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

[BucksRUS]

Bucks won't have cap space in 2011 unless they renounce rights to all their free agents. They have an option of using the MLE in 2011 by staying above the cap due to Redd and Gadz's cap holds. This would allow them to save cap space until they want to use it.

[crkone]

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.

You would have to see who these teams sign this Summer on short deals that can be traded with the stars. I'm sure some GMs know this may sign players to match large expirings like Redd.

[fam3381]

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.

He's opting out this summer so the cap hold should be irrelevant given we're just looking at the MLE and Bird rights for our own guys (no cap space). Looking at the CBA FAQ, my reading of it was that they could basically agree to waive next year's contract since he has an ETO, which would presumably allow them to base an extension off this year's higher salary ($6.429 million):

53. In what other ways can an existing contract be modified?

Other than extensions (see question number 51) and renegotiations (see question number 52), a team and player can mutually modify an existing contract as follows:

To alter the amount of compensation protection -- i.e., the guarantee (see question number 93). This is commonly done as part of a buyout (see question number 61).
To eliminate an option or ETO (see question number 50). Note that eliminating an option does NOT constitute illegally shortening a contract, since an option year isn't considered part of the original term of a contract until it is invoked.

I have the same understanding about the 110.5% figure, but based on a $6.429 million salary the annual raises would be limited to about $675k. That would give a max of $7.1 million next year, $7.8 million in 11/12, and $8.5 in 12/13.

Anybody read it differently? Somebody put up the GAD signal...

[Newz]

3 years, $18 million is the highest you go for Salmons, IMO. Anything more you let him go.

[aboveAverage]

3 years, $18 million is the highest you go for Salmons, IMO. Anything more you let him go.

So you would let him go if he demanded 3 years 21 million or 3 years 22 million? Is it really that much of an abomination to offer him 7 million a year? I think he definitely deserves it. I hope Hammond doesn't have a set "highest offer" of only 6 million per year. It might take more than that.

At this point, the way Salmons is playing for us, he is worth 7 million per year.

[Turk Nowitzki]

3 years, $18 million is the highest you go for Salmons, IMO. Anything more you let him go.

I just don't think that's realistic market value for the production Salmons has given us. I would be willing to go 3 yrs. 24 mil.

[pasting_monkeys]

Very happy to see that Hammond is pursuing a Salmons extension. He is a great all round player and fits into our system seamlessly. I'd be willing to offer a 3yr/21M front-loaded contract, maybe even a fraction more. If we can get him for that amount then I firmly believe that his impact on the court will outweigh his salary, even when he hits the 3rd year of the extension.

[Newz]

3 years, $18 million is the highest you go for Salmons, IMO. Anything more you let him go.

I just don't think that's realistic market value for the production Salmons has given us. I would be willing to go 3 yrs. 24 mil.

He is thirty, his production will drop off for sure by the third year of his contract... Possibly even next year. He had a similar first year in Chicago and then did not repeat it this season.

$6 a year is as high as I would go, any higher and I think it's a mistake.

[pasting_monkeys]

At this point, the way Salmons is playing for us, he is worth 7 million per year.

If Salmons recent play could extrapolate for a full season then I'd put his worth at about 9M, he has been that good for us so far. I'm not suggesting we pay him that much, just that is a rough estimate of how valuable his play has been to our team. Given his age and length of the contract extension then yes 7M per year is a good number.

[paulpressey25]

I'm with Hammond on at least trying to get Salmons done now.

Then you can watch the Joe Johnson/Childress situation from a distance and not be under pressure of fighting the Salmons thing on a second front. If the Hawks decide to pay big dollars to keep JJ, it might push them toward the lux tax line and they might decline a 3-year/MLE deal for Childress.

And yes, I'd make that offer this summer if there wasn't some other obvious PF out there we could get with the MLE. I'd have no problems with Childress/Delfino/Salmons as our wings the next 2-3 years. Use the Redd or Gadz expiring and/or the draft pick to get the PF.

[Turk Nowitzki]

3 years, $18 million is the highest you go for Salmons, IMO. Anything more you let him go.

I just don't think that's realistic market value for the production Salmons has given us. I would be willing to go 3 yrs. 24 mil.

He is thirty, his production will drop off for sure by the third year of his contract... Possibly even next year. He had a similar first year in Chicago and then did not repeat it this season.

$6 a year is as high as I would go, any higher and I think it's a mistake.

Have you seen the extension Ginobili just got though? If Salmons has a good agent he's going to start there and point out that Salmons is a few years younger as well. I'd love to lock him up for $6 mil a year just as much as you, I just don't think that's being realistic.

[Newz]

Have you seen the extension Ginobili just got though? If Salmons has a good agent he's going to start there and point out that Salmons is a few years younger as well. I'd love to lock him up for $6 mil a year just as much as you, I just don't think that's being realistic.

1. They overpaid Manu, big time. That was a terrible deal for the Spurs... But they think they can still compete with the Parker/Manu/Duncan core. I disagree, Manu is no longer in his prime.

