why oh why ??

Surely the Bucks will be looking to move Redd or Williams? They desperately need a passing PG.

With Jefferson there now too Bogut might not get many scoring opportunities if the other 2 keep jacking up shots at every opportunity.

The Bucks already have a passing Point Guard. His name is Ramon Sessions. Check out his stats during their games in April last season:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pgl.cgi?player=sessira01&year=2008

If they give him consistent playing time during the season (and not leave him in the D-League like most of last year), he can easily develop into just what they need.

As it stands, Milwaukee's prospects look bright. They have a no-bullshit coach in Scott Skiles who won't tolerate slacking or lack of defense (two things that plagued the Bucks last season), and will weed out those who aren't trying. They have a huge amount of firepower now, and I think if they can somehow get a good young Power Forward (not a Small Forward masquerading as a PF like Charlie Villenueva), then they can be a chance to be a pretty decent squad in the next few years. Joe Alexander was the steal of this year's draft IMO, and he's reportedly one of the hardest worker's out there, always trying to get better, so he'll be a Skiles favourite right away. If the players buy in to playing winning team basketball, then the Bucks can definitely do well in the next few years. Maybe not be a championship team, but they'll be more than decent.

As well as this, Bogut is probably realistic and realises that he probably can't get that same money anywhere else. Possibly because they overpaid, mainly because other teams might not have the cap space in a year's time, and be willing to spend it on him. So it's better to be safe and secure, instead of having the pressure of a contract year hanging over his head, especially if the team doesn't take to Skiles as coach. Anyway, he can always try and demand a trade later on if he really wants out that badly. As it stands though, I think things are looking psitive for Milwaukee going forward, and hopefully things will indeed get better for them.

Yeah I agree with you 3, Bucks have a strong future. But realistically can they contend for a title?

I don't think you normally see teams that win titles with overpaid white guys. Don't get me wrong, i love Bogut, but 72 mil is overpaying. Why pay so much when you don't need to? I don't think he could have got more than 50 mil anywhere else. So this means they will be capped out for the next 5 years, so basically they have to win with what they have now, barring trades.

how does a low market unpopular team like the Bucks come up with 72 million for one player ? How can the NBA justify such costs unless even teams like the Bucks who have no chance of winning the title (too small market to even reach the Finals) make money? .. Must be all the money the NBA has been making through billion dollar TV deals. How do you guarentee those daels? You guess it .. a Lakers-Celtics Finals ..with all those Bird/Johnson and Rivary commercials !!! samll market teams are ONLY role players for the big stars of the NBA and are happy to give 72 mil to an average big guy ... and never win as long as the $$$$ rolls in to cover the costs.

go away dcanwade

dcanwade, each team has the same salary cap, so they can each offer whatever they like within that salary cap. It's not like Major League Baseball, where teams can spend whatever they like (because there is no salary cap), as long as the owner is willing to spend it. That's why teams like the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees are always prominent, because their owner's willingness to spend combined with their expected high incomes makes it easy for them to give the big bucks to the best players. Consequently, decent smaller market teams such as the Oakland A's and Florida Marlins have had to come up with ways to keep costs down and wins up.

Smaller market teams in the NBA get compensated if they don't make that much money by the NBA's revenue sharing scheme. Obviously the NBA is a business, and the bigger market teams are more marketable, and bring in bigger dollars (both for temselves and the league). However, things are on a much more even keel than in baseball for example. Whilst I agree that the Bucks may have overpaid for Bogut, they obviously see the investment as worth it, as he can provide them with a solid face for their franchise and help them gain some prominence and publicity now and in the future.

Yeah thanks for the uneducated rant, dcanwade. San Antonio are one of the smallest market teams if not the smallest, and they were still successful. They did this through smart draft picks, and reasonable salary negotiations.

Bucks have been poor in seasons past for overpaying average players, which is what they still seem to be doing. This happens to big market teams too, look at New York, the premier franchise. They have been horrible for a while now, and will be until maybe 2010.

yes and after last years rating disaster starring the Spurs and their golden boy LeBron the NBA had to recoup the losses with the biggest turnaround in a year by reviving the rivary and fortunes of Celtics as well as Lakers !! Nobody thinks its a bit convenient to have LA-Celtics ..the trades and especially the foul that could have tied a series which wasn't a foul on Barry to ensure the "Dream" Finals !!?? ... No way in hell did they want a repeat of Spurs-Pistons Finals ... as stated the NBA needs to get the max $$$$$ to ensure small market teams can continue their role player status and ensure inflated multi million dollar salaries to these ovverated athletes they have. They couldn't have scripted a better story if they tried

It seems that the contract is $60m puls 'incentives' up to $12.5m. So 12m a year guaranteed, which would be about right for him ATM, slightly overpaying maybe, but not too bad.

No idea what the incentives are, but it does make the contract look alot better. If they are performance based, it could mean that he only gets extra cash for All-star berths, playoffs, etc.

I kept out of this thread until I could get further details as $72.5m over 5 years is a savage overpay for Bogut. Hammond isn't that stupid and I have a lot of faith in Hammond. He learnt the GM business in one of the smartest franchises in the NBA and under one of the better GM's in Joe Dumars. Hammond isn't going to throw away money like that. Bogut's contract may start a little rich, but overall it's an excellent deal for both parties.

Bogut's contract is rumored to be $60 mill over 5 years ($12 million per year) with the possibility of an extra $12.5 mill over these year if he hits his incentives.

It appears that the contract is 'flat' meaning that there are no pay increases over the next 5 years.

That to me is very important since so many of the bad NBA contracts of the past decade start out at a fair pay rate for the player, I'll use Redd as an example, (his contracted started at $12m which is a fair pay rate for him) and ends up at $18m in the last season for the same player but 5 years older and not worth $18m let alone worth $12m

There are also no ETO or EPO's in the contract which is great for both parties. Bogut gets his money regardless and for the Bucks there will be no Brand/Boozer situations. If Bogut explodes and becomes a 20/10 player, an All-Star and leads the Bucks to the Championship than the Bucks have him locked in at the flat rate. No stressing about Bogut 'opting out' and costing the Bucks more money to keep him in Milwaukee.

Incentives are allowed in NBA contracts, but are based on an 'likely/unlikely' basis when dealing with the salary cap. An example being:

LIKELY: Bogut to average 10ppg and 8rpg. He's 'likely' to reach that incentive as he averaged it last year, so it would count towards the cap as it's a likely target.

UNLIKELY: Bogut to lead to league in FT%. That is classed as 'unlikely' as Bogut is a bad FT shooter and it's highly unlikely he would lead the league. An unlikely incentive doesn't count towards the salary cap if the player hits the target.

The word 'incentive' can be a little misleading. The 'incentive' could also be a signing bonus, which could mean that the $12.5 mill could be over 5 years ($2.5m per year) and simply given to Bogut to sign the extension.

You know what annoys me? Every Australian media outlet quoting a different figure for Bogut's new contract. How hard it it to get on the Internets for 5 minutes and find out the right information. People in this thread (myself and others, who found out about the incentives part) managed to do that, so why can't Australia's media do it? It leads to everyone being under a different impression due to incorrect information. I've heard 3 different people I know quote 3 different figures they've heard from either television or newspapers (numbers like $78 million, $84 million, and $90 million), and whilst I haven't made a big fuss to correct them (because it's not really that big a deal, and I've read and heard these different figures from Australian media myself), it's pretty stupid that the media can't even get a simple dollar figure correct.