do you still give Joe Johnson the max?

Devilzsidewalk · Post #1 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Mon May 10, 2010 3:01 pm

29 in a month and the whole state of Georgia is pissed off at his shot selection in the Orlando series - does this negatively effect his value and if a max contract were the only way to bring him to MN would you do it still?

Dewey · Post #2 » by **Dewey** » Mon May 10, 2010 3:04 pm

NO, but I can safely say I was never interested to start with ... good player, but not a max player by any stretch.

moss_is_1 · Post #3 » by **moss_is_1** » Mon May 10, 2010 3:35 pm

Nope, I never wanted to though either. He'd be a very nice player for someone to put them over the top. He's just a little too old to grow with our core, plus he shouldn't be the number one guy.

karch34 · Post #4 » by **karch34** » Mon May 10, 2010 3:57 pm

On it's own merits no. However, if through other moves he's the last piece, which is highly unlikely this offseason, then I consider it. It's like Rashard Lewis, not a max player, but fit what Orlando needed.

For example:
If he's the only addition besides the draft picks, then no.

If we got Wall, moved Flynn, Love, filler, #16, and #23 for Grainger and #10, and felt C was taken care of by Darko and/or #10, then I probably would.

Krapinsky · Post #5 » by **Krapinsky** » Mon May 10, 2010 4:22 pm

His game is similar to Pierce's so I think he should have 3 solid years left, but then after that you're paying the max for a very average player. Since the rest of our team is at least 2-3 years away it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to waste the money.

Breakdown777 · Post #6 » by **Breakdown777** » Tue May 11, 2010 1:54 am

I never give Joe Johnson the max.
The way I see it, there are 4 (maybe 5) Max players this offseason.
1. Lebron
2. Wade
3. Dirk (if he opts out)
4. Bosh
5. Amare (debatable)

After that, it's Johnson, Boozer, Gay, Lee, Allen, and (i feel like i'm forgetting someone...Haywood? Howard? Tyrus Thomas?).

Anywho, since there are so many teams with $ and only 5 players who should/will likely get the max, that means that one way or another the likes of Johnson, Boozer, and Gay will be massively overpaid. I don't feel comfortable taking a huge long-term pay risk on any of those players, because they've all been around long enough for you to assume they will not take their game to the next level.

Post #7 » by **Calinks** » Tue May 11, 2010 6:01 am

Yep. I have a rule against signing 30-near 30 yer old guards to big contracts. Don't do it! They break down far too often and you only get a good couple of years. The wolves themselves have been burned by this many time. Cassell, Spree, Mike James, etc.

Foye · Post #8 » by **Foye** » Tue May 11, 2010 8:34 am

Too old for our core.

Dewey · Post #9 » by **Dewey** » Tue May 11, 2010 12:48 pm

Along the lines of Karch: I think Johnson would be a great fit for our team, but the max is not even a consideration. IMO, a $5-7 million deal is about all I can really see or I pass ....

Devilzsidewalk · Post #10 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Tue May 11, 2010 1:17 pm

what if we have to overpay for whoever we go after, does that make a difference? Like if your choices are Joe Johnson for max, Rudy Gay for Al Jefferson size contract, Anthony Morrow for 7 mil a year, etc, everybody getting fat deals because there's more shoppers than product available...suppose MN ends up signing a couple role players for Cardinal sized contracts out of desperation, or would you rather just hold onto the cap space or what's the best plan, because I think the choices for any free agent are going to be to either overpay or pass on them altogether w/ all the cap space out there

Post #11 » by **Worm Guts** » Tue May 11, 2010 1:25 pm

I'd rather overpay Johnson than Rudy Gay or Morrow, since I think he's the best player. But it depends on how long the contract is, I'd overpay Johnson or Rudy Gay for 3 years. That's short enough that we could get out of it if they were to underperform.

Post #12 » by **Worm Guts** » Tue May 11, 2010 1:32 pm

It also depends on other moves we make. If we were to trade for an Iguodala or Granger for example, Johnson is definitely a better target. If we were to aquire another high pick and get younger, then Gay is probably the better target.

Esohny · Post #13 » by **Esohny** » Tue May 11, 2010 3:19 pm

My first choice for vet trades/signings would be to trade for Granger, second would be signing Gay to a non-ridiculous contract (absolute highest I would go would be 12/year average). I suppose third choice would be trading for Iggy, and fourth paying Johnson (assuming he'd come here). I'd put Iggy ahead of Johnson because I'm confident that Iggy will still be performing at his top level at the end of the contract, where as Johnson is more likely to drop off.

I'd probably prefer to sell our cap space and consolidate assets for young talent/high picks before signing Johnson as well.

Krapinsky · Post #14 » by **Krapinsky** » Tue May 11, 2010 4:20 pm

Dewey wrote:Along the lines of Karch: I think Johnson would be a great fit for our team, but the max is not even a consideration. IMO, a $5-7 million deal is about all I can really see or I pass ....

Did anyone else raise a big eyebrow here?

Johnson should be considered on par or above Granger in my opinion. He's only one year older, but is much more proven and doesn't have the injury history. Add the fact that it wouldn't cost assets to get him, and Johnson should be worth $2M more per year. That makes for a 5 year 71 million deal, so roughly 14.2M/year is what I would pay him.

moss_is_1 · Post #15 » by **moss_is_1** » Tue May 11, 2010 4:42 pm

Krapinsky wrote:
Dewey wrote:Along the lines of Karch: I think Johnson would be a great fit for our team, but the max is not even a consideration. IMO, a $5-7 million deal is about all I can really see or I pass ....

Did anyone else raise a big eyebrow here?

Johnson should be considered on par or above Granger in my opinion. He's only one year older, but is much more proven and doesn't have the injury history. Add the fact that it wouldn't cost assets to get him, and Johnson should be worth $2M more per year. That makes for a 5 year 71 million deal, so roughly 14.2M/year is what I would pay him.

Yeah I saw that as well, was wondering why he'd rather have Joe Johnson tell us to **** ourselves then play for us. 5-7 million might get us Mike Miller, not JJ.

Foye · Post #16 » by **Foye** » Tue May 11, 2010 6:59 pm

According to Frank Isola, Knicks' players laughed and asked "Are you kidding me?" when he asked them if Mike D'Antoni ever has the team practice defense.

"With the money the Knicks have there is no reason why they can't hire a defensive coach," writes Isola. "Heck, the Knicks are one of the few teams that don't employ an advance scout. How has that worked out for them?"

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wireta ... z0neHqQOfG

Johnson won't have much success on his next team either without practicing defense :lol:

No wonder Milicic didn't get any PT there.