Why is Keith Bogans getting paid so much?

[saltlover]

Reports, including from this very website, are that Bogans is getting paid approximately $5 million to be involved in the Celtics-Nets deal.  This makes no sense to me, from a cap perspective or a Celtics management perspective, or even from a negotiating perspective from Bogans agent.  Here's why, with salary data from shamsports:

Without Bogans, the Nets are sending out $24,104,807 in salary (assuming the players involved are Humphries, Wallace, Brooks, and Joseph  I've seen Tyshawn Taylor also mentioned, but I think he's not involved).  This would allow them to take back $30,231,009 in salary from the Celtics.  The Celtics are sending $33,792,319 in salary, which includes Jason Terry's 7.5% trade kicker.  Accordingly, in order to make the salaries match, Bogans would need to be paid a shade under $2.85 million in year one of his deal to make salaries match between the two team.

Therefore, why would the Celtics pay him almost double what they need to?  The 10-year vet min salary, which Bogans is certainly looking at if he is not involved in this deal, is $1.4 million, so by being a part of the deal, Bogans is already making 100% more than he otherwise would have, so his agent wouldn't seem to have much more leverage to demand so much.  Furthermore, by taking on so much extra contract, the Celtics will find it much harder to get under the luxury tax level, which would likely be a priority for ownership if they're not fielding a contender this season.

None of this makes sense, so I hypothesize the reports are wrong, and Bogans is being paid between $2.8 and $3 million to participate, and not $5 million.

[rondoallaturca]

That $2M+ value you calculate would be the base year compensation. Under the CBA, that value would be 50% of the minimum contract the player would receive. So that's why you double it to something in the range of $5M.

It really isn't a loss for the C's, since only the first year has to be guaranteed. Essentially, you can view the contract as a $5M expiring.

[saltlover]

That $2M+ value you calculate would be the base year compensation. Under the CBA, that value would be 50% of the minimum contract the player would receive. So that's why you double it to something in the range of $5M.

It really isn't a loss for the C's, since only the first year has to be guaranteed. Essentially, you can view the contract as a $5M expiring.

Then why do it that way?  Stackhouse with a 20% raise and Reggie Evans can get you there much more cheaply.  Makes no sense.  The Celtics should be getting under the luxury tax with this deal, and Bogans at $5 mil won't do it.  Might as well have kept JET.

[rondoallaturca]

Then why do it that way?  Stackhouse with a 20% raise and Reggie Evans can get you there much more cheaply.  Makes no sense.  The Celtics should be getting under the luxury tax with this deal, and Bogans at $5 mil won't do it.  Might as well have kept JET.

Stackhouse is a FA. Evans makes about $1.6M. That leaves about $1.25M. Going under the same base year compensation provision, doubling $1.3M would mean paying Stackhouse around $2.5M. Combined, that'd just be $900K in savings. It'd be slightly more advantageous, but not by that much.

[saltlover]

Then why do it that way?  Stackhouse with a 20% raise and Reggie Evans can get you there much more cheaply.  Makes no sense.  The Celtics should be getting under the luxury tax with this deal, and Bogans at $5 mil won't do it.  Might as well have kept JET.

Stackhouse is a FA. Evans makes about $1.6M. That leaves about $1.25M. Going under the same base year compensation provision, doubling $1.3M would mean paying Stackhouse around $2.5M. Combined, that'd just be $900K in savings. It'd be slightly more advantageous, but not by that much.

No, I'm saying you pay Stackhouse $1,622,617, which is a) his non-bird max, and b) the most allowed under base-year compensation, and add him with Evans.  That's about $3.2 million this year, which is a lot less than what Bogans would be counting against the cap this year.

[rondoallaturca]

No, I'm saying you pay Stackhouse $1,622,617, which is a) his non-bird max, and b) the most allowed under base-year compensation, and add him with Evans.  That's about $3.2 million this year, which is a lot less than what Bogans would be counting against the cap this year.

If $1.6M is his non-bird max, that's why we couldn't make a trade with Stackhouse. The provisions regarding S&T in trade packages is that the S&T player is paid either his previous salary, or if it doesn't match the difference, 50% of his new salary. Since Stackhouse's salary from last year obviously wouldn't make ends meet, that means the difference would have to be 50% of his new salary. Since that would exceed his non-bird max, it wouldn't be possible to include Stackhouse as filler.

[saltlover]

No, I'm saying you pay Stackhouse $1,622,617, which is a) his non-bird max, and b) the most allowed under base-year compensation, and add him with Evans.  That's about $3.2 million this year, which is a lot less than what Bogans would be counting against the cap this year.

If $1.6M is his non-bird max, that's why we couldn't make a trade with Stackhouse. The provisions regarding S&T in trade packages is that the S&T player is paid either his previous salary, or if it doesn't match the difference, 50% of his new salary. Since Stackhouse's salary from last year obviously wouldn't make ends meet, that means the difference would have to be 50% of his new salary. Since that would exceed his non-bird max, it wouldn't be possible to include Stackhouse as filler.

Dude, that's why I keep saying Stackhouse AND Evans.  Both.  Not one or the other.  Both combined get you to the number you need for about $2 million less this year.  Or heck, Bogans AND Evans, where Bogans gets paid 120% of what he got last year.  Bogans by himself at that huge salary makes no sense.

[rondoallaturca]

No, I'm saying you pay Stackhouse $1,622,617, which is a) his non-bird max, and b) the most allowed under base-year compensation, and add him with Evans.  That's about $3.2 million this year, which is a lot less than what Bogans would be counting against the cap this year.

