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

[europa]

Paul?

[Rockmaninoff]

You also have to take two years inflation into account, which is at least $.5M per year from 2006 to 2008.

$52 million in 2006 = $55,166,592 in 2008

That's the 6.08% inflation between 2006 and 2008. No idea if NBA salary cap has risen at that pace.

I could have gritted my teeth, shook my head, and eventually been alright with $55,166,592. 5yrs/$60mm + 12.5mm possible bonuses just seems a little much to me.

[europa]

We don't know specifically what the bonuses are but they appear to be both team and individual bases. If that's the case, I'm not sure why anyone would be the least bit bothered by that. If Bogut reaches those bonuses, that means he's likely performing at a very high level and the team is getting better. I think that would be a good thing. Again, I'll reserve final judgment for when we learn exactly what the bonuses are but at this point that appears to be a very good part of the contract, not a bad one.

[Rockmaninoff]

We don't know specifically what the bonuses are but they appear to be both team and individual bases. If that's the case, I'm not sure why anyone would be the least bit bothered by that. If Bogut reaches those bonuses, that means he's likely performing at a very high level and the team is getting better. I think that would be a good thing. Again, I'll reserve final judgment for when we learn exactly what the bonuses are but at this point that appears to be a very good part of the contract, not a bad one.

I'm not saying that the bonuses are bad, just that he should have been guaranteed less because of them.

[paul]

paul I've always wondered about this. Are you from Australia? I thought I saw you post on how you weren't but I might be confusing you with someone else.

(No this is not for stalking purposes.)

Somehow when I see you say 'it's not for stalking purposes' I don't quite believe it twirly.... Yep I'm from Melbourne, I've spent some time in the States but I'm an aussie, I don't generally advertise it because whenever a discussion about Bogut comes up people tend to give the Aussies no credibility no matter how good their argument is but I'd definitely never deny it!

And yep Europa, that's me, although they are my good going out clothes - I just wear jeans around the house.

[trwi7]

I've spent some time in the States but I'm an aussie

That's better than spending it in Canada.

[paul]

I've spent some time in the States but I'm an aussie

That's better than spending it in Canada.

Well I spent a fair bit of my time over there working in the ski fields in California (Heavenly at Lake Tahoe), so Canada isn't such a bad option for that.....
Never quite made it to Milwaukee unfortunately.

[trwi7]

Never quite made it to Milwaukee unfortunately.

You don't know what you're missing. In case you didn't know, we have a river and a lake.

[paulpressey25]

I understand where Rockmaninoff is coming from. We still don't have a superstar on this team and now have committed more at Bogut. We are all rationalizing the damn incentives. It's one thing to pay him $50mm plus $12-14 in incentives, but we paid $60 plus the incentives. We need to know what those incentives are.

The problem is that all the trade Bogut scenarios for say a Beasley, would have required more rebuilding. Skiles, Hammond and Kohl don't want that. They want a ready made veteran, which is where Bogut now will be next year.

[europa]

The other part is there are no guarantees anybody in this draft will be better than Bogut. So trading him for Beasley or Mayo could end up in the team going nowhere.

Speaking for myself, I'm not rationalizing the incentives. Again, I'll reserve final judgment until we learn what they actually are in detail, but if they are team and individual based I'm not sure how anyone can argue against that because it means Bogut's playing better (and likely much better) and the team is doing well. Isn't that what we all want? I can appreciate the questions about whether Bogut is worth $12M and all that but it seems like the incentives have been set up in a way which benefits the Bucks and Bogut and not just Bogut alone.

[LUKE23]

I understand where Rockmaninoff is coming from. We still don't have a superstar on this team and now have committed more at Bogut. We are all rationalizing the damn incentives. It's one thing to pay him $50mm plus $12-14 in incentives, but we paid $60 plus the incentives. We need to know what those incentives are.

The problem is that all the trade Bogut scenarios for say a Beasley, would have required more rebuilding. Skiles, Hammond and Kohl don't want that. They want a ready made veteran, which is where Bogut now will be next year.

We don't know what the incentives are yet though, so you can't rationalize them one way or the other.

[paulpressey25]

We don't know what the incentives are yet though, so you can't rationalize them one way or the other.

Sure you can and we all are. We all seemed to agree on this board for the last 3-months that Bogut was worth 5/$55 and many of us would be ok with 5/$60 at worst case.

That 5/$60 number included factoring in Bogut continuing to improve and really contribute to team success. None of us in those discussions put in the disclaimer "Well, I'd like to give him more than $60mm if he averages 17/11 or the team wins 50-games". Those things were supposed to be part of the package for the $60 million.

Now I'll anticipate the response to that being "Well, if the Bucks are doing great and Bogut is doing great, he'd then be worth $72 to $75 million so what is wrong with paying him that anyways then" The problem with that is that then the Bucks no longer get the benefit they had of locking him in at $60mm with no incentives as an offset to what they gave Bogut in lifetime financial security if the guy only stays as a 14/9 player.

Bogut is worth about $9-10 million "as-is". With a $60mm deal and no incentives, that gives him $12mm on "future growth potential" as a reward. We don't need to necessarily give him $12mm "as-is" plus another $13mm for a "reward."

[fam3381]

I don't have total salaries paid data offhand (which might be the best metric), but it's probably helpful to look at both the escalation of the cap and the luxury tax if we want to compare deals from a couple years ago. While it's a good guide for the general rate of salary inflation, the soft cap means that player salaries can move at a different rate than just the cap. The luxury tax is thus also a worthwhile thing to consider. And of course the "market" for specific positions and types of players could ebb and flow over time--for instance, I'd guess the perceived value for a premium PG has escalated at a rate higher than the league average.

