Per [The Athletic’s Joe Vardon](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7621957/2026/09/23/bucks-gary-trent-jr-nba-investigation-kawhi-clippers-comparison/?unlocked_article_code=1.DVE.uQ7Z.bQN7NiRX2-qV&source=emp_shared_article&smid=url-share-ta), the NBA’s investigation into a potential cap-circumvention violation by the Bucks and Gary Trent Jr.—who signed a four-year, $64m deal this offseason—remains ongoing. Per Vardon, the league hired national investigations law firm Hecker Fink to conduct the probe.
> An NBA spokesman said the league’s investigation into Trent’s contract is ongoing and declined to answer further questions. The Bucks and Klutch Sports Group—Trent’s representing agency—have declined comment, but two sources with direct knowledge of the interviews taking place as part of the investigation said both the Bucks and Klutch are cooperating.
Most of you know the circumstances behind why the deal is fishy by now, but for those who don’t, Trent inked consecutive (basically) minimum deals with the Bucks over the _last_ two offseasons—even though he presumably would have had the chance to earn more elsewhere—which allowed him to accrue early Bird rights and be eligible for a massive payday _this_ offseason. He then cashed in a four-year deal worth $64m, which raised eyebrows, given that GT had just come off what was probably the worst season of his career.
> The NBA needs to learn if the Bucks and Trent purposefully agreed to enter into smaller, cheaper contracts with a plan to reward Trent in a future deal–which is a violation of the league’s salary rules.
Now, when comparing this situation to the recent Kawhi Leonard saga or even the infamous Joe Smith deal 27 years ago—where, almost identical to Trent and the Bucks (allegedly), Minnesota player Joe Smith and the Wolves front office agreed that Smith would sign consecutive minimum deals to obtain Bird rights and then ink a massive contract down the line—the key difference is that incriminating documentary evidence was found in both of those cases. At least so far, no such evidence appears to exist in the Trent case, and reportedly, the Bucks have not deviated from their story that they acted properly and within the rules.
> The Bucks, meanwhile, have maintained to their rivals that they believed Trent’s market value to be the contract they ultimately awarded him, and those same rival executives said Milwaukee maintained projections of likely free-agent contracts that prove it always believed Trent would be a $15 million-per-year player on the open market.
As I mentioned in [Trent’s Ranking the Roster piece](/bucks-roster/74554/ranking-milwaukee-roster-gary-trent-jr-investigation-cap-circumvention), the league doesn’t actually need “documentary evidence” that the Bucks and Trent agreed to an illegal deal to issue a punishment. All they need is to deduce that no other _reasonable_ explanation exists for the Bucks signing Trent to the contract _besides_ agreeing to an illegal deal.
We shall see how far the word “reasonable” can be stretched by Horst and Co.