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

[LUKE23]

I agree fam. I just don't think it is 5/72.5M without any incentives put in, like some people are having a coronary about right now. My point was that if it's incentives based and Bogut does earn 72.5M, that will mean he and the Bucks had a damn nice season and he will have earned that deal.

I will be surprised if it is just 5/72.5M guaranteed with no incentives.

[carmelbrownqueen]

I don't want to misinterpret so could you confirm what you mean by this? I'm hoping I am real wrong about what you are saying.

Sorry, to clarify "all-in" meant with all incentives. At this point he did not want to say what the guaranteed dollars were or what type of incentives were built into the deal. So I don't think we can really make any type of final conclusion whether it was a bargain/too much until those details come out. For instance, if he gets $72.5 for being an all-star every year of the deal, then I don't have a big problem with it. If he gets the same amount for putting up 10/8, then it doesn't look nearly as good

Thanks for the clarification.

[Sigra]

I had big hopes for Hammond. But if he just gave 72 millions to Bogut without any fight then I feel scared honestly. I understand that all centers are overpaid in NBA. I get it. Maybe next year we will have to overpay for our as well. I get it. BUT WHY NOW? There is no reason to overpay now. I don't get it

[rilamann]

It goes like this.

Andrew Bogut is the type of player who can be a monster on a good team.

John Hammond is going to make the Bucks a good team.


Bogut will be worth the money.

Just watch and see.

[paulpressey25]

I still wonder what this Bogut pricetag means for Michael Redd now.

I can envision a scenario where the Bucks look at what the CV/Mo/Dez grouping brings back versus what Redd brings back. And they decide now to make a Redd move, given the need to have more good players on this team rather than three $15mm a year guys who are quasi all-stars and the fact Redd might bring back more.

[Sigra]

I

Bogut will be worth the money.

Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows.

But that is not the point here.

[Simulack]

Redd/RJ/Bogut are definitely well above average players. The next three seasons you are correct, this is the team we will live and die with due to our salary situation, but lets call a spade a spade with the roster...

I realize people like to be pessimistic by nature on this forum, but lets be realistic.

I think you are the one being unrealistic. Last year not a single one of those guys was a "well above average" player.

I don't want to put too much weight into stats but I think its telling that Berri didn't have any of these guys even ranked in top-15 at their position after last season. And in this case its not like those rankings radically defy the type of conclusion you would get from watching games and looking at team success. If Bogut and Redd are so well above average, its dumbfounding how the Bucks have only won 26 and 28 games the last two years in a weak conference.

Things might change. RJ might return to the level of play he as at a couple of years ago and Bogut could continue to make incremental improvements. But last year, none of those guys were particularly good players.

[Sigra]

I still wonder what this Bogut pricetag means for Michael Redd now.

I can envision a scenario where the Bucks look at what the CV/Mo/Dez grouping brings back versus what Redd brings back. And they decide now to make a Redd move, given the need to have more good players on this team rather than three $15mm a year guys who are quasi all-stars and the fact Redd might bring back more.

Don't try to make us feel better PP

This incentives could be something like 15 ppg and 10 rpg in which case we are looking in 2nd coming of Mo Williams deal. We didn't have to pay that much for Mo and we don't have to pay that much for Andrew eather. Not now at least.

[Simulack]

I've never really understood why so many players get critiqued for putting up good numbers on a losing team but Bogut magically gets the exact opposite said of him: if he was on a good team, he'd finally be free to put up some monster stats!

I guess it doesn't matter though since signing with the Bucks for 5 years pretty much ensures we won't be seeing what he can do on a good team anytime soon.

[rilamann]

I still wonder what this Bogut pricetag means for Michael Redd now.

I can envision a scenario where the Bucks look at what the CV/Mo/Dez grouping brings back versus what Redd brings back. And they decide now to make a Redd move, given the need to have more good players on this team rather than three $15mm a year guys who are quasi all-stars and the fact Redd might bring back more.

I personally think Hammond at least for now (this comming season) is going to go with Redd,Rj & Bogut as his big 3 and try to surround those 3 guys with solid ''basketball players'' who compliment the new big 3 and who play to win.

So dont look for Mo & CV to be on the roster this october.

Redd like Bogut seems like the type of player who would be better/more valuble on a good team than on a bad team.I think most including John Hammond would agree with that.

So I think Hammond's mentality is why trade a valuble player like Redd to a good team but instead lets (try to) make the Bucks a good team instead.

Thats what I think Hammond's challenge is right now and the challenge he is taking on.

[LUKE23]

Redd/RJ/Bogut are definitely well above average players. The next three seasons you are correct, this is the team we will live and die with due to our salary situation, but lets call a spade a spade with the roster...

I realize people like to be pessimistic by nature on this forum, but lets be realistic.

I think you are the one being unrealistic. Last year not a single one of those guys was a "well above average" player.

I don't want to put too much weight into stats but I think its telling that Berri didn't have any of these guys even ranked in top-15 at their position after last season. And in this case its not like those rankings radically defy the type of conclusion you would get from watching games and looking at team success. If Bogut and Redd are so well above average, its dumbfounding how the Bucks have only won 26 and 28 games the last two years in a weak conference.

Things might change. RJ might return to the level of play he as at a couple of years ago and Bogut could continue to make incremental improvements. But last year, none of those guys were particularly good players.

I would rank all three of those guys definitely above average at their respective positions. I definitely think Redd is a top 15 SG, RJ a top 15 SF, Bogut a top 15 C. In fact, I'd say all three of those players are top 10 at their position. I don't take Berri's analysis as gospel, just as I don't take Hollinger's as gospel (who had all four of Mo, Redd, RJ, and Bogut in top 74 for all positions last season in PER). There is more to ranking players than using those kinds of analytics.

