How much is Perk worth?

[MBz]

If the CBA doesn't change that much, 6 years, 60 million seems like the going rate for someone of Perk's skill set (pretty much the same contract Biedrins, Chandler, Dalembert, etc. signed). 

Well that's what they got, but other than Chandler, the other two are considered BAD contracts.

if that is what they got that is what Perk is going to get.  It is the reality of the NBA.  Now that is if they don't change the CBA much.

Exactly and that's the issue.  Samuel Dalembert is making 12 mil this season.  His career averages are right around 8 pts, 8 boards, 2 blocks.  You can't really get mad at Perk for turning down 4 years at 30 mil.  He's 100% going to make more than that.  Also I think the Celtics know that they need him to get deep into the playoffs.  You need guys who can cover Howard, Horford, Boozer, Noah, and if you make it to the finals then guys like Gasol, Bynum, Duncan.

[Roy H.]

I think his market could fall anywhere between $7 and $10 million per season, over five years.

[barefacedmonk]

Roy already mentined this...but CSNNE spoke to Perkins about the extension talks last night.

Kendrick Perkins is still focused on remaining a Boston Celtic after he becomes a free agent this summer.

Just as important, he wants to get a contract that he deems fair market value.

And the preliminary offer made by the Celtics, according to Perkins, won't cut it.

Perkins told CSNNE.com prior to Boston's 94-89 loss to the Charlotte Bobcats that the offer made to him was for four years around $22 million.

"That wasn't it. They offered me four years, but it was closer to like $22 million," Perkins said. "You talking four years, $30 million! Shoot, that's different. That's a big difference."

When the offer was made, the C's had no idea as to when Perkins would return to the floor after having knee surgery, or how he would perform.

That makes sense now...they'll give him a better deal now that he is back on the court and looks pretty good too.

He understands that his contract situation is something that will generate a lot of interest throughout the season, but it's not something he thinks about a lot.

"It's important, don't get me wrong," Perkins said. "But my biggest priority is getting out there, doing what I can to help this team win a championship. All that other stuff, the contract, the money … it'll all work out how it's supposed to, just as long as I go out there and do my job."

Link

[kozlodoev]

$22 million sounds more in line with the maximum extension as per Roy's breakdown.

I think $30 million over 4 years will be a fair price tag.

[Chris]

$22 million sounds more in line with the maximum extension as per Roy's breakdown.

I think $30 million over 4 years will be a fair price tag.

I think he will get much more than that on the open market.

[j804]

"You talking four years, $30 million! Shoot, that's different. That's a big difference."

Doesnt that sound like Perk would have taken that?

[GreenEnvy]

I wonder if they made that offer to stay in his good graces (knowing he would turn down ~$22M)), or is DA indeed looking to extend him longterm?

If so, I guess we can rule out most of CB's dream of D12 in 2012. I personally don't think he will come here (but it's looking less and less likely that he is staying in Orlando - I don't think he loves SVG or the moves Otis Smith is making), but interesting to see if DA wants to keep 2012 open or is looking at guys like Perk, BBD, West, Wafer, etc. and offering them some years.

I'd say Perk, right now (coming off of major knee surgery), is an MLE guy. Some of the other C's making ridiculous money were given those contracts from their current team with Bird Rights, not as a free agent.

[Roy H.]

I think the important thing to take away from that Herald article is that the Celtics didn't offer Perk $22 (or $23.4) million over four years because that's all they thought he was worth.  Rather, it's all they were allowed to offer on an extension.  This summer, they'll be able to give him more, and presumably he will.

I did think Perk's reaction to Blakely was interesting.  Reading between the lines, it seems like $30 million was at least somewhat enticing to Perk.  Even if the Celts went up from there to 5 years, $40 million, that's still a pretty reasonable deal.

[Chris]

I think the important thing to take away from that Herald article is that the Celtics didn't offer Perk $22 (or $23.4) million over four years because that's all they thought he was worth.  Rather, it's all they were allowed to offer on an extension.  This summer, they'll be able to give him more, and presumably he will.

I did think Perk's reaction to Blakely was interesting.  Reading between the lines, it seems like $30 million was at least somewhat enticing to Perk.  Even if the Celts went up from there to 5 years, $40 million, that's still a pretty reasonable deal.

I am pretty sure the C's could have offered more than $22 million.  And that makes a lot more sense that they started down there on their first offer.  They need to leave some room to negotiate, if only to let the agent prove his worth. 

As for Perkins comment, I can just see his agent pounding his head against the wall right now.  Perk needs to keep his mouth shut about stuff like that, if he wants to maintain a leg to stand on in negotiations.  Right now, it would be tough for him to turn down a deal of 4 years/$30 million, even if he can get more this summer. 

[Roy H.]

I think the important thing to take away from that Herald article is that the Celtics didn't offer Perk $22 (or $23.4) million over four years because that's all they thought he was worth.  Rather, it's all they were allowed to offer on an extension.  This summer, they'll be able to give him more, and presumably he will.

I did think Perk's reaction to Blakely was interesting.  Reading between the lines, it seems like $30 million was at least somewhat enticing to Perk.  Even if the Celts went up from there to 5 years, $40 million, that's still a pretty reasonable deal.

