Bogut:5-yr/$60mm Guaranteed + $12.5mm possible bonuses (OLD)

[Jez2983]

I like how you cut out certain quotes. Lol.

The blog was researched soundly. The list of comparable salaries that I posted within this forum was compiled from a quick search. That list doesn't appear in my blog.

That's fair enough - I didn't read what you posted properly the first time, I thought the 'sound research' pertained to the contracts you listed, not your site. I apologise for my mistake.

I still believe the information you posted on your site on Biedrins vs. Bogut is faulty.

Bogut and Biedrins equal on rebounds last year, Bogut 1 rbpg extra over career
Bogut 3.9 points per game extra last year, 4.3 ppg extra on career
Bogut .5 bpg extra per game last year, .1 extra for Biedrens per year
Biedrens less minutes, more fouls per game, also younger.

I'd say their contract value is fairly equivelant currently.

You say Bogut 3 points per game more, and Biedrins more rebounds. That just isn't sound research in my opinion as I've shown above.

[paul]

" I'm not going to comment much on this one except say that Bogut is an All-star now and for a few more years to come"

What did I miss? Is this like the Redd being an All-Star every year because he made it once thing? Except Bogut gets to be an All-Star without ever being an All-Star?




And Gad I appreciate your crusade. Last year people would say how Mo was making almost 9 million dollars when he was making ~7.5. I didn't get it. I still don't.

Yeah I caught that as well mid but pretty sure it was a typo and he meant Boozer rather than Bogut, as he followed it with 'but he's a PF not a C' and also that he was 'definitely a superior player'.

Bogut and Biedrins equal on rebounds last year, Bogut 1 rbpg extra over career
Bogut 3.9 points per game extra last year, 4.3 ppg extra on career
Bogut .5 bpg extra per game last year, .1 extra for Biedrens per year
Biedrens less minutes, more fouls per game, also younger.

I'd say their contract value is fairly equivelant currently.

You say Bogut 3 points per game more, and Biedrins more rebounds. That just isn't sound research in my opinion as I've shown above.

I didn't read his blog (his posts on here were so insightful I decided to skip it) but if he was even remotely suggesting Bierdrins was worth more than Bogut or better than Bogut his credibility is completely shot to pieces.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

So what was the non-economic issue?

[Sigra]

So what was the non-economic issue?

He said that he loves town and people in town and culture. So that is not that. What is left? Coach? He should love Skiles and I think he does. Teamates? Bingo. Which teamates? Those that have ball in their hands most of the time. Did he get any promise? Time will tell

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

I think he demanded that they re-sign Markota. Those guys are best friends because they can speak the same language. That was why we drafted him, right?

[paulpressey25]

GAD was merely reciting the $6.3mm salary next year to counter the blogger poster argument that the Bucks shouldn't have given Bogut a level pay contract since he clearly wouldn't be worth $12 million NEXT YEAR. GAD simply used Bogut's actual salary NEXT YEAR to blast down that argument.

BallerBlogger has a point on Bogut's deal as being another case of a player being paid on "potential" that hasn't been proven out over a few seasons at least with great production. We only have the last three months to go on.

But where I think his argument falls short is where he says that "Al Harrington" is a better player and had better stats last year. He's wrong on both counts.

The other area of critique is his list of comparable players. I would hazard to guess that a number of those teams would deal those particular players for Bogut right now, even up, if they had the chance. Even with Bogut's new contract. I could see the GM's for the teams that Camby, Z-man, Harrington, Troy Murphy, Curry, Dampier, etc. are on all jumping at the chance to dump their guy for Bogut. The only ones that might not would be Dalembert, Chandler, Kaman and Jefferson. Given that Boozer will likely leave next year, I'd pretty much guarantee you Larry Miller would trade Boozer for the resigned Bogut right now this minute, thus pointing out the value to a small market of having your players locked-up.

A final thought to his analysis is that some of the guys on his list have ascending contracts and will be paid more than Bogut in future years. Al Jefferson for example will finish out at $14 and $15mm a season. He's worth that, but will be harder to trade. The Bucks having a level salary essentially preserve their options to deal Bogut later since he's not starting out at $8mm a year and then ramping up to $14 or $15 in the last year. A great example of this working for the team is Kirk Hinrich. The Bulls front loaded his deal, so he's easily tradeable now. He would not be if his contract was stair-stepped upward.

[europa]

BallerBlogger has a point on Bogut's deal as being another case of a player being paid on "potential" that hasn't been proven out over a few seasons at least with great production.

