with cap restrictions while they have a MVP and an alleged championship window, which is what so many players/teams do. A lot of players take smaller contracts to earn a bigger one because of how the salary cap is doled out. Sometimes players ask too much and then all the teams run out of room and they have to sign for minimums. And it seems to be more an indicator that KLUTCH is way too powerful, it looks like they blackmailed them. Their punishment should be stuck with this pretty bad contract.

I think they will be stuck with the contract either way. (The NBA didn't void Kawhi's contract.) This will cost them draft capital... a couple of 2nd's perhaps.

That said, I think you are missing the problem in this scenario. Trent didn't just take a pay cut to join a contender. He took a deal, with a wink and a nod that they would pay him extra on his next contract. NBA free agency opened on June 30th, 2026. It looks an awful lot like this deal was agreed upon in 2024. That is obvious cap circumvention and it has nothing to do with the player or how much they got paid.

I know you don't believe that MIL wanted to give Trent a 4yr/$64m contract... after a season where he averaged 8/1/1 on <39% shooting. NBA teams can not negotiate beyond a players current deal. This was small potatoes, but imagine the Lakers tried to steal Ant from MIN by offering him a full 35% max until his 42nd B-day. It's a slippery slope!

Then, logically, why do BIRD rights even exist at all if you're not allowed to consider the NEXT contract?

I'm also sure the Bucks came back and were like yea, we gotta do a smaller deal, but KLUTCH probably threatened to withhold talent. They would have definitely wanted to forget the wink and the nod if KLUTCH would have let them.

Naw, you don't get it. You certainly don't understand bird rights or the CBA.

This is simple... if Trent's deal was agreed to prior to June 30th 2026 at 6:00pm EST, than it was salary cap circumvention. This isn't complicated. The new contract is not the violation; the wink and nod is the violation.

Trent is trash. He is getting paid because MIL is fulfilling a promise they made two years ago... a promise that intentionally circumvented the salary cap. You are going to have to find a way to wrap your mind around that.

It's not Trent's fault and it's not Klutch's fault... it's MIL fault for making the offer. You can't be mad at Trent or Klutch for expecting MIL to follow through. Good on them for doing so, but now they got to pay!

kanyon · Post #8 » by **kanyon** » Today 3:42 am

It takes 2 to tango. *Shrug* Klutch shares a lot of the blame otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

Just seems like small potatoes to pay a role player 10 extra million a year when we literally got dudes doing this for way more money and also players throwing games and stuff. It is his own fault for sucking more his 2nd year, if it was just after his first year with MKE, I don't think there's a question. People get over paid by that and more all the time. Also, Bronny exists on a NBA roster.

Just get it done with. I'm a Bucks fan, we've been dragging the Giannis saga out for 3-4 years (really more, ever since he got good), this is just exhausting. I hope we can fire Horst and move on. Just do it already, Silver.