is that a reasonable contract to offer Wallace?
is that a reasonable contract to offer Wallace?Taking Ben to the max
Ben Wallace will be a free agent this summer and there has been a lot of speculation that a couple of teams (Atlanta, Chicago, Charlotte and Toronto) might be in a position to offer him a maximum contract. If so, they would have to pony up more than $100 million over six years.
The Pistons, were they to give Wallace a full maximum, could pay him as much as $132.5 million over six years. That would represent a starting salary of about $17.5 million (based on 35 percent of the league’s current salary cap of $50 million).
The most any other team could pay him over six years (assuming the salary cap stays the same) would be roughly $126 million.
It needs to be stressed, though, that Wallace will turn 32 in September and it is highly unlikely that a team would sign him to a six-year deal.
In all probability, Wallace’s agent, Arn Tellem, will be negotiating for a four-year deal.
I like the years but not the dollars.spongyfungy said:is that a reasonable contract to offer Wallace?
If one team is willing to pay that much, he is.Coatesvillain said:No way is Ben Wallace worth that much.
No. That just means that one team is willing to pay that much, not that he deserves it. Big difference.johnston797 said:If one team is willing to pay that much, he is.
Right. My mistake.sloth said:We can't sign Wallace to a 6 year deal, only a 5 year deal at most.
Rawse said:If anyone signs Ben Wallace to a five-year max deal, they deserve everything they get.
He does make more sense if we get Bargnani in the draft I agree. A lot of my concern is he'll be 33-38 during that contract, so certainly not in his prime. What do you do if you have all your money stuck into an old guy if he really goes downhill?yodurk said:As long as Uncle Jerry promises to pay up when Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and Noch are up for extensions, then personally I see no problem giving Ben Wallace whatever he asks for. Reinsdorf has shown that he'll pay if he's assured a good winning team. Obviously ownership has it's limits with luxury tax penalties so you can't go too much over the cap. But giving meaty contracts to 5-6 players seems feasable IMO. Maybe some don't think Ben Wallace will maintain his effectiveness for the next 4-5 years, but he's a proven workhorse and an immediate game changer. He's the type of guy who could really get us to the next level very very soon. If we land a scoring type in the draft, ala Bargnani, then I'm even more for it.
Rosenbaum's 06-07 cap prediction is quite strange, unless he believes the NBA is going to lose revenue this year.I think their figures are off (though I'm not stating mine are compltely accurate).
Using Rosenbaum's '06-'07 cap prediction of 49.2 million to calculate the projected BRI per team (49.2/.51) and multiplying by .4804, the actual cap figure to calculate maximum salaries is $46,344,471. Thirty-five percent of that would be a starting salary of $16,220,565.
According to my calculations (once again, I'm not confirming any validity in them), the maximum Wallace can sign for is $72,668,130 (8% raises) over four years and $94,079,275 over five years.
From the salary cap FAQ.The league and Players Association agreed to use a figure of $49.5 million for the 2005-06 cap, rather than the calculated figure (which would have resulted in a salary cap of $50.9 million).
sloth, have you been watching the playoffs? Detroit would be far better off starting McDyess and giving extra minutes to Dale Davis and limiting Ben to 10-15 minutes a game.sloth said:No way Wallace stays with the Pistons. This has Steve Nash written all over it. Pistons lowball him, we offer him a good contract, but not outrageous (nothing over 100 million, and that crap). I think Sheed will demand a trade too, especially if Ben bolts in free agency.
Are you Jerry Reinsdorf? I THINK I have the understanding that we'd be over the cap for the foreseeable future after this season if we got Wallace for 7 mill per. Once we're over the cap what does it matter what we pay out?TripleDouble said:I like the years but not the dollars.
Mr. May... Is it looking MORE AND MORE like we should just forego the free agent market this offseason unless we get a good price on a guy who will be content to be "one of the guys" like a Nazr Mohammed?? I just don't know that it's a great idea adding another guy who will demand big offense or in Wallace's case, at best, be a figure that is seen around the league as ABOVE the rest of our guys. I know that people want us to spend all this money, but sometimes adding as many guys as you can isn't the best thing. Sometimes it's too many chefs in the kitchen. I'm almost content to add NO ONE from free agency unless they are a good background guy.ScottMay said:sloth, have you been watching the playoffs? Detroit would be far better off starting McDyess and giving extra minutes to Dale Davis and limiting Ben to 10-15 minutes a game.
I have no desire to go through the next 5 seasons playing 4-on-5 on the offensive end, especially when it costs us at least $15 million per and probably means we'll lose a younger player or two for budget reasons.
With the NBA headed toward a revival of the run-and-fun 80s, a guy like Ben Wallace will be an albatross. We already have a pretty damn good defense without him anyway.
http://danrosenbaum.blogspot.com/2005/07/what-will-salary-cap-luxury-tax.htmlstep said:Rosenbaum's 06-07 cap prediction is quite strange, unless he believes the NBA is going to lose revenue this year.
I've never been a big fan of free agency. You usually get guys that are overpriced, past their prime, have questionable at best character, etc. As someone said though, the main reason I am against adding an older guy considered a "star" is that you might pass on a younger guy that could develop into something special, and in a few years he's gone and you are the worse for it then.Pippenatorade said:Mr. May... Is it looking MORE AND MORE like we should just forego the free agent market this offseason unless we get a good price on a guy who will be content to be "one of the guys" like a Nazr Mohammed?? I just don't know that it's a great idea adding another guy who will demand big offense or in Wallace's case, at best, be a figure that is seen around the league as ABOVE the rest of our guys. I know that people want us to spend all this money, but sometimes adding as many guys as you can isn't the best thing. Sometimes it's too many chefs in the kitchen. I'm almost content to add NO ONE from free agency unless they are a good background guy.