To a degree. I think the low end for Bogut would've been between $10.5M-$11M a year annually. I don't think the Bucks could have realistically expected to go lower than that based on what Bogut has done thus far in his career. So if he's being paid $12M a year annually that's only slightly overpaying based on what he's produced thus far. I would've preferred a deal around $11M but I can live with overpaying by $1M a year if need be to keep Bogut. So I don't think the Bucks shelled out a huge amount of money with regard to what they hope Bogut will do going forward. If he generates the type of production he did in the final 50 games last year, he's worth $12M and arguably more. If he improves upon that level of production than the Bucks will have a bargain on their hands given the structure of the deal. Plus, by including team incentives into the deal it's a win-win for both sides. Bogut gets more money and the Bucks will reap the benefits as a team because Bogut's play will be at a high level.

With any young player you're paying to a degree on potential. That's just the nature of the business. But the Bucks appear in this case to have done a good job of signing Bogut to a deal that didn't grossly overpay him but enabled him and (most importantly) the team to get more value out of the contract should his game continue to improve.

[Jez2983]

I didn't read his blog (his posts on here were so insightful I decided to skip it) but if he was even remotely suggesting Bierdrins was worth more than Bogut or better than Bogut his credibility is completely shot to pieces.

He wasn't saying anything about them in comparison other than asking what Biedrins should get, and said on this forum that his blog was based on sound research, which I was able to debunk within 5 minutes of looking at Bogut's and Biedrins' stats. He didn't imply whether one was better/equal to the other on his site. And this was one piece of 'sound research' I located within seconds of looking at his site.

BallerBlogger has a point on Bogut's deal as being another case of a player being paid on "potential" that hasn't been proven out over a few seasons at least with great production. We only have the last three months to go on.

PP, I don't think this is a new idea though, I'm sure others have talked of the fact that Bogut had only a brief period of good production. Certainly could point to progressively increased production of Bogut and early work he was doing in the season that didn't show up on the stats sheet (better defence, esp. man on man) to counter the claim that this deal is merely for 'potential'. Signs point to maintainence of this improved play, not regression.

I was also happy that ballblogger didn't get especially upset with all our posters attacking his credibility as could have happened.

Also pleased with how quick us Aussies jumped up to defend Bogut - middle of the working day, too! Good stuff fellas!

[ballerblogger]

Bogut isn't an All-Star. He's a borderline double-double player. He's not worth $12 million per season.

It doesn't really matter if Bogut is worth $12 mil per season this coming season. We're only paying him ~$6.3 mil for this coming season and we were going to be paying him regardless, unless we had traded him or we had decided quite some time ago not to exercise our team option for the 08-09 season, meaning he would have been an unrestricted free agent this offseason that would have required a salary much higher than $6.3 mil to retain.

When does he need to be worth $12 mil per season?
How about when we're actually paying him $12 mil per season?

Kaman received 5/52.5M after 12/9.6/1.4 season being slightly older than Bogut and Bogut got 5/60M after 14.4/9.8/1.7. Go look around and get back to me, and tell me Bogut given his age and production is not worth $12M per year.

Okay, I looked around, here are some comparable salaries for next season:

Eddy Curry 9,723,983

Samuel Dalembert 10,520,000

Zydrunas Illgauskas 10,841,615

Rasheed Wallace 13,680,000

Troy Murphy 10,126,984

Erick Dampier 9,550,000

Tyson Chandler 10,950,000

Marcus Camby 8,000,000

Al Jefferson 11,000,000

Carlos Boozer 11,593,817

Al Harrington 9,226,250

Chris Kaman 9,500,000

Brad Miller 11,375,000

Bogut might be better than Troy Murphy and Eddy Curry.

Andrew Bogut 6,294,307

What do you think he should have been paid?

If I were the Bucks GM, I wouldn't have signed him to more than $8 million a season. Just because you have the money to spend, doesn't mean you need to waste it.

No you wouldn't have.
Because Bogut never would have agreed to that.
Come on...

Yes, I would have. If Bogut declines the deal, I let him walk. It's that simple my friend. I'm not a fan of franchises that build themselves for mediocrity. If I'm not on the path to an NBA championship, I'd blow the ship up.

[europa]

I've yet to see too many teams that have become contenders by lowballing their top players. It's one thing to overestimate your own player's worth and grossly overpay. That's something every team needs to avoid and it's a problem the Bucks had with the previous regime. It's another to pay a player around $3M less than he deserves. That's a pretty good way to ensure nobody worth a damn will ever want to play for you in the future.