If $1.6M is his non-bird max, that's why we couldn't make a trade with Stackhouse. The provisions regarding S&T in trade packages is that the S&T player is paid either his previous salary, or if it doesn't match the difference, 50% of his new salary. Since Stackhouse's salary from last year obviously wouldn't make ends meet, that means the difference would have to be 50% of his new salary. Since that would exceed his non-bird max, it wouldn't be possible to include Stackhouse as filler.

Dude, that's why I keep saying Stackhouse AND Evans.  Both.  Not one or the other.  Both combined get you to the number you need for about $2 million less this year.  Or heck, Bogans AND Evans, where Bogans gets paid 120% of what he got last year.  Bogans by himself at that huge salary makes no sense.

Oops, my apologies. I guess it's getting too late for me 

Anyway, I guess there has to be some sort of provision that prevents the non-bird max from being apart of S&T packages, or something like that. Or maybe Ainge saw an advantage in getting a bigger expiring contract? There's way too many facets surrounding the CBA, and Ainge and his team are the professionals. I'm sure there's a reasoning.

[droopdog7]

What if bogans says no to the sign and trade?  No while he might be crazy for doing so, that would certainly be within his rights.  My point is, the teams would have to make it worth his wild to play along.  Maybe 5 mil is what it took him to do it?

[saltlover]

What if bogans says no to the sign and trade?  No while he might be crazy for doing so, that would certainly be within his rights.  My point is, the teams would have to make it worth his wild to play along.  Maybe 5 mil is what it took him to do it?

My point is that there were other options the C's and Nets could have pursued that would have allowed the trade to go through without paying Bogans $5 million, such as Reggie Evans and Tyshawn Taylor, who are both under contract already.  Bogans couldn't have had that strong a position to negotiate from, especially since his other option is getting less money from some other team.  And if you're going to pay him as much or more than you're paying Terry, why do the deal?  About the only advantage in paying Bogans so much is that presumably his deal will be non-guaranteed for a good potion of next off-season, and so is a large contract that can be traded away in which the other team effectively receives no liability.  But that seems like a very steep price to pay for such a commodity.

[Yogi]

1.  The Nets have bird rights to Bogans which allows them to
a. Sign him as a free agent.
b. Pay him a lot more money than the min.

2.  The Celtics want to keep roster spots open for young players, and future trades.  This is why it is possible Colton Iverson is heading overseas this year.  Thus, signing Bogans to a large salary is better than receiving multiple players for smaller salaries. 

3.  The Nets would rather send out one big contract and keep some of the other players to fill out their bench rather than have to send multiple players and have to bargain hunt at the vet. min bin to fill out their roster. 

4.  However, the Celtics are sending out $32,090,802 in salaries.  The Nets have to send back a minimum of $25,672,642 dollars for the trade to work. Joseph, Brooks, Humphries and Wallace combine to make $24,171,287. 
a. If Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce or Terry have a trade kicker that would increase the number of dollars Nets have to send out. 
b. If the Nets take on an additional contract then they would have to send back more as well.  The only way that Bogans would HAVE to get paid 5M is if the Celtics are also sending Courtney Lee back to the Nets. 

5. It is possible that the Celtics want to pay Bogans more simply to have a bigger expiring contract next off season.  Although I suspect that they would prefer the bigger trade exception this year if they pay Bogans less.  I believe that Bogans would only get payed around 1.5M unless Courtney Lee is also going back to the Nets. 

6.  It is true that Bogans has some leverage by choosing not to agree to a sign and trade.  I am not sure if that leverage is worth an extra 3.5M. 

[LooseCannon]

That $2M+ value you calculate would be the base year compensation. Under the CBA, that value would be 50% of the minimum contract the player would receive. So that's why you double it to something in the range of $5M.

It really isn't a loss for the C's, since only the first year has to be guaranteed. Essentially, you can view the contract as a $5M expiring.

Then why do it that way?  Stackhouse with a 20% raise and Reggie Evans can get you there much more cheaply.  Makes no sense.  The Celtics should be getting under the luxury tax with this deal, and Bogans at $5 mil won't do it.  Might as well have kept JET.

Stackhouse is reportedly set to retire and might not agree to a sign-and-trade.  The Nets probably want to hold on to Evans as part of their bench.  Bogans probably has more trade value than Stackhouse, even at the bigger salary.

[saltlover]

That $2M+ value you calculate would be the base year compensation. Under the CBA, that value would be 50% of the minimum contract the player would receive. So that's why you double it to something in the range of $5M.

It really isn't a loss for the C's, since only the first year has to be guaranteed. Essentially, you can view the contract as a $5M expiring.

Then why do it that way?  Stackhouse with a 20% raise and Reggie Evans can get you there much more cheaply.  Makes no sense.  The Celtics should be getting under the luxury tax with this deal, and Bogans at $5 mil won't do it.  Might as well have kept JET.

Stackhouse is reportedly set to retire and might not agree to a sign-and-trade.  The Nets probably want to hold on to Evans as part of their bench.  Bogans probably has more trade value than Stackhouse, even at the bigger salary.

Why wouldn't Stack agree to a sign-and-trade if he's going to retire?  Here's $1.6 million to serve as salary filler, and then he's waived and can retire and/or join some contender in March.  He's just salary filler anyway -- why not take the money for doing nothing?  Then S&T both him and Bogans, and everyone is better off.

[Surferdad]

I can't say I understand the fine details but the topic is interesting. Evans would have been a better fit with his rebounding ability IMO, as opposed to Bogans who is really just another swingman. That said, I like theory that a $5M Bogans contract has value to flip in another trade. It sounds like Bogans' leverage doesn't help him since the Nets can pay him more than anyone else, so he is unlikely to refuse a S&T at $5M compared to a 1.5M vet min contract somewhere else.

[eugen]

How about DA getting paid so much??