Hawks to offer Joe Johnson max 6 yr deal

[Goran Dragic]

So instead you let him walk and suck ass until your team pulls a '97 Spurs and lucks out wininng the lottery with a future HOF'er?

Yup. Don't expect them to tell you what happens when the Hawks don't luck into a future HoFer, but obviously if they let Joe Johnson leave it's basically a sure thing they'll be able to find a HoF replacement in the near future.

[Goran Dragic]

The team is flawed, and signing Johnson to a ludicrous contract is not any kind of solution.

Letting him leave and hoping you're lucky enough to find the next Lebron James is a better solution?

[djohn2oo8]

LOL Knicks

[TDMVPDPOY]

JJ gettin a max contract hahahaha overrated player gettin paid franchise player money...fck rashard lewis is laughin all the way to the bank

[redzero]

Of course no one is "worth" the max. You can't make it that simple. Do you think Ray Allen was worth $20,000,000 in 2008 as someone who did nothing besides run around screens and shoot open shots? Of course not, I guess that means Boston woulda been better off without him.

No, Ray Allen fulfilled his goal and the Celtics won a championship. The Celtics also had two other Hall of Famers, so they had players to fall back on if Ray's shots weren't falling. The Hawks have nobody else to pick up the scoring slack, and Johnson's ability to put the ball in the basket is not worth $20 million a year.

Joe Johnson just had one of if not the best overall seasons of his career, and he's someone who relies little on speed and athleticism. You're ignoring stats and facts by acting like he's some declining player. He still has another season before he turns 30 and has plenty of good years left.

And Joe Johnson finished off his so called "best overall season" by playing like a third option at best in the playoffs. Franchise shooting guards do not average 17.9 ppg on .387 fg%. In fact, he played like the last two post seasons, which is partially why the Hawks struggled so much against clearly inferior compe ion and why they were swept two times straight when they went against real teams.

What would be better? Let JJ leave so they could go back to being a hopeless bottom feeder that didn't approach .500 and had deserted stands during home games? The Atlanta Hawks aren't exactly a team known for being able to rebuild quickly.

They would be better off looking for another future 20 ppg scorer in the draft who isn't almost 30 and isn't asking for franchise player money.

Letting him leave and hoping you're lucky enough to find the next Lebron James is a better solution?

They don't have to find the next LeBron. It's not like they would be letting go of some special talent. This is an iso-loving 20 ppg scorer who does little else for his team and plays like in the playoffs. Players like Johnson come a dime a dozen.

[Goran Dragic]

No, Ray Allen fulfilled his goal and the Celtics won a championship. The Celtics also had two other Hall of Famers, so they had players to fall back on if Ray's shots weren't falling. The Hawks have nobody else to pick up the scoring slack, and Johnson's ability to put the ball in the basket is not worth $20 million a year.

So the Hawks should let go of Joe Johnson because they have no way of complimenting him with better players? They're goal should be to find consistent offensive threats other than Joe Johnson, not get rid of Joe Johnson. In 2007 the Lakers had no one to fall back on when Kobe's shot wasn't falling, I guess that means they shoulda traded him.

And Joe Johnson finished off his so called "best overall season" by playing like a third option at best in the playoffs. Franchise shooting guards do not average 17.9 ppg on .387 fg%. In fact, he played like the last two post seasons, which is partially why the Hawks struggled so much against clearly inferior compe ion and why they were swept two times straight when they went against real teams.

Pick a lane and stick with it. This response has nothing to do with what you responded to. You said Joe Johnson is a declining player, I pointed out how re ed that was, don't try and change the subject.

They would be better off looking for another future 20 ppg scorer in the draft who isn't almost 30 and isn't asking for franchise player money.

I thought Joe Johnson was 30? I wasn't aware it's so easy to find 20 PPG players who can make 4 consecutive AS teams and be 3rd all NBA in the draft. The Hornets could use a GM who can find Joe Johnsons in the draft so easily, you should look into that.

They don't have to find the next LeBron. It's not like they would be letting go of some special talent. This is an iso-loving 20 ppg scorer who does little else for his team and plays like in the playoffs. Players like Johnson come a dime a dozen.

The Hawks offense is an iso offense, it's not Joe Johnson's fault Mike Woodson doesn't know how to run a set play other than "x player goes 1 on 5". Joe Johnson also does more than score. He's a good defender and he is an above average passer off the dribble. You're basing Joe Johnson solely off what you saw in the playoffs which is a small ass sample size to draw conclusions about a player.

[Goran Dragic]

Tell me redzero, do franchise point guards put up these stats in the playoffs:

16.6 PPG, 10.4 APG, 41% shooting (while getting torched by the guy he's "guarding")

[redzero]

So the Hawks should let go of Joe Johnson because they have no way of complimenting him with better players? They're goal should be to find consistent offensive threats other than Joe Johnson, not get rid of Joe Johnson. In 2007 the Lakers had no one to fall back on when Kobe's shot wasn't falling, I guess that means they shoulda traded him.