[ballerblogger]

GAD was merely reciting the $6.3mm salary next year to counter the blogger poster argument that the Bucks shouldn't have given Bogut a level pay contract since he clearly wouldn't be worth $12 million NEXT YEAR. GAD simply used Bogut's actual salary NEXT YEAR to blast down that argument.

BallerBlogger has a point on Bogut's deal as being another case of a player being paid on "potential" that hasn't been proven out over a few seasons at least with great production. We only have the last three months to go on.

But where I think his argument falls short is where he says that "Al Harrington" is a better player and had better stats last year. He's wrong on both counts.

The other area of critique is his list of comparable players. I would hazard to guess that a number of those teams would deal those particular players for Bogut right now, even up, if they had the chance. Even with Bogut's new contract. I could see the GM's for the teams that Camby, Z-man, Harrington, Troy Murphy, Curry, Dampier, etc. are on all jumping at the chance to dump their guy for Bogut. The only ones that might not would be Dalembert, Chandler, Kaman and Jefferson. Given that Boozer will likely leave next year, I'd pretty much guarantee you Larry Miller would trade Boozer for the resigned Bogut right now this minute, thus pointing out the value to a small market of having your players locked-up.

A final thought to his analysis is that some of the guys on his list have ascending contracts and will be paid more than Bogut in future years. Al Jefferson for example will finish out at $14 and $15mm a season. He's worth that, but will be harder to trade. The Bucks having a level salary essentially preserve their options to deal Bogut later since he's not starting out at $8mm a year and then ramping up to $14 or $15 in the last year. A great example of this working for the team is Kirk Hinrich. The Bulls front loaded his deal, so he's easily tradeable now. He would not be if his contract was stair-stepped upward.

You're right. Jefferson's contract is ascending. But the total of his remaining contract is $65 million. That's $5 million more than Bogut's. Or an average of $1 million per season.

There's absolutely no way that Larry Miller would trade Boozer for Bogut straight up. I'm sorry, I disagree.

Al Harrington's statistics regressed this past season. Due to that regression, my stating that he's better than Bogut is without proof. But I still believe it to be true.

I'm glad you understood the point I was making about the Bucks paying Bogut on potential and how that sets a bad precedent of market value.

Honestly guys, Bogut got his deal because of his play in the second half of 2007-2008. It's dangerous to reward a guy because of his play in a contract year. Even if he's still developing. Look at Kwame Brown. And no, I'm not saying Kwame is better than Bogut. But Brown earned his bloated contract based upon his play in the second half of his 3rd season.

That's not good business.

[ballerblogger]

I noticed a lot of you chose to respond to the comment that I made about Biedrins in my blog. Here is that comment in it's entirety:

To be fair to Milwaukee, Bogut’s deal isn’t the maximum amount they could have offered him. But if Bogut is worth $12 million per season, how much is Danny Granger worth? Emeka Okafor? Andris Biedrins (Biedrins averaged more rebounds than Bogut and only 3 less points)?

I didn't say that Biedrins was worth more than Bogut. I simply questioned how much he is worth since their numbers are closer than most people realize. That's all.

[ballerblogger]

I think most of us agree that Bogut wasn't worth $12 million LAST SEASON. But a lot of you are in favor of paying him that much in the future. I think it's fair to assume that those of you who are in favor of that increase, are expecting Bogut to improve.

Here are his 07-08 #'s: 14.3 points, 9.8 rebounds, 2.6 assists, 1.7 blocks, 51% from the field, 59% from the free throw line.

How much improvement is necessary to justify $12 million per season?

[europa]

How much improvement is necessary to justify $12 million per season?

As I stated earlier, if Bogut generates the type of production going forward he did in the final 50 games last season, he'll be worth $12M. If he produces 16-17 points per game/10+ rebounds a game, 3 assists per game with good defense I believe he'll be earning his contract going forward. If he improves beyond that and starts earning his incentives the Bucks will be getting even more value from the deal because chances are they'll be improving as a team.

[paulpressey25]

Baller, you need to put on the Utah board the idea of an even up Swap of Bogut for Boozer. Considering that Utah could easily lose Boozer next year to Miami, I think that team would make that deal fast. I even think some of the Jazz fans would make the deal even if Boozer were not a FA next season.

The problem the world outside Milwaukee has with this contract is that few have watched all of Bogut's games the last three years to see his progression as a player. You can sit and say "14/9" but unless you saw how good he became this year defensively, you won't get it.

