The first play of every game, the Hawks run a pin-down for Joe. Like clockwork. At the end of every...

The first play of every game, the Hawks run a pin-down for Joe. Like clockwork. At the end of every game, the ball is always in Joe’s hands. He’s rarely flashy, just steady. He’ll cross you over, pull up and drain the J. Whenever the ball leaves his hands to go to a teammate, it’s a little unsettling.

Is Joe Johnson the 20th best player in the NBA? At least. He’s the best player on one of the 8 best teams in the NBA. Without Joe Johnson, the Hawks aren’t what they are right now. For better and for worse. It is what it is.

Some of you may disagree. But I’ll disagree with you. And I’m right.

As unintentional Joe Johnson week continues, JJ checks in at number 20 on SLAM's top 50 players in the NBA.

A strong counter point to the Joe Johnson is not worth 60 million over four years argument. And 20 seems about right to me.

But here is a question for you, did Joe Johnson create the Hawks or did the Hawks create Joe Johnson?

over 2 years ago hawksdawgs 24 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

60 over 4

is right. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Oh I think the Hawks made Joe Johnson and Joe Johnson made the Hawks……….

by Co Co on Oct 2, 2009 9:20 AM EDT reply actions

Any credit to the coach/ national analysts?

Hey Hawksdawg!! This was your one chance to give credit to Woodson( since you never hesitate to criticize him) for “creating” Joe. Well I see you used the word “Hawk” as in did the Hawk create Joe Johnson? The article on Hoopsworld also said the same thing.
Its funny, all the Atlanta fans and analyst except maybe Sekou say Joe should have signed. However, all the national analysts, are saying Joe will be highly sought after and will get more next year.
NOTE: Joe will be the TOP Free agent next season. FYI Lebron , Wade , Bosh etc all have player options and not exactly free agents.

by dkrib on Oct 2, 2009 10:27 AM EDT reply actions

i didn’t want to give away my answer so quickly dkrib!

i think much like co co, the Hawks made Joe and Joe made the Hawks. it was a mutual relationship to highest degree. joe shouldered the burden while young guys developed. he got atlanta back to the playoffs. woodson certainly was instrumental in all that. he calls plays for joe a whole lot. woody demands a lot out of jj and jj delivers.

unfortunately for joe, in regards to the question, he made the hawks and I am not sure him leaving after next season will completely unmake that. whereas, at some point, the way woodson made him (playing him big minutes, running the offense through him) will begin to become less and less effective as Joe becomes older and other guys enter into their prime.

the question is will the relationship continue to be so mutual and i think if the Hawks eye being made into a contender, a 16 million dollar a year over five years joe johnson will be far too one sided.

by hawksdawgs on Oct 2, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Quick question

If Joe is the top free agent next year, Dont you think teams will come after him with the max offer just like the national analysts have said?

by dkrib on Oct 2, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions

yes, he will far surpass 4 for 60 if that happens.

but i would bet my house that lebron, wade, and bosh will all opt out.

and i am pretty confident amare will too. and i know the salary cap is dropping (unheard of) while almost every player under contract in the nba will have a salary that goes up.

the money is going to be tight.

by hawksdawgs on Oct 2, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Salary Cap

I think the latest estimate has it dropping by ten mil.

"This is America, if we can’t self-righteously look down on others and blame them for our faults, the commies win."-----Cormican on Bleeding Green Nation w/r/t fans overreacting to the Eagles signing of Michael Vick

by Jesse28 on Oct 2, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions

National Analysts?

Don’t you mean sportswriters? I’m highly doubtful those of which you speak of are a bunch of economists weighing in on the possible NBA free agents.

Plus, since you seem to rely heavily on those opinions, what do you make of those same sources claiming that we wouldn’t make the playoffs the last two years?

by Jesse28 on Oct 2, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions

I’d say Joe made the Hawks. Joe would still be a good scorer if he had stayed with Phoenix or gone elsewhere. The Hawks without Joe on the other hand would have had another 2 trips to the lottery. The problem with Joe is it’s virtually impossible to win a championship when your best player is only the 20th best player in the league. In the last 2 decades, maybe only Detroit was able to pull that off depending on how you rate Sheed and Billups during their championship season.

by redwards95 on Oct 2, 2009 12:59 PM EDT reply actions

So what are the options?

So based on your comments, doesnt it make sense to keep Joe and at least guarantee a fight for the championship over the next few years ( if the top 3 in the east have peaked and are only going to get worse and the Hawks are going to get better based on players age) no matter how slim the chances are or go to the lottery and “HOPE” to get a franchaise changing player?
I

by dkrib on Oct 2, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Again

We did try to keep him, he refused the offer. Clearly the team thought highly enough of him that they offered him a very pricey contract. Clearly he thinks that either he can make more money with another team, or he doesn’t think this team has enough to make a serious run at a title, or both. Either way, it seems that he at least thinks he has better options in his future.

