Bogut Bonuses still not known/Salary NOT FLAT though

[europa]

So instead of Bogut getting a deal for 5/$60M we've learned that he actually got a deal for ...

5/$60M.

Guess I'm missing out on how this is a terrible deal all of a sudden - assuming you were fine with 5/$60M in the first place.

I realize it would be better to have $12M flat for the entire five years. But if Bogut keeps improving it's possible he won't be overpaid at any point in the deal and he could arguably be underpaid for at least the first two years and possibly the third. Like Paul said, this is how larger contracts typically get done.

[icat2000]

Precisely Europa. Not really understanding the squakers complaints.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

We first said Bogut should get 5 years/$50-55 million or else he should prove himself one more year. Then we said "well, $60 million is just one more million per year; it's basically the contract we asked for." Then we said, "oh there are incentives? well it's still basically the contract we wanted, plus we get the added bonus of him being more motivated, and at least it's a flat contract." Then we said, "oh it's not a flat contract? Well, at least the incentives will be hard to reach."

I have a feeling I know what the next step of our Bogut contract rationalization process is.

[icat2000]

It was 60 Million yesterday, it was 60 Million last week, and its 60 Million today. Still not understanding the complaints.

[stellation]

Is it a fair assumption that going with a contract that isn't flat would be at the request of the team, not the player?

[Nowak008]

We first said Bogut should get 5 years/$50-55 million or else he should prove himself one more year. Then we said "well, $60 million is just one more million per year; it's basically the contract we asked for." Then we said, "oh there are incentives? well it's still basically the contract we wanted, plus we get the added bonus of him being more motivated, and at least it's a flat contract." Then we said, "oh it's not a flat contract? Well, at least the incentives will be hard to reach."

I have a feeling I know what the next step of our Bogut contract rationalization process is.

Yep. When Mo got "overpaid" people were all up and arms about it, Bogut not so much.

[xTitan]

We first said Bogut should get 5 years/$50-55 million or else he should prove himself one more year. Then we said "well, $60 million is just one more million per year; it's basically the contract we asked for." Then we said, "oh there are incentives? well it's still basically the contract we wanted, plus we get the added bonus of him being more motivated, and at least it's a flat contract." Then we said, "oh it's not a flat contract? Well, at least the incentives will be hard to reach."

I have a feeling I know what the next step of our Bogut contract rationalization process is.

I am confused, your boy Dave Berri who you qoute in another thread...after actually doing some analyzing appears to think Bogut's deal is now extremely fair.....what's up with that?

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

My problems with both contracts are minor. With Mo's, the amount is fine to me, but the player option years are not. With Bogut, the amount and the years are fine, but since we're paying him full value including assumed improvement, I wish we would have waited one more year. I like the risk/reward of doing that.

It was 60 Million yesterday, it was 60 Million last week, and its 60 Million today. Still not understanding the complaints.

I predict that it will no longer be 60 million once we learn the incentives.

[europa]

We first said Bogut should get 5 years/$50-55 million or else he should prove himself one more year. Then we said "well, $60 million is just one more million per year; it's basically the contract we asked for." Then we said, "oh there are incentives? well it's still basically the contract we wanted, plus we get the added bonus of him being more motivated, and at least it's a flat contract." Then we said, "oh it's not a flat contract? Well, at least the incentives will be hard to reach."

I have a feeling I know what the next step of our Bogut contract rationalization process is.

Yep. When Mo got "overpaid" people were all up and arms about it, Bogut not so much.

It comes down to whether you believe either player is the type of player who can help the Bucks improve and ultimately become a contender. If you believe Mo can be that guy, you're fine with the contract. Same with Bogut. Or if you feel either one of them or neither one meets the criteria than you're unhappy with the contract(s).

It has nothing to do with rationalization. It's all about the player. I've said all along that I was fine with Bogut getting 5/$60M. So given how nothing has changed given GAD's info in terms of the deal Bogut received than there's no reason for me to change my opinion. The only thing that will leave me concerned is if the bulk of Bogut's incentives are ones that he can easily reach - and I would define that as saying ones he's already reached.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

I am confused, your boy Dave Berri who you qoute in another thread...after actually doing some analyzing appears to think Bogut's deal is now extremely fair.....what's up with that?

He's a nerd with a graphing calculator. He was probably watching Battle Star Galactaca when he wrote that column.

[xTitan]

Dave Berri on Andrew Bogut

Comment on Bogut Deal

One last note on the Bucks. A few days ago I noticed that Bogut signed a $72.5 million contract. This led me to offer a very quick post on how Bogut - given what he had done before - was not really worth this amount of money.

It is important to note that I did not investigate the details of the Bogut contract. Nor did I spend much time thinking about the post. Basically, I saw the news, grabbed some data, and started writing.

After I posted this comment, though, I realized that given my own calculations - posted a few weeks earlier - Bogut might be worth $72.5 million. And then I also learned that Bogut was actually scheduled to get $60 million, with the remainder in incentive pay. In sum, the whole Bogut post just didn’t work.