Also, unless you watched how bad he was offensively his first two years, you can't appreciate the fact that by year end the guy became a very good post scoring threat.

I think the only thing bad about this deal is the potential that Bogut was simply putting out hard for a big contract and now he has no incentive to improve. That is a legit critique. We've all seen plenty of guys never play as hard after they got their big deal. But then again you have a guy like Chris Kamen who has kept improving.

Where Bogut >>> Biedrins right now is the fact that Bogut now has a good post scoring game and has equaled Biedrins defensively. Before this last seasons Biedrins >>> Bogut. But that equation changed. And I like Biedrins.

[Rockmaninoff]

I think most of us agree that Bogut wasn't worth $12 million LAST SEASON. But a lot of you are in favor of paying him that much in the future. I think it's fair to assume that those of you who are in favor of that increase, are expecting Bogut to improve.

Here are his 07-08 #'s: 14.3 points, 9.8 rebounds, 2.6 assists, 1.7 blocks, 51% from the field, 59% from the free throw line.

How much improvement is necessary to justify $12 million per season?

20/10/3/2

About what Brand averaged when he was making $12 million.

I'm on your side ballerblogger. I think Bogut is worth around $9-10 million. Kaman money. This contract skews the market.

[europa]

Kaman's deal was worth $10.5M.

[ballerblogger]

Kaman received 5/52.5M after 12/9.6/1.4 season being slightly older than Bogut and Bogut got 5/60M after 14.4/9.8/1.7. Go look around and get back to me, and tell me Bogut given his age and production is not worth $12M per year.

Okay, I looked around, here are some comparable salaries for next season:

Eddy Curry 9,723,983

Samuel Dalembert 10,520,000

Zydrunas Illgauskas 10,841,615

Rasheed Wallace 13,680,000

Troy Murphy 10,126,984

Erick Dampier 9,550,000

Tyson Chandler 10,950,000

Marcus Camby 8,000,000

Al Jefferson 11,000,000

Carlos Boozer 11,593,817

Al Harrington 9,226,250

Chris Kaman 9,500,000

Brad Miller 11,375,000

This is why I put together the list of post players with comparable salaries. It was a quick search.

I noticed a lot of you have attempted to justify Bogut's salary because he's a center. I think you're making a mistake in doing so. The line between center and power forward is a blurry one now. Bogut shouldn't be compared to centers alone, he should be stacked up against power forwards too.

[LUKE23]

Bogut is clearly a better overall player than Biedrins, and it's really not close. Biedrins is simply a garbage/cleanup guy, he's not a guy you're going to go through the post for offense.

[fam3381]

I understand if some people view the contract as overly generous, but to some extent that's the reality of the business. I think the Bucks were concerned that the teams with cap space might throw an even bigger deal at one of the other young players on the market and so they wanted to get the deal done and dusted at a number they felt comfortable with. I don't really see this as setting some new precedent for big man salaries, so I don't blame the Bucks as much.

If you were only willing to pay Bogut $8-10 million then that's very principled and all, but you wouldn't sign him. As GAD has pointed out, you'd just be providing a huge incentive for him to take his $8 million QO and go someplace else in 2010, when there are likely going to be some teams that cleared cap room but didn't get one of the big fish. That's fine if you would rather not have Bogut at all than pay him $12+ mil, but if it's simply a negotiating ploy it's a risky move.

Generally speaking, if you only were willing to sign players to "good" contracts then you'd probably end up with a bunch of castoffs that other teams had reasons to be scared away from. Desirable players don't generally sign contracts that the public views as good deals. I think it's true that at some point you can't let a runaway market destroy your good sense, but I don't think the Bucks have done that either.

Al Harrington's statistics regressed this past season. Due to that regression, my stating that he's better than Bogut is without proof. But I still believe it to be true.

I honestly don't think there's a single GM that would prefer Harrington over Bogut, even accounting for Bogut's new contract, and I don't see much statistical proof for that fact even before this season. Even in his best year Harrington's PER (16.08, 05/06) was below what Bogut's 07/08 number was (17.55, including his mediocre first two months). That's largely because Al's a very poor rebounding 4 who has also never been a high efficiency scorer. He's a great mismatch type guy in a unique offense, but not even Nelly was willing to give him a ton of minutes last year. He definitely does some nice things on the floor but his game doesn't really fit any single position as well as you'd like. Bogut was a better player last year and his ceiling is also higher. Plus he actually has a position and it happens to be a more important one than Harrington's.