RealGM

Everyone is on the record saying how much the Hawks overpaid to get Joe Johnson

But if you don't pay your players and you let them walk, fans complain that the team is too cheap.

And here's the funny thing, the ultimate goal is to win a championship, and the reality of the NBA is that it's the sport with the least amount of parity out of all sports because you essentially need a superstar to win a championship. (Maybe there will be one more exception or two in the next 30 years like it was the past 30, then again maybe not since they extend all rounds to 7 games making it even more unlikely)

So if we establish

A)That it takes a superstar to win a championship
B)Those superstar players don't grow on trees

Then why should a team be criticized so much for doing the next best thing which is maximizing the amount of success they can have without a superstar, whether if that's 2nd round or conference finals, or a hope to be that next exception to the rule ensemble cast that's once in a few decades?

You see everybody can easily say X player isn't worth his contract

But you get crickets from those same people when you ask them what alternative did that team have

What alternative does an Indiana, Atlanta, Philly, etc have if they don't have a superstar?

The fact of the matter is most cities don't have what it takes to win a championship because of how
few superstars are in this league. Which is why a little over a handful of teams have won a championship in the last 3+ decades

I agree. The Hawks best stars have been Pettit (50 years ago), Dominique (20 years ago), Dikembe (15 years ago and Steve Smith 15 years ago). Since then it has been Joe Johnson.

I agree. People think anyone can be a star and carry a team. There are really only maybe 3-5 true stars in the league at any one time......

Good thread. I'm actually one who has talked crap about the Joe Johnson contract but when you put it like this it makes sense.

If they hadn't screwed up a bunch of drafts the need to overpay Johnson wouldn't have been necessary.

BodieB wrote:If they hadn't screwed up a bunch of drafts the need to overpay Johnson wouldn't have been necessary.

Cp3 Johnson smooth horford. That team owns the east

_BBIB_ wrote:What alternative does an Indiana, Atlanta, Philly, etc have if they don't have a superstar?

Blow your team up like the Bobcats and rebuild through the draft, hoping to draft a superstar or two. Atlanta and Philly are definitely treadmill teams. Indiana might have enough bottled lightning in Hibbert and George to build around.

Oklahoma City has three stars... It's because they made the RIGHT PICKS

ClayDavis wrote:

BodieB wrote:If they hadn't screwed up a bunch of drafts the need to overpay Johnson wouldn't have been necessary.

Cp3 Johnson smooth horford. That team owns the east

Drafting CP3 = No Horford.

ElectricMayhem wrote:

ClayDavis wrote:

BodieB wrote:If they hadn't screwed up a bunch of drafts the need to overpay Johnson wouldn't have been necessary.

Cp3 Johnson smooth horford. That team owns the east

Drafting CP3 = No Horford.

Oh come on... please.. your telling me that Horford is that valuable. Thats the best one I've read all day.

idk ...if another team was willing to give JJ 120?? million and it was my team that had the option to match i wouldnt be mad at all if they didnt ...i mean you have to be real sure about a guy or your teams ability to win a championship to give up that kind of dough

ClayDavis wrote:Cp3 Johnson smooth horford. That team owns the east

Replace JJ with an efficient guard, and now we're talking. Joe Johnson is kind of ass-tastic as a primary scoring threat. He's rocking a career 52.9% TS and he's been under 54% in all but one of his 7 years with the Hawks. He's much better-suited to the role he played in Phoenix, to be honest, he's really not an offensive anchor at all. Atlanta's been 12th, 29th, 16th, 10th, 2nd, 20th and 16th on offense in the years he's been there. Wildly inconsistent but generally below-average. The year they were awesome on O was the first (and best) of two years they had Jamal Crawford coming off of the bench as a sparkplug scorer and the healthiest and best season they've had from Horford. They were also remarkably stingy about giving up the ball, topping the league with the fewest turnovers. Then the Bucks took them seven games and they got obliterated by the Magic in a sweep where they scored over 84 points once (98) and under 76 twice (71 in the opener, 75 in game 3). Joe Johnson stank so bad, they smelled it on Mars, through the void of space. Rocking that 29.8% FG like a boss.

God, the Hawks are unpleasant to watch on offense and their iso ball falls apart against legit defenses. And Joe Johnson has no business being a #1 scoring option.

Whether the Hawks signed Joe Johnson to a $120 million contract or not, they're not going to contend for a championship. They need major changes to the roster. Team should have built around Horford while they had the chance.

BodieB wrote:If they hadn't screwed up a bunch of drafts the need to overpay Johnson wouldn't have been necessary.

Passing up Chris Paul for Marvin Williams and Roy or Gay for Shelden Williams and then saying they are in a lose lose situation?

But at the same time teams put themselves in that vice, I never saw Joe Johnson in the same echelon as the leagues top guns. Some teams do over pay when it comes to free agents. But not too many hard core ball fans will feel sorry for the Hawks.

The drafted poorly also, they should have drafted CP but didn't and it's still hurting them in a way.To me the main problem with the Hawks is how they're built. Too many guys on that team from their top 3 or 5 guys want to be the man. They chase the stats, you can clearly see it in their play. Until they balance that team, winning will be a problem.

as a Bucks fan I would kill to have the situation and sucess the Hawks have had the past few years, they aren't mediocre, the Bucks are. The Hawks are a good team which may not get better. The Bucks are a an average team that will stay average and out of the playoffs.

I'm pretty sure they'd still be making the playoffs and losing in the first round without Joe Johnson
some teams do have to overpay lesser talent, but that Joe Johnson contract is inexcusable

samueldestroyer wrote:

ElectricMayhem wrote:

ClayDavis wrote:Cp3 Johnson smooth horford. That team owns the east

Drafting CP3 = No Horford.

Oh come on... please.. your telling me that Horford is that valuable. Thats the best one I've read all day.

Ummm....He wrote that a CP3/Johnson/Smith/Horford team would own the East. Maybe they would, but the simple fact remains, if they had drafted Paul, they wouldn't have Horford right now. And yes, taking away a borderline all-star does have some effect on that "dream team" whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

I still wouldn't have signed Joe Johnson to that ridiculous contract because he ain't very good anyway and he isn't a star anymore. There are lots of ways to improve a team without having a star(which JJ is not) if the management is smart they would surround the team with a balance team offense and defense like the Pacers. For small markets u can't overpay players that aren't actually stars and make them out to be 1.

Desperation