I'll yield to GAD on a better explanation of how all these things relate, but for now let's look at both:

Cap:
05/06: 49.500
06/07: 53.135 +7.3%
07/08: 55.630 +4.7%
08/09: 58.680 +5.5%

Tax:
05/06: 61.70
06/07: 65.42 +6.0%
07/08: 67.87 +3.7%
08/09: 71.15 +4.8%

Note that the cap in '06 went up more sharply in part because the BRI calculation was slightly different. Based on these numbers, I think an NBA rate of inflation of 5% per year is fair. So if we apply that to Kaman's deal signed in 2006, we'd expect the same deal to be about 52*(1+.05)^2 = $57.33 million. On a per annum basis, that's a bump from $10.4 million to $11.47 million. Bogut's deal is still bigger, but I think this is a better (if still slightly flawed) way of comparing contracts signed at different points in time.

[LUKE23]

We don't know what the incentives are yet though, so you can't rationalize them one way or the other.

Sure you can and we all are. We all seemed to agree on this board for the last 3-months that Bogut was worth 5/$55 and many of us would be ok with 5/$60 at worst case.

That 5/$60 number included factoring in Bogut continuing to improve and really contribute to team success. None of us in those discussions put in the disclaimer "Well, I'd like to give him more than $60mm if he averages 17/11 or the team wins 50-games". Those things were supposed to be part of the package for the $60 million.

Now I'll anticipate the response to that being "Well, if the Bucks are doing great and Bogut is doing great, he'd then be worth $72 to $75 million so what is wrong with paying him that anyways then" The problem with that is that then the Bucks no longer get the benefit they had of locking him in at $60mm with no incentives as an offset to what they gave Bogut in lifetime financial security if the guy only stays as a 14/9 player.

Bogut is worth about $9-10 million "as-is". With a $60mm deal and no incentives, that gives him $12mm on "future growth potential" as a reward. We don't need to necessarily give him $12mm "as-is" plus another $13mm for a "reward."

I'd like to know where you get the 9-10M figure "as is"? Based on his previous season, as has been pointed out, he's clearly worth at least $11M per year. I know devil's advocate is your thing press, but lets really look at this. I think everyone is looking back at the Kaman deal as a solid deal for both sides. Well, Bogut put up a slightly better year than Kaman did at the same age. Bogut, given production and market, is worth at least $11M in guaranteed money.

The incentives, from everything we are reading, are performance-based (my guess is something related to all-star berths, which if he goes he will definitely be worth his salary) and team-based (my guess is playoff-related, in which case we will all be happy).

Your 9-10M figure is incorrect though. Look at league salaries.

[europa]

We'll know more once the incentives are revealed in detail, but the benefit could very well be the Bucks are an improved team and perhaps a vastly improved team. I don't see a problem with that. If Bogut regresses back to being a 14/9 player, he probably isn't going to hit those incentives so any such worries about him being paid for them are misguided.

[paulpressey25]

Ok...we'll see what the incentives are.

My guess though is that if a two weeks ago I put up a thread saying that I'd be happy with Bogut getting $60mm plus another $12.5 on incentives like making the all-star team, 50-wins, 17/11 season, top ten in rebounds, etc. most of you guys would have said "no way---he gets $60mm flat---he's supposed to do stuff like that to have earned that $60mm"

[LUKE23]

Ok...we'll see what the incentives are.

My guess though is that if a two weeks ago I put up a thread saying that I'd be happy with Bogut getting $60mm plus another $12.5 on incentives like making the all-star team, 50-wins, 17/11 season, top ten in rebounds, etc. most of you guys would have said "no way---he gets $60mm flat---he's supposed to do stuff like that to have earned that $60mm"

Kaman got $52.5M after doing less than Bogut did last season. Everyone looking back on that deal now is saying, "Clippers did pretty well for themselves". I think it's fair to assume Bogut is on par with Kaman's increased production in a couple years, if not surpassing it.

People are just freaking out about this because the Bucks have given out some bad contracts in the last five seasons. I don't believe this is one of them.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

^Great post fam.

[europa]

I'm not thrilled with 5/$60M. I would've preferred less than that. But I don't think $12M a year is grossly overpaying for Bogut given what he has showed thus far in his career, including the significant improvement he made last season. Like I said, if he doesn't improve at all and remains a 16-10-3 player with good defense he'll be earning his $12M a year in my opinion. And if his production improves and the team improves and he reaches certain incentives then he'll be earning them too.

Unless the incentives he's been given are ridiculously easy for him to reach, I think that part of the deal is not worth getting upset about. If there are incentives built into the deal based on team improvement, then I hope like hell he reaches them because that means the Bucks are playing well and are improving.

[Newz]

I'm not thrilled with 5/$60M. I would've preferred less than that. But I don't think $12M a year is grossly overpaying for Bogut given what he has showed thus far in his career, including the significant improvement he made last season. Like I said, if he doesn't improve at all and remains a 16-10-3 player with good defense he'll be earning his $12M a year in my opinion. And if his production improves and the team improves and he reaches certain incentives then he'll be earning them too.

Unless the incentives he's been given are ridiculously easy for him to reach, I think that part of the deal is not worth getting upset about. If there are incentives built into the deal based on team improvement, then I hope like hell he reaches them because that means the Bucks are playing well and are improving.

Bogut has never actually average 16 points in a season... Or ten rebounds for that matter.

So he actually has improving to do just to reach the numbers that you put up there.

I think he has the potential to earn his 12 million per year, I still think he could be a 17/10 guy. I just think 5 years for 55 was the correct deal... 5 years for 60 is acceptable, but throwing in incentives is ridiculous considering he has done nothing to earn that kind of bonus to an already big contract.