Chad Ford on Joe Johnson

A5RoadDogg · Post #1 » by **A5RoadDogg** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 6:55 pm

I asked, he responded:

Sam (La Jolla)
Chad, why would Joe Johnson leave the Hawks for no extra money with a worse team?

Chad Ford (1:34 PM)
You assume the Hawks will pay him the same amount of money that the Knicks would. I don't think Atlanta will be able, financially, to meet what the Knicks could do.

raleigh · Post #2 » by **raleigh** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 6:57 pm

Allan Houston 2.0.

killbuckner · Post #3 » by **killbuckner** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 7:18 pm

Tons of people here say that they don't think that Joe Johnson is worth the max- why are they suprised that people might wonder whether the Hawks would be willing to pay the luxury tax in order to pay joe the max? (or let horford go to avoid paying the tax)

raleigh · Post #4 » by **raleigh** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 7:52 pm

killbuckner wrote:Tons of people here say that they don't think that Joe Johnson is worth the max- why are they suprised that people might wonder whether the Hawks would be willing to pay the luxury tax in order to pay joe the max? (or let horford go to avoid paying the tax)

I have no idea what you're saying here or who the "they" you are referring to would be...sounds like a strawman.

killbuckner · Post #5 » by **killbuckner** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 9:00 pm

You haven't ever heard people on this exact board say that they don't think that Joe is worth the max? Or that they wouldn't pay joe the max? I haven't kept track of exactly who said it or when, but this sure seems to be a pretty common sentiment. I try and bring it back to the conversation of "would your really let joe johnson walk for no compensation rather than paying Joe the max" because when it comes down to it I think they would want him to get it but saying it is pretty common.

dagger · Post #6 » by **dagger** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 9:01 pm

killbuckner wrote:Tons of people here say that they don't think that Joe Johnson is worth the max- why are they suprised that people might wonder whether the Hawks would be willing to pay the luxury tax in order to pay joe the max? (or let horford go to avoid paying the tax)

Maybe because your ownership is the craziest in the league. Maybe because they saw what Spirit just did on the hockey side.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... group.aspx

ATL DirtyBird · Post #7 » by **ATL DirtyBird** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 9:07 pm

Were not gonna upgrade if Joe leaves. Our only option is to keep him. If he leaves we are SOOOO boned.

killbuckner · Post #8 » by **killbuckner** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 9:08 pm

Just a couple quick ones that I found in a couple minutes of looking.

TBHawks fan.

He is not a max player and he is aging. It would be a big mistake for the Hawks to win a bidding war for JJ

Skyhawk1

I said this about 2 weeks ago and here it goes again, the Hawks will have a very hard time giving JJ the same deal he was offered this past summer. {...} LET THE GUY GO.

Harry10

should the Hawks really over pay Joe with a max contract?

Sneakerking

I would not overpay him, he isnt worth it.

lunarblues · Post #9 » by **lunarblues** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 9:29 pm

the question should be would any other team in the league pay joe the max. the consensus is that he isn't a max guy (duncan, kobe, lebron, wade) and if you don't offer him a max contract, the hawks are gonna match it (not in the restricted sense, but in the sense that atlanta is gonna offer the same money and have a better team ready for him.) this is what seperates joe's case from someone like bosh's. you can offer chris the same contract and he might leave since the raptors are still seen as a mediocore team. the hawks are coming close to elite status. is joe really gonna leave that to start all over again when he getting close to 30?

killbuckner · Post #10 » by **killbuckner** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 9:49 pm

I think its inevitable that SOMEONE gives Joe the max after they strike out on Lebron, Wade, and Bosh. CHicago already appears to be likely. Joe would be a great fit in Miami if they can't lure Bosh or Lebron. New York has money that they pretty much have to spend or else this entire year would be a failure.

ATL DirtyBird · Post #11 » by **ATL DirtyBird** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 10:20 pm

killbuckner wrote:Just a couple quick ones that I found in a couple minutes of looking.

TBHawks fan.
He is not a max player and he is aging. It would be a big mistake for the Hawks to win a bidding war for JJ

Skyhawk1
I said this about 2 weeks ago and here it goes again, the Hawks will have a very hard time giving JJ the same deal he was offered this past summer. {...} LET THE GUY GO.

