Which direction would you go next summer?

[B Calrissian]

If age is no issue because winning is the goal, why not just trade for a guy like Richard Hamilton? He will be paid less and is on a shorter contract.

Mainly because Richard Hamilton isn't as good as Joe Johnson. It doesn't hurt that Johnson is 3 years younger and you don't have to give up assets to sign a free agent.

Try reading what I said.

Hamilton will be cheaper and I can't imagine it will take a lot to trade for him.

[Worm Guts]

If age is no issue because winning is the goal, why not just trade for a guy like Richard Hamilton? He will be paid less and is on a shorter contract.

Mainly because Richard Hamilton isn't as good as Joe Johnson. It doesn't hurt that Johnson is 3 years younger and you don't have to give up assets to sign a free agent.

Try reading what I said.

Hamilton will be cheaper and I can't imagine it will take a lot to trade for him.

I read what you said, and I answered your question. I still thought the age difference was worth mentioning. Hamilton will 12.5 million in 2010-11, so he won't be that much cheaper.

[B Calrissian]

I read what you said, and I answered your question. I still thought the age difference was worth mentioning. Hamilton will 12.5 million in 2010-11, so he won't be that much cheaper.

Of course you did.
Hamilton is paid 12.5m each year for the rest of his contract. The difference will grow each year.

[Worm Guts]

If we're looking beyond 10-11, the age issue matters for Hamilton vs. Johnson. With Hamilton, the Wolves probably have to trade his expiring contract in 11-12 and try to re-tool (or maybe they'd have capspace if they let him expire). That may be an option to explore if you don't think Johnson is worth the contract they'd have to give him.
And to clear this up, just in case it seems like I'm contradicting myself. Age matters, but I don't want to sign a lesser player because he's 24 while letting a better player go because he's 29. Someone like Johnson would probably have 4-5 good years left, which would mean he's still a contributor when we're looking to contend. And if we can't get a younger player on a contract we like, I think it's OK to get an older player on shorter contract. Someone who would improve the team in the short term but still allow the team flexibility to improve in the future.

[B Calrissian]

It is hard to say who will be on the team at the end of this season but I imagine we will still be in need of a young win when draft day rolls around. If this team wants to be a playoff team in the near future they need some leadership in the backcourt, not more rookies starting.
Hamilton would be the steady vet on a young team, much like Andre Miller will be for the Blazers this year. Joe Johnson could provide the same things and is a better player but will a max or near max contract seem like a good idea in years 4 and 5? Hamilton, as you said, will have a 12.5m dollar expiring contract in 11/12. At that point can be dealt or resigned in the offseason if he and the team are doing well. Either way, the young wing should be ready to handle the starting job by then. Or maybe Rubio will make his way over by then and we can finally see the Flynn/Rubio backcourt.

Now that I am thinking about the Miller signing.. Isn't Hamilton vs Johnson similar to Miller vs Hedo? I think that the Blazers will be happy that they ended up with Miller. Both players are too old to be a part of their core long term. So it didn't make much sense (to me) to sign Hedo for 5 years at 10m a year.

[Shrunk]

worm and calrissian are like a couple retards fighting over a jelly donut

[B Calrissian]

worm and calrissian are like a couple retards fighting over a jelly donut

Still think Dr K is a good looking woman?