In hindsight, should ATL have signed Matthews instead of Joe

[emaxceb]

In hindsight , should the Hawks have signed Wesley Matthews instead of resigning Joe Johnson and letting him walk to NYC or CHI for max, or is Joe's ability to go isolation more beneficial than Matthew's method of scoring and playing defense for the Hawks, regardless of the money differential?

[ATL Boy]

I don't think you can ignore the money differential but in my opinion yes we should've signed Wes mostly because of age: he's 5 years younger then Joe and is only gonna get better as his career progresses.

[dms269]

Would he have came here?

[buckeye12]

Would he have came here?

since he is not Lebron.... an extra half million would have been a big difference for that young man.

[evildallas]

If you look back at the old posts Wesley Matthews was my target all along. Sadly I get no joy from this I told you so.

[Geaux_Hawks]

Yeah we sign Wes and then Joe walks to Chicago, and now Chicago has its new dynasty complete..

[td00]

IMO, only the ASG's decision mattered.

You would think for an ownership group who complained time after time about losing money, Joe would have been sent packing.

This tells you how clueless ownership groups are who deem themselves experts at anything. They have been fortunate with their business success, but public opinion will tell you these guys are clueless in so many ways. That includes continually bringing back an average GM who after 31 years should have a clue how to build a championship team. He doesn't and he continues to prove it.

[Ruhiel]

they go with public perception. Joe is an All Star, 30yo 20ppg?? hold onto him for...$120 mil. Horford 14 and 9 All Star Center? $60 million. Playoffs? Marvin $8 million!

if Chicago had Joe would they have been able to afford bench pieces?

[Geaux_Hawks]

Chicago would have gave him the boozer deal and probably started Taj Gibson..

[Ruhiel]

And we would have given Crawford the JJ deal

[HMFFL]

Like Dallas, I wanted Wesley Matthews as well. I liked him and felt it was in the best interest of the team to pursue him under our current ownership. From a talent perspective I believe we're better with Joe Johnson, but we would still be playoff bound with Wesley, and we would be able to focus more money on other areas of our team.

[evildallas]

Like Dallas, I wanted Wesley Matthews as well. I liked him and felt it was in the best interest of the team to pursue him under our current ownership. From a talent perspective I believe we're better with Joe Johnson, but we would still be playoff bound with Wesley, and we would be able to focus more money on other areas of our team.

Exactly. Joe Johnson's contract restricts other moves. In the short term Johnson makes us better, but not great and leaves no room to go further. Matthews wouldn't be as good as Johnson in year 1, but maybe by year 3 he develops as Johnson wears down. My other objection to the big investment is that Joe Johnson doesn't do everything I want to be a max player. By that I mean he's not marketable enough, not vocal enough, and not accountability enough. The 1st one is anecdotal in that I've never heard anyone say they need to go see Joe Johnson play. The 2nd one I get from hearsay as everyone characterizes Joe as quiet. Pay like that anoints you as a leader and if you don't do that actively a void can develop. Finally, the last one I cite the breakdown in the face of playoff criticism the year before. That was the most disturbing part of Johnson's big contract. It came after playoff failures and bristling to fan criticism when he played like crap. It's one thing to get overly sensitive like Josh Smith when you actually playing well and they harp on one aspect of your game. Joe Johnson should have said the fans don't need to boo, because I myself realize how I am playing and I'm not happy with it either. Instead he came across as thinking he shouldn't be criticized regardless of how crappy he plays. Do you really want to invest half the value of the franchise in someone who feels that way? NO!