Guest Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 I think you're talking about the 6-yr, $100M I've been predicting. It's frightening: Year 1: $13.2M (age 29) Year 2: $14.6M (age 30) Year 3: $16.0M (age 31) Year 4: $17.4M (age 32) Year 5: $18.7M (age 33) Year 6: $20.1M (age 34) -or- Year 1: $16.7M (age 29) Year 2: $16.7M (age 30) Year 3: $16.7M (age 31) Year 4: $16.7M (age 32) Year 5: $16.7M (age 33) Year 6: $16.7M (age 34) The second one is more palatable long-term. Why not consider a 6 year deal that rises and declines? With Z, Bibby, and Marvin's deals Sund has shown to be creative with the structuring of the deals. I don't want to start putting numbers down until we know the salary cap within the next week, but have the contract start at the max, max raise after the 1st season and then slow declines. Or have modest raises after the first and second season and then declines. Either way, I would make the goal of the contract to allow for a smaller impact later on since undoubtedly Joe would be a worse player then. Another possibility is that the Hawks are concerned about the contract Al will get. If so, target Joe's contract to dip down for that year so as to anticipate Al having a large payday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now