It is good to hear that the Bucks and Andrew Bogut are working on signing a contract extension, which will kick in after next season. But the real question is: how much should he get?
There are two things to consider when valuing Bogut’s contract extension , his age and production. While it’s hard to believe that averaging 13 points and 9 rebounds could actually have someone kicking around proposals that involve yearly paychecks of $15 million, that’s actually not so far off when comparing Bogut’s numbers to the contracts of his peers. Plus, Bogut gets a boost from the relative scarcity of semi-athletic big men compared to, say, six-foot-two point guards who shoot a lot.
At 23 years old, age is a factor in Bogut’s favor. Not counting Greg Oden, only two of the other top 15 centers in the league are significantly younger, Andrew Bynum (20) and Andris Biedrins (21).
Bogut will be looking for a five- or six- year contract, covering him from the ages of 25 to 29. To see how that would stack up against the contracts of his peers, I made a chart of the top 15 centers in the league that shows their current contracts and their ages (I included the 5 year/$60 million extension that Emeka Okafor turned down last year).
I felt that averaging how much current centers are making at those ages would be a fair way to judge an extension for Bogut. While Bogut is clearly not at the level of stars like Amare Stoudemire or Dwight Howard, he has done more in his career than Chris Kaman or Tyson Chandler had done at the point where they signed their extensions.
25-to-29 year old centers average about $12.5 million/year. That number is right between the $15 million that Stoudemire/Howard make and the $11 million that Chandler/Kaman earn. So, $13 million a year sounds about right.
Five years, $65 million or six years, $81 million.
This would mean a starting salary of $11 million in 2009/10, increasing by $1 million per year until 2013/14 or 2014/15.
Compared to his peers, this is a reasonable amount. It’s a lot of money, but that’s NBA big man economics for you. At least the Bucks have the center spot locked up with a capable option for the next six or seven years.
But there’s a problem, and it’s a mess created by Larry Harris’ $100 million bench. If the Bucks don’t make a deal to rid themselves of some combination of Bobby Simmons, Dan Gadzuric or Charlie Bell by the end of next season, they might be paying the luxury tax. If I assume that the cap and tax level goes up by 5% each of the next two seasons, then the luxury tax will be $69.9 million in 2009/10. When setting aside money for draft picks for the next two seasons, they would currently owe $68 million to 11 players at that point. And that is assuming that Charlie Villanueva is gone and doesn’t include resigning Ramon Sessions.
Further complicating matters is that between the fact that attendance is down across the league this season and that the slowing economy is probably hurting the league’s revenues across the board, the salary cap might go down this year. This means that the Bucks might find them already projected to be over the luxury tax in 09/10.
That isn’t that big a deal if you are gunning for a title now, but means something else when you have won fewer than 60 games in the last two years combined.
This, my friends, means that the Bucks have to make a move to dump salary this summer.
This means they might have to give up a valuable piece in order to get an expiring contract back. Like Mo Williams.
The more I think about it, the more I think Mo will be shopped around this summer. He would have value to several teams that need point guards, and his contract is large enough that he could be packaged with Simmons (or Gadzuric, but most likely Simmons) to get a big, expiring contract back. Trading Michael Redd doesn’t work because, at $15.7 million next year, you can’t combine him with one of the Bucks’ dog contracts and get back a $30 million expiring contract.
I’ve come up with some proposals, and I’ll publish them tomorrow. But be forewarned, they are ugly. They work financially, and can even get the Bucks under the cap in 09/10, but they aren’t going to sell tickets. However, this team needs work, and these potential trades are a starting point for the necessary moves that will have to be made to eventually make this a good team.
Be forewarned: the trades that the Bucks will have to consider in order to accomodate an extension for Bogut will make you sick to your stomach.
5 responses so far ↓
1 paulpressey25 // Mar 27, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I think the numbers will work to re-sign Bogut.