Harry10
should the Hawks really over pay Joe with a max contract?

Sneakerking
I would not overpay him, he isnt worth it.

Early on I was a big time believer in letting him walk but him leaving cripples us. Unless we find a miraculous way to lure a big time FA here we need Joe to stay.

^^I dont think Joe in Miami would work as well as they would want. They are both so ball dominant. Joe isnt good off the ball and I doubt Dwayne wants to relinquish his power. I wouldnt want to see Joe leave for division team either. Gotta make htis guy stay. Whether you like it or not he is our best option as of now.

evildallas · Post #12 » by **evildallas** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 11:03 pm

I'm one of the people who has probably contributed to the not worth it vibe, but I have maintained that it will take the max to sign him and that is a matter for ownership to decide weighing all the financial implications that I do not have access to. I have always felt that the maximum should only be extended to a great player that is also highly marketable (sells tickets) which I'm not sure Joe fits, but the teams in the NBA haven't always used that standard. The 4/$60M offer was substantial, but the max NY can pay is likely to be around 5 yrs for as much as 82M (not sure how much the cap will go down). The ownership has between now and the ultimate end of the season to determine whether Joe is worth that extra 22M and extra year on the deal. How far the team goes, how Joe plays, and whether attendance swells are all parts of this evaluation.

killbuckner · Post #13 » by **killbuckner** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 11:18 pm

I think that Joe could work very well off ball if the Hawks had other guys on the roster who could consistently draw a double and find the open man. The problem is that Crawford is the only other guy that can consistently draw a double, but when he finds the open man he shoots anyway.

geeman · Post #14 » by **geeman** » Tue Feb 9, 2010 11:39 pm

I too was one of those say Joe is not worth a max deal. I think the upside on the other player, combined with who we could pick up is worth not paying him a max deal. We may have to take one step back, but I’m betting on the come. Moreover, how would Joe look as a player 3 years into a max deal? Say we lost Joe, we still have JChill to trade and maybe we sign TMac to a short term deal were right back in the mix. Remember just because the team are going to throw money at the guys don’t mean they will be successful! The Celtics were the exception to the rule!!

geeman · Post #15 » by **geeman** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:14 am

And shouldn't a max guy give you more than 21 ppg?

evildallas · Post #16 » by **evildallas** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:18 am

geeman wrote:And shouldn't a max guy give you more than 21 ppg?

Not necessarily. Depends on the offense structure, what else the player contributes, and especially play at big money time. Tim Duncan averages 19.4, but is a max guy for sure. Nash, Pierce, and Howard are all lower in scoring. Maybe they established their max cred earlier though. Joe's 10th in the league and 8 of the 9 ahead of him are max (or future max Durant) guys. 21.9 ppg is plenty if Joe delivers big time in post season (he's not exactly done that in the past). That's one of the reasons that I think we're still in evaluation/audition period for Joe. If he produces big time this post-season and can lead the team further than expected well then I think he'll get an offer from Atlanta that is as much as anyone else can offer. If Joe fades in the 2nd round (even if because of injury) then I don't think Atlanta goes higher than their previous offer.

raleigh · Post #17 » by **raleigh** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:21 am

killbuckner wrote:You haven't ever heard people on this exact board say that they don't think that Joe is worth the max?

Of course, but my question is what in the world does that have to do with this:

why are they suprised that people might wonder whether the Hawks would be willing to pay the luxury tax in order to pay joe the max?

A ---> C

B (locked away in a closet)

killbuckner · Post #18 » by **killbuckner** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:04 pm

When so many HAWK FANS don't think that Joe is worth the max why wouldn't people speculate about whether the team would actually pay Joe the max? I don't know that the team would do it. Many teams have screwed up royally by doing it in the same situation thinking they couldn't lose their best player for nothing but end up with an albatross contract. I have no idea how you could consider this a strawman.

evildallas · Post #19 » by **evildallas** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:08 pm

While I still believe the post-season will dictate whether Atlanta ups their bid to Joe, I stumble upon an interesting post where a Bulls fan crunched some numbers on Joe.

Link Here

Bottom line: the logical conclusions don't really back signing Joe to the max.