Bogut gets more $ than Jefferson

Krapinsky · Post #1 » by **Krapinsky** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 10:31 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3480697

Seems like they're overpaying a bit. Especially considering this board once thought we could get him and the #8 for Mayo.

Big Al is definitely a bargain for the wolves

SilentAssassin · Post #2 » by **SilentAssassin** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 10:58 pm

I loved the Jefferson deal at the time. I love it even more now!

Jefferson>>>>Bogut

Post #3 » by **Klomp** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 11:14 pm

Simply beautiful.

D1SGRUNTL3D · Post #4 » by **D1SGRUNTL3D** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 11:36 pm

Heh heh.

shrink · Post #5 » by **shrink** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 11:36 pm

Remember, a team doesn't give out a salary on a player's talent, but on his ability to generate revenues for his organization. Bogut, in my mind, is clearly a #2 talent. However, he's the best player on the Bucks, and a player that many fans buy tickets to see. He may not be worth that contract to other teams, but his off-court revenues make him worth that contract to MIL.

D1SGRUNTL3D · Post #6 » by **D1SGRUNTL3D** » Wed Jul 9, 2008 11:38 pm

Redd/Jefferson/Bogut is a solid foundation.

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

casey · Post #7 » by **casey** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:10 am

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

No they don't.

deeney0 · Post #8 » by **deeney0** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:12 am

shrink wrote:Remember, a team doesn't give out a salary on a player's talent, but on his ability to generate revenues for his organization. Bogut, in my mind, is clearly a #2 talent. However, he's the best player on the Bucks, and a player that many fans buy tickets to see. He may not be worth that contract to other teams, but his off-court revenues make him worth that contract to MIL.

Milwaukee only puts about a thousand more fans in the seats each game than the Wolves. I'd say that's more a function of not having an NHL hockey team than anything else (they do have am AHL team, but they also play at the Bradley Center so at least home games aren't on the same night. And they're not televised afaik, so that doesn't get in the way) I don't see how Bogut is any more valuable/marketable than Al.

shrink · Post #9 » by **shrink** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:30 am

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.

casey · Post #10 » by **casey** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:33 am

What's so special about Bogut? He's a good player, and they needed to keep him around. But it's not like he's some big marketing piece. The fans aren't attached to Andrew Bogut.

shrink · Post #11 » by **shrink** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:33 am

deeney0 wrote: I don't see how Bogut is any more valuable/marketable than Al.

Now, I didn't say anything about comparing Bogut's marketability to Al's. My point is Bogut's relative value to MIL. If Redd gets traded and Bogut is gone, who do the Bucks market? Mo Williams? CV? Ugh. EDIT: I guess they could market Richard Jefferson?

Just to be clear, Bogut is a bad contract now to just about anyone else.

Al is a bargain here, and worth more on the court and off to the Wolves, and other teams would jump at the chance to get Al for his current deal.

deeney0 · Post #12 » by **deeney0** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:46 am

deeney0 wrote:Milwaukee only puts about a thousand more fans in the seats each game than the Wolves. I'd say that's more a function of not having an NHL hockey team than anything else (they do have am AHL team, but they also play at the Bradley Center so at least home games aren't on the same night. And they're not televised afaik, so that doesn't get in the way) I don't see how Bogut is any more valuable/marketable than Al.

Got me thinking how much Wild games affect Wolves attendance. The Wolves had an average home attendance of 14,476. They played 10 home games when the Wild also had a home game on the same day. The average attendance at these games was 14,292. Less, but probably not significant. When other things are adjusted for (day of the week, what team the Wolves are playing against, giveaways/promotions/deals), I'd expect that difference would be higher, but I'm way too lazy to do something like that.

deeney0 · Post #13 » by **deeney0** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:46 am

shrink wrote:
deeney0 wrote: I don't see how Bogut is any more valuable/marketable than Al.

Now, I didn't say anything about comparing Bogut's marketability to Al's. My point is Bogut's relative value to MIL. If Redd gets traded and Bogut is gone, who do the Bucks market? Mo Williams? CV? Ugh. EDIT: I guess they could market Richard Jefferson?

Just to be clear, Bogut is a bad contract now to just about anyone else.

Al is a bargain here, and worth more on the court and off to the Wolves, and other teams would jump at the chance to get Al for his current deal.

If the Bucks care about marketing so much, why did they trade Yi?

shrink · Post #14 » by **shrink** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:59 am

deeney0 wrote: If the Bucks care about marketing so much, why did they trade Yi?

I think that they simply didn't have the international connections to market Yi worldwide, and locally, in MIL, he probably didn't have any special appeal.

I had a long discussion on the trade board last month about this, when I suggested that GSW's owners might overpay in talent to bring in Yi. Not only could they market him locally to a large asian population, but San Francisco has tremendous business connections with the Far East. I think that NJN is a better place for him from a business standpoint, particularly if them move into NYC in the next few years.

andyhop · Post #15 » by **andyhop** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:07 am

Do the Bucks have the worst salary cap situation in the league going on?.

They over the likely cap figure in 2010 with only 6 guys signed and all of them are overpaid by a reasonable amount.

Post #16 » by **TheFranchise21** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:25 am

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.

shrink · Post #17 » by **shrink** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:40 am

I can only hope we get a #1 pick sometime, and we can see how unattached we are to that player.

deeney0 · Post #18 » by **deeney0** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:09 am

andyhop wrote:Do the Bucks have the worst salary cap situation in the league going on?.

Still NYK in my books. Denver is very ugly too. Bucks are probably top 5, though.

deeney0 · Post #19 » by **deeney0** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:10 am

shrink wrote:I can only hope we get a #1 pick sometime, and we can see how unattached we are to that player.

That seems like an argument against your position. That's exactly why they overpaid for him - they're overly attached/have unrealistic expectations.

Post #20 » by **TheFranchise21** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:19 am

shrink wrote:I can only hope we get a #1 pick sometime, and we can see how unattached we are to that player.

What is your logic? If its that a team should hand their former #1 overall pick a huge contract just because they took him #1 that's pretty dumb.

I understand that there's an attachment to players drafted high, but I think fans are rational and smart enough to know when a team overpaid. Sure the fans would like to see Player X stick around, but they want to see a winning team even more.