Hopefully this post will be better. If it is not, perhaps my previous posts on the Bucks might be more enlightening.

He thought with his calculations that Bogut might be worth the full $72.5 million. Bogut's deal does not start this season, he is still on the last year of his rookie contract, does not get paid until after next season. I also believe Bogut's value league wide is far greater than on this board, alot of teams do not want young players they really like to finish out there contract, they feel better with the security.

[xTitan]

I am confused, your boy Dave Berri who you qoute in another thread...after actually doing some analyzing appears to think Bogut's deal is now extremely fair.....what's up with that?

He's a nerd with a graphing calculator. He was probably watching Battle Star Galactaca when he wrote that column.

My problem with all the stat guru's is that they don't take into account "team" and that is a huge error IMO. Is this guy any good or not?

[paulpressey25]

I'm not totally against this but it was a big gamble.

We just need the incentives to be:

a) Top-Five in Rebounding in the NBA
b) Team wins Eastern Conf. Championship
c) Bogut makes Top 10 in MVP voting.

Something tells me the real incentives will be:

a) Be the highest rebounder on the team
b) Draw the most charges in the league for men seven feet or taller
c) Win SLAM magazine contest for best "Goth" hairstyle in the NBA.

[Nowak008]

We first said Bogut should get 5 years/$50-55 million or else he should prove himself one more year. Then we said "well, $60 million is just one more million per year; it's basically the contract we asked for." Then we said, "oh there are incentives? well it's still basically the contract we wanted, plus we get the added bonus of him being more motivated, and at least it's a flat contract." Then we said, "oh it's not a flat contract? Well, at least the incentives will be hard to reach."

I have a feeling I know what the next step of our Bogut contract rationalization process is.

Yep. When Mo got "overpaid" people were all up and arms about it, Bogut not so much.

It comes down to whether you believe either player is the type of player who can help the Bucks improve and ultimately become a contender. If you believe Mo can be that guy, you're fine with the contract. Same with Bogut. Or if you feel either one of them or neither one meets the criteria than you're unhappy with the contract(s).

It has nothing to do with rationalization. It's all about the player. I've said all along that I was fine with Bogut getting 5/$60M. So given how nothing has changed given GAD's info in terms of the deal Bogut received than there's no reason for me to change my opinion. The only thing that will leave me concerned is if the bulk of Bogut's incentives are ones that he can easily reach - and I would define that as saying ones he's already reached.

I think Bogut can be a guy that can make us contender. That doesn't mean whatever his contract is I am going to be fine with.

[europa]

It comes down to whether you believe either player is the type of player who can help the Bucks improve and ultimately become a contender. If you believe Mo can be that guy, you're fine with the contract. Same with Bogut. Or if you feel either one of them or neither one meets the criteria than you're unhappy with the contract(s).

It has nothing to do with rationalization. It's all about the player. I've said all along that I was fine with Bogut getting 5/$60M. So given how nothing has changed given GAD's info in terms of the deal Bogut received than there's no reason for me to change my opinion. The only thing that will leave me concerned is if the bulk of Bogut's incentives are ones that he can easily reach - and I would define that as saying ones he's already reached.

I think Bogut can be a guy that can make us contender. That doesn't mean whatever his contract is I am going to be fine with.

You shouldn't have to. If the Bucks had gone beyond 5/$60M for Bogut I wouldn't have been thrilled either. Again, I'll reserve my final judgment for when we see what the actual incentives are. But if they're based in strong team and personal improvement (as one report thus far said they were) I'll have zero problems with the deal.

[REDDzone]

I am confused, your boy Dave Berri who you qoute in another thread...after actually doing some analyzing appears to think Bogut's deal is now extremely fair.....what's up with that?

He's a nerd with a graphing calculator. He was probably watching Battle Star Galactaca when he wrote that column.

Nice dodge, I had to read it three times before I realized you completely ignored the point being made.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

I ignored the point because I answered it one post earlier. To repeat, I have no problem with Bogut's contract, and neither does Berri. So me and "my boy" are in agreement. My only minor critique is that Hammond gave Bogut his full value a year or two before he had to. I'd like to see contract extensions offered at less than the player is worth, and then offer what they're worth when they're a RFA (or match a little higher than that value if you have to).

I have never said that Bogut is not worth the amount Hammond gave him; I think he's our best player, and is importantly our only player who is good on both ends of the floor.

[REDDzone]

I guess I took it to mean you weren't a fan of the contract when you said we had to "rationalize it". Usually one tends not need to rationalize something that one does not take issue with.

[Buck You]

I really don't see this deal as a "risk." You are going to have to pay a lot for centers in today's NBA since they are so few good ones. Plus the incentives will make him work harder to improve his game which makes this a very fair deal IMO.

[Nowak008]

You shouldn't have to. If the Bucks had gone beyond 5/$60M for Bogut I wouldn't have been thrilled either.

We did go beyond that, the incentives.