2. Just because another team gives a 2-guard a bunch of money, that doesn't mean we should be tricked into doing the same thing.

3. We just traded nothing for John Salmons. If he was in that high of demand, we would have had to give up more.

4. If $6 million isn't "realistic", then I would let him go. There are plenty of guys out there that we can get to replace John Salmons. I doubt he can do what he has done for us for an entire season. No doubt he will be productive, but I doubt it is this productive. Even if he is, it won't last his whole contract, IMO. He's already thirty and he will be out of his prime as early as next season.

[Garbs_7]

As much as we all love Salmons we need to play this right and be smart about this situation. We have done really well not to affect our cap space for 2011 but at the same time is there really going to be anyone of Salmons' quality available to us for around 7 mil per year? I think a 3 / 22 mil is the max you go considering he is going to be 32 or 33? in the last year. Definately look to front load the contract but if we signed him to something around 7 mil a year I think that would work for both parties.

Considering that is the kind of money we pay Gadz Even if we resign Salmons I think we will easily be able to add more talent to this roster with Redd's 18 mil cap space to play with.

[Turk Nowitzki]

Have you seen the extension Ginobili just got though? If Salmons has a good agent he's going to start there and point out that Salmons is a few years younger as well. I'd love to lock him up for $6 mil a year just as much as you, I just don't think that's being realistic.

1. They overpaid Manu, big time. That was a terrible deal for the Spurs... But they think they can still compete with the Parker/Manu/Duncan core. I disagree, Manu is no longer in his prime.

2. Just because another team gives a 2-guard a bunch of money, that doesn't mean we should be tricked into doing the same thing.

3. We just traded nothing for John Salmons. If he was in that high of demand, we would have had to give up more.

4. If $6 million isn't "realistic", then I would let him go. There are plenty of guys out there that we can get to replace John Salmons. I doubt he can do what he has done for us for an entire season. No doubt he will be productive, but I doubt it is this productive. Even if he is, it won't last his whole contract, IMO. He's already thirty and he will be out of his prime as early as next season.

Some good points, Ill try and tackle them one by one.

1. I agree with you about Manu, but that doesn't make his contract irrelevant. I don't think Hammond is dumb enough to pay that much but he's probably going to make a compromise which is why i threw out the 8 million a year number.

2. I don't believe we are getting tricked into anything if we give Salmons 8 mil a year. I can agree to disagree with you about that extra 2 million.

3. It's impossible to know what other offers they had making it hard to definitively make this statement. But from what was reported in the media you are right on this. I don't really have a good response other than maybe teams just underrated him.

4. Multiple people keep saying there are plenty of guys out there to replace him. If you don't mind, I would love to see a list of those players. Also, I completely disagree that his game will fall off in the next 3 years. In fact, I think the way he plays will translate perfectly into his mid 30's. His game doesn't rely on athleticism at all. He doesn't have an injury history so I don't see any reason to be worried on that front. As long as he stays in shape, I see no reason why he couldn't effectively play out a 3 year extension.

[paul]

Lock him up John boy.

[drew881]

Just curious for anyone who says we should let Salmons walk. What is your plan? Do you immediately replace him with someone on a one year deal, or are you thinking of signing someone else long term, how much are you spending on those players and who are they?

[aboveAverage]

Where is this list of players who can fill Salmons role for cheap? Name me several 20 ppg scorers who are as efficient as Salmons, get to the line as much, and are as good of defenders as Salmons, while fitting into our system perfectly. If you can find someone like that for 6 million, then by all means, go for it.

I just don't buy it. Eventually you have to pay for some value in this league. Hammond is great at finding bargain basement players, but that shouldn't mean he should be afraid to pay Salmons what he is worth.

[aboveAverage]

Lock him up John boy.

I think Salmons is our Billups. An overlooked player who peaks in his 30's because he doesn't rely on athleticism and didn't ever get a massive contract early in his career. Get him signed John.

[drew881]

Where is this list of players who can fill Salmons role for cheap? Name me several 20 ppg scorers who are as efficient as Salmons, get to the line as much, and are as good of defenders as Salmons, while fitting into our system perfectly. If you can find someone like that for 6 million, then by all means, go for it.

I just don't buy it. Eventually you have to pay for some value in this league. Hammond is great at finding bargain basement players, but that shouldn't mean he should be afraid to pay Salmons what he is worth.

This is exactly my point. Couple that with the fact that so many teams have FA money this year. 2-3 teams will get all the good players, and then a ton of teams will be left with spots to fill. All of those GM's will overpay, knowing that if they tanked for absolutely nothing, they will be fired. They will need to fill spots - half of those teams like the Knicks don't have the minimum signed. Mid-level players like Salmons could definitely get paid 1-3 more than they are worth a year in that situation. Look at what Detroit did with some cap room last year. That's not the last time we will see it happen.

[rrravenred]

Depends on how well he ages. If he can comfortably move to a sixth-seventh man option and remain effective in reduced minutes, when we draft / trade / FA sighn to improve our wing situation, that could very easily displace Salmons, and he needs to be aware of and accept this.