Bucks talking 4-year Salmons deal (Update-page 19)

[LUKE23]

Very awesome. That would lock down our entire starting five before the draft or FA starts.

[RamonSessions]

Woot.

[incontrol__]

Just so long as he doesn't give Salmons 8-10 mil a year. 7 is solid. 6 is great. Can't forget where and what Salmons was before he came to the Bucks, as great as he has been.

[LUKE23]

I think 3/21 sounds fair, I could live with 3/24.. I definitely wouldn't go into 8 digit per year range.

[chuckleslove]

3/21 sounds about right for me. If it took 3/22.5 or 3/24 I'd have to strongly consider it and probably go for it since it is unlikely to get a better player that fits into our system with that money. I definitely wouldn't do the 3/30 deal that they were talking about on the WSSP morning show about a month ago. I had to call in that morning and tell them they were crazy. Good ole Mike Wickett.

[aboveAverage]

Salmons is extremely important to this new Bucks squad. He is the main reason we have jumped from a .500 team to a 0.600-0.700 team in the second half of the season. I think Hammond understands that if we lose Salmons, we're back to square one. He'll get him a good contract.

Anyone think that Hammond is slowly following the same blueprint in Detroit? Salmons could be our Chauncey, an aging player who peaks in his 30's and doesn't really rely on his athleticism. Now all we need is our Rip Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince. Hopefully Hammond gets that done in the draft.

[Dobber-16]

I think anything over $5M per is overpaying. The longest the Bucks should sign him is for 3/yrs.

So 3years@$15M is probably what the market is.

[LUKE23]

I think anything over $5M per is overpaying. The longest the Bucks should sign him is for 3/yrs.

So 3years@$15M is probably what the market is.

That is less than MLE. That is low, I don't know where you're getting your market value from.

[Turk Nowitzki]

I think anything over $5M per is overpaying. The longest the Bucks should sign him is for 3/yrs.

So 3years@$15M is probably what the market is.

Yeah, good luck with that one. Take a look at Ginobili's recent extension with the Spurs as more in the range of what we could be looking at. I'm hoping Salmon's gets a bit less per year however.

[emunney]

Salmons is extremely important to this new Bucks squad. He is the main reason we have jumped from a .500 team to a 0.600-0.700 team in the second half of the season. I think Hammond understands that if we lose Salmons, we're back to square one. He'll get him a good contract.

Anyone think that Hammond is slowly following the same blueprint in Detroit? Salmons could be our Chauncey, an aging player who peaks in his 30's and doesn't really rely on his athleticism. Now all we need is our Rip Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince. Hopefully Hammond gets that done in the draft.

I don't agree that losing Salmons sets us back to square one. Particularly if you want to pay him 8m a year, I believe you absolutely can replace his production at that price. Most likely, losing Salmons would end up being a lateral move, with some potential for variance in either direction.

[PedroGrande]

Just so long as he doesn't give Salmons 8-10 mil a year. 7 is solid. 6 is great. Can't forget where and what Salmons was before he came to the Bucks, as great as he has been.

Yeah, kind of my point of view as well, with a contract no longer than 3 years.

Kind of OT: In general board you always defend the bucks, and it shows that you actually watch some of our games as well, any particular reason? Jennings beeing from LA is one?

[Dobber-16]

On second though, if a players contract is extended before it expires, doesn't the CBA allows a 10% increase only? His contract is for $5,808,000 next season, add 10% and his starting salary would be $6.388,000. Per Shamsports

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages ... /bucks.jsp

His cap hold is $9,643,727, so it would make sense that the Bucks would want Salmons to agree on a contract. It would make it easier for the Buck to move forward next season on shaping the roster.

[coolhandluke121]

This is acceptable despite the fact that it will theoretically kill the max cap room in 2011. I would have been against it before, but now that Redd is likely to be a fully insured contract it's almost as good as max cap room. Sure, the Bucks can't go and sign someone outright, but that's not the benefit of cap space anyway. The main benefit is being able to take back a lot of salary in a trade with a team that needs financial relief.

That financial relief is reduced by the fact that Redd will still cost some team several million next year, and reduced further by the fact that he will still count against the luxury tax. But there will be teams looking to trade a productive player for Redd's insured contract. It's like the Bucks get an advance on their cap space because of Redd's injury.