I am pretty sure the C's could have offered more than $22 million.  And that makes a lot more sense that they started down there on their first offer.  They need to leave some room to negotiate, if only to let the agent prove his worth.  

The max the Celtics could offer was something like $23.4 million, based upon the salary information we know.  That's in line with Perk's estimate of around $22 million; the Celtics surely gave him all they could.  They can offer more in the summer, but on an extension, they're confined to a four year offer, and a starting salary of 110.5% of his last year's salary (with raises equivalent to 10.5% of his last year salary every season).

The Herald just published a report without any fact-checking, and went with the "slightly less than $30 million" and "20% raise" figures, neither of which are based in reality.

[Chris]

I think the important thing to take away from that Herald article is that the Celtics didn't offer Perk $22 (or $23.4) million over four years because that's all they thought he was worth.  Rather, it's all they were allowed to offer on an extension.  This summer, they'll be able to give him more, and presumably he will.

I did think Perk's reaction to Blakely was interesting.  Reading between the lines, it seems like $30 million was at least somewhat enticing to Perk.  Even if the Celts went up from there to 5 years, $40 million, that's still a pretty reasonable deal.

I am pretty sure the C's could have offered more than $22 million.  And that makes a lot more sense that they started down there on their first offer.  They need to leave some room to negotiate, if only to let the agent prove his worth.  

The max the Celtics could offer was something like $23.4 million, based upon the salary information we know.  That's in line with Perk's estimate of around $22 million; the Celtics surely gave him all they could.  They can offer more in the summer, but on an extension, they're confined to a four year offer, and a starting salary of 110.5% of his last year's salary (with raises equivalent to 10.5% of his last year salary every season).

The Herald just published a report without any fact-checking, and went with the "slightly less than $30 million" and "20% raise" figures, neither of which are based in reality.

How is that calculated?  I got $26.6 million, based on a salary of 4.64 million this season, and 10.5% raises each year. 

[pearljammer10]

I would love to sign per this summer to a 4 year 30 million dollar contract... I think another team out there will give him a boatload more though. Id like to think Perk will be loyal to the C's however.

[Roy H.]

I think the important thing to take away from that Herald article is that the Celtics didn't offer Perk $22 (or $23.4) million over four years because that's all they thought he was worth.  Rather, it's all they were allowed to offer on an extension.  This summer, they'll be able to give him more, and presumably he will.

I did think Perk's reaction to Blakely was interesting.  Reading between the lines, it seems like $30 million was at least somewhat enticing to Perk.  Even if the Celts went up from there to 5 years, $40 million, that's still a pretty reasonable deal.

I am pretty sure the C's could have offered more than $22 million.  And that makes a lot more sense that they started down there on their first offer.  They need to leave some room to negotiate, if only to let the agent prove his worth.  

The max the Celtics could offer was something like $23.4 million, based upon the salary information we know.  That's in line with Perk's estimate of around $22 million; the Celtics surely gave him all they could.  They can offer more in the summer, but on an extension, they're confined to a four year offer, and a starting salary of 110.5% of his last year's salary (with raises equivalent to 10.5% of his last year salary every season).

The Herald just published a report without any fact-checking, and went with the "slightly less than $30 million" and "20% raise" figures, neither of which are based in reality.

How is that calculated?  I got $26.6 million, based on a salary of 4.64 million this season, and 10.5% raises each year. 

As I mentioned on the front page, I think the Herald got this one wrong (which wouldn't be the first time).  As far as I know, the CBA doesn’t limit extensions to a “20% raise”. Rather, as Larry Coon notes, “the salary in the first year of the extension is limited to 110.5% of the salary in the last year of the existing contract.” Then, after that first year value is established, Perk could receive raises equal to 10.5% of that last year value every year.)

$5,127,429.84 (10.5% raise over last year of contract)
$5,614,650.97 (raise of $487,221.13, equal to 10.5% of prior contract’s last year value)
$6,101,872.10 (raise of $487,221.13, equal to 10.5% of prior contract’s last year value)
$6,589,093.23 (raise of $487,221.13, equal to 10.5% of prior contract’s last year value)

Total: 4 years, $23,433,046.14 (which is quite a bit less than the MLE)

Just to make sure, I reviewed the actual CBA, and it’s in line with the above:

http://www.bizofbasketball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=677&Itemid=89

If those numbers are accurate, it’s pretty easy to see why Perk turned the extension down. He’s better off waiting until the summer, when the Celtics will have a lot fewer restrictions regarding his first year value.

If for some reason I'm calculating that wrong, let me know.

Players don't get 10.5% raises every year.  Rather, they get a raise equal to 10.5% of the last year value of the previous contract.  (Similarly, for new contracts, the raises aren't 10.5% every year, but 10.5% of the first year value.)

[Chris]

Yup, your right.  I was using the previous year, rather than last year of the previous contract.

[Roy H.]

Yup, your right.  I was using the previous year, rather than last year of the previous contract.

It's an easy enough mistake to make.  At least you were using actual numbers and the CBA, which is more than I can say for NBA reporters.