Either way, we have enough talent to make the playoffs, assuming Skiles can do what he was brought in to do, and that is overhaul the defense and chemistry of this team.

[Superfito]

It goes like this.

Andrew Bogut is the type of player who can be a monster on a good team.

John Hammond is going to make the Bucks a good team.


Bogut will be worth the money.

Just watch and see.

I think this is right. The better the team Bogut is on, the better Bogut will be.

[paulpressey25]

Don't try to make us feel better PP

I'm trying to telegraph to Mo Nation that this clearly ups the Heat on the Bucks to more seriously consider trading Redd. If not this summer, then at the trade deadline if the Bucks aren't winning big.

With all this free agent frenzy involving Davis and Brand, the needs/wants of about eight teams are now impacted differently than they had planned.

Just take a look at Cleveland. They've now got to counter Philly for example.

[jerrod]

It goes like this.

Andrew Bogut is the type of player who can be a monster on a good team.

John Hammond is going to make the Bucks a good team.


Bogut will be worth the money.

Just watch and see.

I think this is right. The better the team Bogut is on, the better Bogut will be.

i guess i'll never understand this deity-like status afforded to bogut

[Simulack]

I personally think Hammond at least for now (this comming season) is going to go with Redd,Rj & Bogut as his big 3 and try to surround those 3 guys with solid ''basketball players'' who compliment the new big 3 and who play to win.

If that is the plan, uh oh. We seem to have confused guys who would be nice complimentary, "solid basketball players" around a "big 3" core as actual members of that core and paid accordingly.

[LUKE23]

The Bucks made the playoffs with a Ford/Redd/Simmons/rookie Bogut/Magloire/Bell/Smith/Williams top 8 and Porter as coach. This teams top 3, Redd/Jefferson/4th year Bogut is clearly better than that teams top 3 and has a superior coach. It will all come down to Skiles ability to instill defense.

[rilamann]

I've never really understood why so many players get critiqued for putting up good numbers on a losing team but Bogut magically gets the exact opposite said of him: if he was on a good team, he'd finally be free to put up some monster stats!

I guess it doesn't matter though since signing with the Bucks for 5 years pretty much ensures we won't be seeing what he can do on a good team anytime soon.

Its not not just about stats,sure Bogut's stats would be better on a good team that plays team basketball and plays to win everynight but stats would just be part of the story.

Bogut is the type of player who would be better and more valuble on a good team than on a bad team is because Bogut is an all around player and an unselfish player.

Those kind of guys dont look as good and dont have as much value on bad teams than on good teams.

Scott Williams brought up this same point during a game last season on FSN.

Scott even said himself,why was I buried on the bench of a 22 win Sixer team but a starter and major player on a championship caliber team in Milwaukee in 2001.

If you ever see Scott Williams and have a chance to speak with him ask him about this theory im sure he can explain all of this better than me.

All I can can say is watch and see.

I'll bet you that if the Bucks win 45 games this season Bogut will have carrer numbers and be a major reason why.

[paulpressey25]

[Scott even said himself,why was I buried on the bench of a 22 win Sixer team but a starter and major player on a championship caliber team in Milwaukee in 2001.

Scott Williams was only paid $5 million a year. That's the point. You need those "better than their stats show" glue guys but only at reasonable contract prices and for a reasonable acquisition price via trade or draft.

With Bogut we expended the #1 overall and we may be paying him a contract that in the later years hits the $17mm a year range. In contrast, Scott Williams was a throw-in on the TT deal. And Scott Williams worked because we had used our top lotto picks on talented guys like Glenn and Ray.

Bogut has got to be an 18/12/3/2 player to justify those numbers. I actually think he might be able to do it. But I'd have waited a year if the actual contract is 5/$72mm.

[Simulack]

I would rank all three of those guys definitely above average at their respective positions. I definitely think Redd is a top 15 SG, RJ a top 15 SF, Bogut a top 15 C. In fact, I'd say all three of those players are top 10 at their position. I don't take Berri's analysis as gospel, just as I don't take Hollinger's as gospel (who had all four of Mo, Redd, RJ, and Bogut in top 74 for all positions last season in PER). There is more to ranking players than using those kinds of analytics.

Either way, we have enough talent to make the playoffs, assuming Skiles can do what he was brought in to do, and that is overhaul the defense and chemistry of this team.

I would rank all of them in the top-15 as well (although perhaps not if you take contract into consideration). Where I disagree with you is that I have all of them in the 10-14 range instead of in the top 10 like you do. Like I said, that could change next year. Bogut can continue making incremental improvements (I didn't see the huge leap in his game last year like some did) and RJ is young enough to have optimism he can play how he did a few seasons ago when he was definitely at top-10 SF.

I don't take PER and Win Score numbers as gospel either but in this case they fit well with the impressions I get from having watched these guys in hundreds of games. And they help explain why we have been so bad the last couple of years. If Bogut and Redd are so well above average, we should have won more than 26 games (especially considering we have another top-15 position player in Mo).

Regarding the playoffs, maybe I'm be pessimistic but I see zero chance next year barring further major roster changes. The teams that made it last year:

Boston
Detroit
Orlando
Cleveland
Washington
Toronto
Philly
Atlanta

The worst two were Philly and Atlanta and they are teams with a lot better young talent than us and the 76ers just added a top tier PF.

Chicago and Miami have had past success with the guys on their roster and most think they just had flukish type down years. They added franchise type talent to their rosters.

Which team are we bumping for a playoff spot? I see a bunch of young teams who are going to improve more than we are and a bunch of established teams who aren't in drastic enough decline to miss the playoffs.

[Chuck Diesel]

PP, for some reason I can't reply to your message.