RealGM

Looking at our team without Joe we play a better team orientated Game and play harder! We could have let joe walk and signed jamal to $40-$50 million and another offensive weapon for cheap and we wouldn't be in a cap space crises and still had the same team we have now! They should just feel dumb considering we look a little bit better without the $124mill man..Wasent that our whole point of getting jamal incase joe leaves?

Jamal is better off the bench. That hasn't changed. We would still need a SG.

The point of re-signing Joe was to either have his talents or be able to trade him for something of value. As I've said more than once, extra money to the ASG is wasted.

Its been 5 games. How can you come to that conclusion so soon?

I echo parsons thoughts.

The stupidity of the Joe contract won't take full effect until they lose Crawford.

If Joe can return to top-5 SG status, we win.
If Joe can be turned around for equal talent (players and/or picks), we win.

I don't know if you can contribute it to the injury or other players just stepping in cause they have to but we do look a little better without Joe.

About ball movement: sometimes, I don't think Joe trusts his teammates and thinks he has to do it all. He kills ball movement when he does that.

Maybe he'll watch his guys and realize they're good enough. Then, he can focus on open shots, rather than always creating.

I mainly hate the 6th year and that all the years are fully guaranteed. If the ASG were able to at least man up and compromise on one of those aspects I'd feel that his deal would be easier to move later on. As is there is too much bust potential with us likely having to eat 1-2 years of little to no production while being unable to move on from him, THAT'S what's irksome. I'm not worried about him helping the team in the short term, all he needs is his shot back because he was the most accurate facilitator we had.

As someone who advocated during the offseason to let Joe walk and sign Wesley Matthews (in retrospect not sure if his contract would have fit), I understand what the OP is getting at. However, the contract is signed and I'm not willing to extrapolate a small sample of games without Joe to evaluate the move. I'll wait to see how the team plays with Joe back after rehab before making an evaluation. If Joe can figure out how to fit in then he does bring a lot to the table. I know he'll never be worth the contract amount but he could still be part of our best team for this year. That's what I'm focused on the best run we can make now.

parson wrote:Jamal is better off the bench. That hasn't changed. We would still need a SG.

The point of re-signing Joe was to either have his talents or be able to trade him for something of value. As I've said more than once, extra money to the ASG is wasted.

the savings could have resigned Jamal and signed Wesley Mathews (or Anthony Marrow)....... which would have been a superb SG rotation.

I believe the savings would have not let us sing Crawford and another good guard, as the signing of JJ meant 120 millions but letting him go meant a lot less.
It is not the same to sign an own player that the saving you get for letting him go.

I really don't think Crawford is a long-term SG solution, but whatever.

Top Hawks hindsight moments in last 5 years: Chris Paul or Deron Williams instead of Marvin, Iguodala or Deng over Childress, and Al Jefferson could be our center if we had let JJ walk to NY (TPE).

saloonyk8 wrote:I really don't think Crawford is a long-term SG solution

Nor is Joe Johnson.