Bogut gets more $ than Jefferson

shrink · Post #21 » by **shrink** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:21 am

Maybe RealGM fans understand that, but don't you think most fans just say "oh, another overpaid athlete" and have no idea why $55 mil is a big difference from $63 mil for their millionaire owner? I don't think most people even understand the cap. They just want to see the players they want to see -- the on court product is the entertainment, not the bookkeeping.

I'm also saying that fans get more emotionally invested in a player if he's a #1 pick for their hometown team. He gets lots more media attention, and that attention penetrates far beyond the dedicated Bucks fan. Because of this, the franchise will have marketed the guy heavily for the last three years, with things like, "Come see what XXXX can do THIS year!" Adding Andrew Bogut to the Lakers is not going to radically affect their profitability. Removing Andrew Bogut from the Bucks would have a much bigger impact.

Post #22 » by **TheFranchise21** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:30 am

shrink wrote:Maybe RealGM fans understand that, but don't you think most fans just say "oh, another overpaid athlete" and have no idea why $55 mil is a big difference from $63 mil for their millionaire owner? I don't think most people even understand the cap. They just want to see the players they want to see -- the on court product is the entertainment, not the bookkeeping.

I'm also saying that fans get more emotionally invested in a player if he's a #1 pick for their hometown team. He gets lots more media attention, and that attention penetrates far beyond the dedicated Bucks fan. Because of this, the franchise will have marketed the guy heavily for the last three years, with things like, "Come see what XXXX can do THIS year!" Adding Andrew Bogut to the Lakers is not going to radically affect their profitability. Removing Andrew Bogut from the Bucks would have a much bigger impact.

Your first paragraph I agree with but I don't feel is really relevant to what we are arguing. I'm arguing Bogut is overpaid.

I think you are overestimating Bogut's marketing value to the Bucks. They may be marketing him a lot but he's not one of the main reasons why Bucks fans go to the games.

I don't know if you failed to address it or didn't care to but let me re-emphasize my point:

The people going to Bucks' games buy tickets for the following reasons:

1. To see their team win

2. To see Michael Redd

3. To see Andrew Bogut

1. To see their team win - this is the first reason why 99% of fans attend games. If the team isn't winning, fans aren't going to want to go. Simple as that. There is no better or cheaper form of marketing than a winning team.
2. To see Michael Redd - he's the face of the franchise and has been their marquee guy for a while now.
3. To see Andrew Bogut - he's slowly becoming a very good player and is the team's second best player. But how often do fans go to games because they want to see the second best player on the team? I didn't go to Wolves games to watch Wally. I went to watch the Wolves win, and watch KG. People in Chicago went to see Michael, and for the Bulls to win. Their #1 reason wasn't to go see Scottie. Now days, I go to see the Wolves win, and Al Jefferson, not Randy Foye.

Going back to point #1, if the team signs players to bad contracts, it can potentially limit their ability to acquire future players in order to produce a winning team. So by giving Bogut a bad contract, they're potentially hurting the #1 reason why people go to their games.

I just don't buy the argument that just because he's a former #1, the fans are attached to him and if the team were to lose him, their profitability would suffer. Fans become attached to superstars, regardless of their draft slot/position, and Bogut is far from a superstar. Fans don't get attached to role players. The only other recent #1 pick comparable to Bogut in this argument is Kenyon Martin, in terms of how he was a solid player his first three years, but wasn't a superstar.

Post #23 » by **TheFranchise21** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:35 am

BTW, I forgot to mention Richard Jefferson in my last post. He bumps Bogut down to #4. I would reorder it as this:

1. See the team win
2. a. See Michael Redd
2. b. See Richard Jefferson - fans would be intrigued by a new acquisition and his high-flying style of play appeals to most fans, especially casual ones.
4. Bogut.

the_bruce · Post #24 » by **the_bruce** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:40 am

TheFranchise21 wrote:BTW, I forgot to mention Richard Jefferson in my last post. He bumps Bogut down to #4. I would reorder it as this:

1. See the team win
2. a. See Michael Redd
2. b. See Richard Jefferson - fans would be intrigued by a new acquisition and his high-flying style of play appeals to most fans, especially casual ones.
4. Bogut.

You list is incorrect for the bucks

1. See other teams stars
2. start your list

shrink · Post #25 » by **shrink** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:09 am

TheFranchise21 wrote: Your first paragraph I agree with but I don't feel is really relevant to what we are arguing. I'm arguing Bogut is overpaid.

You had said "but I think fans are rational and smart enough to know when a team overpaid," and I disagree with that.

As for the second part, I think I'll just have to say that I disagree. I'll also say that I think Bogut is overpaid on 29 teams. Besides my other reasons, I'd point out that if Bogut walked, right now, the Bucks have one PF (Villanueva, who I hate), and one center (Gadzuric, who's awful). What does MIL do if Bogut says, "Either give me this big extension or trade me, because I don't want to be here!" So I guess I disagree with the argument that letting Bogut walk would have led to more wins. I feel like MIL paid more than market value, but in MIL, he's worth more than his value in 29 other NBA cities.

Tirion · Post #26 » by **Tirion** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:24 am

bruceallen61 wrote:
TheFranchise21 wrote:BTW, I forgot to mention Richard Jefferson in my last post. He bumps Bogut down to #4. I would reorder it as this:

1. See the team win
2. a. See Michael Redd
2. b. See Richard Jefferson - fans would be intrigued by a new acquisition and his high-flying style of play appeals to most fans, especially casual ones.
4. Bogut.

