Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

Ben Wallace 4yr / ~$80 million

3K views 88 replies 41 participants last post by  SALO 
#1 ·
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.
is that a reasonable contract to offer Wallace?
 
#3 · (Edited)
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.
 
#8 ·
The worst thing this franchise could do is throw a lot of money at Wallace. Although a great defender and rebounder he is still a compementary player.

I was somewhat disheartened this morning to read that Gooden wants to stay in Cleveland and that Ferry wants to keep him. I still think the Bulls could get him if they became aggressive. IMO, he is the best FA out there for the Bulls front-line.
 
#9 ·
That 20 million expiring contract in 4 years would be great for a trade. Ben Wallace plays the next 4 years in our title runs, and then year 5, at the trade deadline, we deal him for some more good players, and keep on with our championship runs.
 
#10 ·
johnston797 said:
If one team is willing to pay that much, he is.
No. That just means that one team is willing to pay that much, not that he deserves it. Big difference.
 
#14 ·
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.
 
#15 ·
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.
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?
 
#16 ·
Damn, if you guys are willing to spend that cash on Big Ben, why not just go for KG with your picks. He's younger, a current rebounding champion, All Defensive team, proven scorer and a veteran leader which is something the Bulls really need.
 
#17 ·
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.
Rosenbaum's 06-07 cap prediction is quite strange, unless he believes the NBA is going to lose revenue this year.
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).
From the salary cap FAQ.
Using that info and the assumption that the NBA projects the same BRI as last year, next years cap would be at roughly $52M.
Ben would be allowed a maximum starting salary of $18.2M, ouch.
 
#18 ·
I hereby retract my earlier desire to see Pax's first move of free agency be a "full-boat" offer to Ben Wallace. I didn't think that Wallace would take the offer, but I felt it would send a good message to prospective free agents (and their agents) around the league.

Now I'm afraid Wallace would take the offer, and I have no desire to see him on the Bulls at anything near that sort of price. He would cripple our already-challenged offense, and there's only so much he could do to improve our team defense, especially as the emphasis in the league continues to trend toward offense.

I'm not a commitment-phobe, and heaven knows I've been clamoring for years for Reinsdorf to spend more money, but I'm not sure there's a free agent out there I'd like to see the Bulls land for more than three years and $20 million. Drew Gooden, maybe.
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spongyfungy
#21 ·
TripleDouble said:
I like the years but not the dollars.
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?
 
#22 ·
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.
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.
 
#25 ·
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.
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.
 
#26 ·
I don't think big Ben will get a max deal considering his max starts at over 16mil per. I think he will get something in the neighborhood of 12 mil per and the Bulls should definitley offer him that and try to pry him from Detroit.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top