Part of me still can't shake the feeling that this core doesn't have great upside, though. They'll hit a ceiling and will have trouble adding talent. Better hit home-runs with the Bulls' pick and make the most of the Redd asset next year if they want to contend in the next 3-4 years.

[Turk Nowitzki]

This is acceptable despite the fact that it will theoretically kill the max cap room in 2011. I would have been against it before, but now that Redd is likely to be a fully insured contract it's almost as good as max cap room. Sure, the Bucks can't go and sign someone outright, but that's not the benefit of cap space anyway. The main benefit is being able to take back a lot of salary in a trade with a team that needs financial relief.

That financial relief is reduced by the fact that Redd will still cost some team several million next year, and reduced further by the fact that he will still count against the luxury tax. But there will be teams looking to trade a productive player for Redd's insured contract. It's like the Bucks get an advance on their cap space because of Redd's injury.

Part of me still can't shake the feeling that this core doesn't have great upside, though. They'll hit a ceiling and will have trouble adding talent. Better hit home-runs with the Bulls' pick and make the most of the Redd asset next year if they want to contend in the next 3-4 years.

You're correct about the cap space. I don't think we will be in line to land any free agent worth max money so it's more about just keeping enough flexibility to take advantage of trade opportunities.

I don't agree about the limited ceiling though, Jennings has as much upside as anyone in the NBA. Bogut is playing at an All Star caliber level, and guys like Ilyasova and Moute can still get better. I do agree that hitting a few more draft picks could be a huge boost to the team, but I do like the direction that we're heading.

[LUKE23]

I'm pretty sure we'd still have a max cap slot if we got Salmons at 6-7 M per year. It's if you add something like Childress at the MLE that we start having a problem.

Only two players on the team would be over $4M per year in 2011-12 if Salmons was our only FA signing of significance this offseason, Salmons and Bogut.

[old skool]

Salmons will not likely take a salary cut. He will look for something of a raise, or at least the security of added years. The Bucks would be wise to give him a front loaded contract to help them manage cap space in following years - if the price is right. A lot depends on what Salmons does with respect to his opt out. If he does not opt out, he can wait another year to deal with the extension issue.

I suspect that the Bucks would also like to retain Stackhouse if the price is right.

If Salmons opts out, the Bucks would have to big holes to fill replacing he and Stackhouse - both playing the same position.

oLd sKool

[coolhandluke121]

I'm pretty sure we'd still have a max cap slot if we got Salmons at 6-7 M per year. It's if you add something like Childress at the MLE that we start having a problem.

Probably true. But that would be a skeleton crew next season unless they find some great bargains on one-year deals, with only the MLE and LLE to spend.

I think it would be wiser to utilize the cap space in advance via a Redd trade, because

a) it allows some control over who you're getting as opposed to overpaying for whatever's available on the free agent market
b) it allows you to stay a little over the cap, as opposed to going under the cap in 2011 and having to wait until 2012 to spend the MLE on a needed supporting cast player
c) it allows you to get something for Redd's cap space and use the MLE each of the next two years because the Bucks are allowed to stay over the cap via trades but not if they let Redd and Gadz expire (related to a and b)

Having cap space is all about finding a player that fits. So many teams have been burned badly by using cap space out of a sense of need. If the right player comes along via a Redd trade, the Bucks absolutely have to pull the trigger rather than wait until 2011 in the naive hope that they'll get someone even better.

[paulpressey25]

I'm still at a loss for who we acquire with that Redd contract since it is so large and hard to trade from a size perspective, even if insured.

It seems that guys like Iggy, Al Jeff, etc. would be the players that would fit that expiring.

You could also wait until 2011 and gamble on the new CBA and offer a max-deal to a guy like Horford, who would arguably be the best player of the lot to acquire, but you'd have to really overpay to get an offer out there the Hawks could not match.

[xTitan]

Hammonds does not seem the type to spend willy nilly like Harris....I wouldn't give Salmons a penny over $6 million and try to keep it to a 2 year deal...he is going to be 31...a bad signing here sets this team back...and they still have no star at the 1,2 or 3 spots.

[Scoops]

Who is Hammonds?