You list is incorrect for the bucks

1. See other teams stars
2. start your list

no, it's:

1. wear bags over their heads and poke fun of herb kohl
2. see other teams stars
3. start TF21 list

Devilzsidewalk · Post #27 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:17 pm

That's a lot of money; Redd, Bogut, Jefferson, Williams, and Gadzuric are all overpaid; they're gonna have to do something about that.

At least Bogut still has time to live up to the contract though. Hopefully for Milwaukee's sake he does or at least comes close.

yuedar · Post #28 » by **yuedar** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:22 pm

shrink wrote:
casey wrote:
shrink wrote:but his off-court revenues make him worth that contract to MIL.

No they don't.

Well, only a fool would argue with that logic, but that's where I rush in.

MIL is already a small market town. They were 23rd in attendance, and 27th in revenues. Last year they tried an aggressive salaes pitch to sell season tickets, without increasing prices, concession incentives. There are whispers that Herb Kohl is trying to divest himself of his business interests, and the Bradley Center is not built like today's money-making new stadium/entertainment complexes. The Bucks also have been seriously rumored to be trying to deal their other big name, Michael Redd.

Yes, I think Bogut is getting more than he deserves, but the way he improved in the second half of the season was one of two reasons for optimism on that team (along with Sessions). MIL simply could not afford to lose Bogut and further alienate the fans.

If any Bucks fans are reading, I'd appreciate hearing your two cents as well.

Tickets were down because a lot of people coming into the season expected the Bucks to be a low end playoff team. Clearly not the case the fans were disgusted and just didn't show up to games because they were sick of a loseing product and especially how we were loseing. Coach K tried to turn us into a half court team and it just wasn't working out. Poorly executed, bad plays to no plays, players never on the same page with the coach etc.... Then Coach K switched to a faster paced offense and the defense really started to slip.

Herb has been trying to sell for awhile now but hes not desperate and he doesn't mind owning the team. He refuses to sell to anyone that will move the Bucks.

Not sure where youre getting the moving of Michael Redd there was even a specific article on realgm for the bucks that said they wouldn't move Redd unless a really lopsided deal came our way.

nwy2211 · Post #29 » by **nwy2211** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:39 pm

Bogut is getting 60 mil over 5 years...everything else is based off incentives (all star appearances, etc.). If all incentives are met the deal would be 5 yrs. 72.5 mil and would definitely be worth it

yuedar · Post #30 » by **yuedar** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:42 pm

TheFranchise21 wrote:Give it up shrink, Milwaukee overpaid for Bogut. He is not the player you want to market on your team. Joe Alexander and R. Jeff would be better candidates. I know you always like to point out how revenues and potential revenues affect player transactions (signings, trades, drafts) but that is not the case here. There's no large Australian population in Milwaukee. The Bucks made a financial mistake and that's all there is to it.

Im sorry but is there a large Australian population any where other then Australia?

Kestrel · Post #31 » by **Kestrel** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:18 pm

D1SGRUNTL3D wrote:Redd/Jefferson/Bogut is a solid foundation.

Sessions looked good last year and Mo Williams will get his.

Redd is not a player you build around. Mo Williams has been on the trade block to some extent this offseason, it seems.

I'm quite curious to see how Jefferson does without a top-flight point working alongside him. He's had Kidd for essentially his whole career.

Kestrel · Post #32 » by **Kestrel** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:23 pm

yuedar wrote:I'm sorry but is there a large Australian population any where other then Australia?

"Mongolia is the world's least densely populated country with only 4.3 people per square mile. Australia is a close second with 6.4 people per square mile."
-- http://geography.about.com/od/populatio ... ensity.htm

Apparently there's not even a large population of Australians in Australia.... :wink:

Devilzsidewalk · Post #33 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:49 pm

we should annex that mother ****

shrink · Post #34 » by **shrink** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:57 pm

Devilzsidewalk wrote:we should annex that mother ****

No doubt! We need another Texas, but one that's a lot farther away.

deeney0 · Post #35 » by **deeney0** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Kangaroo power is the perfect alternative fuel. Just stick the buggers on a treadmill hooked up to a generator, and voila!

Howler21 · Post #36 » by **Howler21** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:43 pm

deeney0 wrote:Kangaroo power is the perfect alternative fuel. Just stick the buggers on a treadmill hooked up to a generator, and voila!

For an animal that hops I don't see a treadmill as a good idea.

deeney0 · Post #37 » by **deeney0** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:03 pm

Touché. It won't be easy.

andyhop · Post #38 » by **andyhop** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:57 am

yuedar wrote:
Im sorry but is there a large Australian population any where other then Australia?

Sure around 1% of Australians live in the UK, mostly in London.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #39 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:22 pm

man I hate kangaroos, I used to punish that Roger that kangaroo boxer the worst on Tekken with Heihachi. Or sometimes Jin or Bryan Fury. And did Hwoarang used to step in there too and get him some kangaroo beatdown action? You know it.

mayorhoiberg · Post #40 » by **mayorhoiberg** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:59 pm

I think Andrew Bogut is pretty much completely unremarkable. I didn't even open this thread until now, and the only reason I opened it was to find out how in the heck there have been 39 unique posts about how overpaid he is.

Then i flip to page 3 and find nothing but talk about annexing Australia to harness their Kangaroo power.... on treadmills.

Well done, folks.