Bogut this summer will be eligible to sign a 5-year extension. But his new first year salary won’t kick in until the 2009-2010 season per the way the contracts work.
In that season, the Bucks have about $48 million already committed in salaries if you assume we let Charlie V. go.
Bogut will already be making $6.3 million next season, so let’s say he gets a 5-year/$55 million dollar extension. That contract can start out at $9 million in year one and rise to say $12 to $13 million by the last two years. If the structure is that way, we really only add about a net of $3 million more to the Bucks 2009-2010 payroll with a Bogut extension. Very do-able. We’ll stay under the luxury tax in order to add more low salary players and still keep Bogut.
And the great news is that the Bucks will be close to the luxury tax for that season only, because Bobby Simmons big deal drops off our salary cap the next year, freeing up $10 million.
The Bucks have been planning their salary structure the last three years around an extension for Bogut.
I think the bigger question is what they can do with Michael Redd and Mo Williams, since those two next year will eat up $25 million dollars in salary between them, yet provide little leadership and defensive skills to help this team win games. We’ll have trouble trading either of them with their current bloated contracts. Yet I don’t see the team improving unless at least one goes.
2 swilldog // Mar 28, 2008 at 7:01 am
I like the prospects of keeping Bogut, and the money sounds quite do-able.
I often wonder about how this team would be doing if they were actually allowed to play to their strengths, rather than this petulant insistence of playing with “attitude” and slowed-down defense. They’re almost all uptempo guys, why not shoot the lights out? Playing the right offensive tempo generally can translate in increased efficiency on the defensive end, too.
Redd and Mo aren’t the pieces to move, IMHO. The bench has absolutely KILLED this team this year, and that’s where you start looking.
The contracts that need to be shed are Simmons’ and Gadzuric’s. Bell’s is an albatross simply because it’s so long, but he might actually have some value in the next couple of seasons if he were to play in a more uptempo style, so I think the Bucks are stuck with Bell for at least another season. Still can’t believe they ended up with that guy and lost Zaza. *sigh*
Mason and Charlie V clearly aren’t performing up to their salaries, but at least those contracts are up after next season. Those are the guys who could be moved for some value, hopefully bundled with Simmons’ or Gadz’s fat deals. Sadly, I ain’t exactly holding my breath.
3 MIL-ILL // Mar 29, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The problem with this team is leadership, the bench and coaching. The starting unit is good, but the starting unit needs a Sam Mitchell type coach who can slam down a Moe williams and tell him to stfu when he decides to get out of line or to smack some sense into Redd and let him know - HE IS NO LONGER THE LEADER OF THAT TEAM. Someone who doesn’t baby players. Once these roles are defined, and once they understand them, all else will fall into place.
In the mean time, I’d package Simmons, Charlie V, and Moe Williams for Stephon Marbury while drafting a new point. This will save a lot of money in the future. Get one year use out of him, and move on grooming a new point.
For all you that are frustrated with Redd, I feel your pain BUT, how are you going to replace 25 a night? Not realistic unless your trading for a like-kind individual who puts up the same #. Michael Redd’s talents are best suited as Bogut’s wing man. If only he’d humble himself a bit, accept his new role as #2, this team will be great.
4 Desperate Times Call for Scary-Bad Trades | The Bratwurst - Milwaukee Bucks Blog // Apr 1, 2008 at 11:22 am
[...] In my recent post about the value of Andrew Bogut’s contract extension, I pointed out that the realities of the salary cap means that the Bucks are going to have to do something this offseason to avoid a likely luxury tax bill in the 2009/10 season, the first year of Bogut’s extension. [...]
5 Thoughts about the Bucks and Beyond — The Bratwurst - Milwaukee Bucks Blog — All You Can Eat Milwaukee Bucks // Jul 10, 2008 at 5:49 pm
[...] numbers is a whole other issue, but good bigs don’t come along all that often. In March I wrote that fair value for Bogut would be 5 year/$65 million, and that’s what he [...]
Leave a Comment