We aren't comparing somebody who was dropping 30 ppg against a 60 win team to somebody who struggled to score 25 against one man teams. And the Hawks can't build around Johnson if he gets way more than he's worth a year.

Pick a lane and stick with it. This response has nothing to do with what you responded to. You said Joe Johnson is a declining player, I pointed out how re ed that was, don't try and change the subject.

Joe Johnson WILL be a declining player, and the difference between somebody like him and Kobe, is the fact that Kobe is a superstar while Johnson is just an All Star.

I thought Joe Johnson was 30? I wasn't aware it's so easy to find 20 PPG players who can make 4 consecutive AS teams and be 3rd all NBA in the draft. The Hornets could use a GM who can find Joe Johnsons in the draft so easily, you should look into that.

Marcus Thornton is showing promise right now. But regardless, 4 All Star game appearances and an ALL NBA 3rd team is not worth over 100 million dollars for a 29-year-old or a 30-year-old.

The Hawks offense is an iso offense, it's not Joe Johnson's fault Mike Woodson doesn't know how to run a set play other than "x player goes 1 on 5". Joe Johnson also does more than score. He's a good defender and he is an above average passer off the dribble.

That's all well and good, but players of that caliber aren't worth the max.

You're basing Joe Johnson solely off what you saw in the playoffs which is a small ass sample size to draw conclusions about a player.

I'm not basing all of this just on what Johnson did in the playoffs.

Tell me redzero, do franchise point guards put up these stats in the playoffs:

16.6 PPG, 10.4 APG, 41% shooting (while getting torched by the guy he's "guarding")

16 and 10 are prime Jason Kidd type numbers, and Kidd wasn't even facing double and triple teams. Chris Paul lost to superior compe ion after carrying a team with Hilton Armstrong at center into the playoffs.

The only playoff series Joe Johnson wins as the number one guy are against undermanned teams, and even then Mr. 4 time All Star and 3rd team All NBA was underwhelming.

I can't believe that you're comparing Chris Paul to Joe ing Johnson.

And the crazy thing about it was that Paul actually won a game against a clearly superior Nuggets team, while Joe ing All NBA 3rd team Johnson averaged 12.75 ppg on .298% shooting against a team not missing its best player, and his ass was swept.

So in review, a six-feet tall point guard, whose main purpose was to get his teammates involved, scored more points, dished out more assists, got more rebounds, and won more games with a far worse supporting cast than a six-foot eight shooting guard who had a healthy, more talented team. The point guard also averaged a double double for the series.

So, let's not compare Chris Paul to Joe "4 time All Star, All NBA 3rd team and 12.75 ppg scorer on .298% shooting" Johnson.

In fact, yeah, I am basing this on Johnson's performance in the playoffs.

I don't care how many All Star games and All NBA 3rd teams Joe Johnson has, because a player who scores 12.75 ppg on .298% shooting is not worth $120 million dollars over six years.

, Joe Johnson barely played better than Peja Stojakovic did against the Nuggets.

[Goran Dragic]

You don't know how the NBA works if you think 3rd all NBA players don't get max contracts.

[redzero]

You don't know how the NBA works if you think 3rd all NBA players don't get max contracts.

I didn't say that All NBA 3rd team players don't get max contracts; I'm saying that Joe Johnson isn't worth one. He is almost 30. He is not a leader. He played like against real teams two years straight. He is not a franchise player, and anybody who pays him like one is a ing moron.

[Goran Dragic]

I didn't say that All NBA 3rd team players don't get max contracts; I'm saying that Joe Johnson isn't worth one. He is almost 30. He is not a leader. He played like against real teams two years straight. He is not a franchise player, and anybody who pays him like one is a ing moron.

Players worse than Joe Johnson have gotten max contracts, and a good amount of them. Again, it's not about whether or not he's worth it (which he might be if the talent level in the NBA keeps getting worse and worse), it's about what Atlanta's best options are. When you're a small market team like that you need to hold onto all the elite or semi-elite players you can.

[redzero]

Players worse than Joe Johnson have gotten max contracts, and a good amount of them.

And players like Stephon Marbury, Rashard Lewis, Tracy McGrady, Gilbert Arenas and so on went on to hurt their teams with bad contracts.

Again, it's not about whether or not he's worth it (which he might be if the talent level in the NBA keeps getting worse and worse), it's about what Atlanta's best options are.

And signing a 29-year old shooting guard who is (at best) a second option to a six year $115+ million contract is moronic.

When you're a small market team like that you need to hold onto all the elite or semi-elite players you can.

Until they stop being elite and hurt their teams with absolutely ty contracts.

The Hawks resign Joe Johnson, he disappears in the second round of the playoffs (if he makes it that far) for two or three more years, and then Atlanta gets a 32-year old shooting guard who is past his prime and has $60 million left on his contract. Yeah, they can forget about getting any free agents or good draft picks then.

Nothing helps a small market team like poisonous contracts.