Frankly, I’m surprised all the people who dumped on Childress for chasing the buck aren’t dumping on JJ for essentially doing the same.

by Jesse28 on Oct 2, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions

No because Joe doesn't guarantee that...

he’s about his peak now. You don’t expect him to get better from here on out, so if the team is to take the next step, someone has to supplant him as team leader. You can count on one finger the number of teams without one of the game’s 5 best (if not 3 best) at the time they won a title. Title teams seem to have that in common—Kobe, KG, Shaq, Jordan, Olajuwon, Magic, Bird, Duncan, that’s 26 champions over 30 years. The other 4—Pistons 3 times with very talented teams top to bottom, and Moses Malone/Dr J 76ers in the early 80s.

And Joe as #20? Sounds about right, somewhere between 15 and 25 depending on the personal preference. But then again, if your not top 10 (or top 5 seeing above) you aren’t winning a title. And thinking of 10 players better than Joe is pretty easy—Howard, Bryant, Wade, Bosh, Deron Williams, Paul, Roy, Durant, Carmello, Lebron, among others.

by Mr. Sanchez on Oct 2, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions

This

Looking at the numbers, it is possible that he peaked three years ago, but this being his contract year, maybe he ups his production one last time before dropping off again.

I don’t think he’s #20, but it’s close so w/e. Finding ten better players at the position is where it gets dicey, but finding ten comparable player is much easier to do.

by Jesse28 on Oct 2, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions

like I said Jesse,...

after about 10-12, there’s another dozen or two that could be slotted anywhere behind them and it wouldn’t look out of sorts to me. That’s why I’ve preffered grouping guys in tiers as opposed to a straight 1, 2, 3…16, 17, 18,…29, 29, 30, etc.

I think the main thing with Joe is not the belief that he can lead this team to a title, but that without him things fall back to how they were before he and Bibby came around. I’ve said if Joe leaves, with the right moves this team can improve and get better, but with the wrong moves (or some bad luck) it can get a lot, lot worse. That’s the fear on losing Joe, not that he’s the piece to carry the team to a title, but that he’s the piece keeping this team from falling back to Lotteryland.

by Mr. Sanchez on Oct 2, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

great response Mr Sanchez...

Could not have your last statement better. However, call me risk adverse, but I would prefer to have Joe and be a playoff team for the next few years. And yes, for the Hawks to win a title, there has to be improvements from the other players ( given their potential, it is possible).

by dkrib on Oct 2, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions

and that is the rub

it is a perfectly fine rub too.

anyone that comes on here and hates on Joe or even mentions his negatives without any reference to what he has done for the team is going to be laughed out of here.

the difference of opinion is whether moving forward do you think the team as it is currently constructed can improve to the point of contending with the big three.

you say yes dkirib (or at leas the risk of what would happen without joe makes you say yes). i can respect that.

i say no if it means joe is making 16 million a year because it drastically limiting the team’s ability to add pieces moving forward. so i am willing to take the risk of letting joe go and moving on with a different (if not already present) core.

i feel better now. thanks for the lively debate. do we get to agree to disagree yet?

by hawksdawgs on Oct 2, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Heck No :)

Your comment is not definitive. Please answer this question: Would you like the Hawks to take the risk of becoming a lottery team if we lose Joe? After all, there is a huge risk that the pieces added might not work out( You only need to look at the Phoenix Suns after they traded Joe and “added pieces”.
And like i have mentioned before, Joe does not rely heavily on his athleticism( which tends to slow down after 30 ), so there is a big chance that at 33, he will still be very productive.

by dkrib on Oct 2, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I think the question should be...

is it worth the step back for the hope of possible steps forward beyond 2010?

by thirdfALCON on Oct 2, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

as it stands now

anything more than 4 years 60 million, i would risk stepping out of the playoffs 2010-11 for the chance to move past where we have already gotten in 2011 and beyond.

by hawksdawgs on Oct 2, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed

Obviously it all would depend on how the Hawks manage the transition, but if done well, I don’t think the Hawks would take that much of a step back without JJ.

by Jesse28 on Oct 5, 2009 8:36 AM EDT up reply actions

I know, mine wasn't an argument

I was agreeing with you, hence the “This”. After that, I was just stating my personal opinion that I don’t think Joe is the 20th best player in the league, but that he might be in the top five at his position.

by Jesse28 on Oct 5, 2009 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions

I hear you guys

thinking the top 3 have peaked as of today, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking they aren’t going to make moves. Trades and things happen and the really good teams know how to retool. I honestly don’t think the drop off of the team without Joe would be as dramatic as the masses seem to think. Joe is a fine player, but the Hawks are not seriously competing for a championship just because of him (mainly because they arent competing for a championship) Like I’ve said in several post on this site pertaining to Joe. I wouldn’t mind having him back at a reasonable price. He’s already peaked. Rick Sund knows this. He acknowledged it during blog night. So when deciding whether or not to re-sign Joe Johnson you can only base it on what you know to be true about him. If my calculations are correct $60 million over 4 years is more than reasonable. He’s not going to get better by the end of this contract. Please keep that in mind.

by Co Co on Oct 2, 2009 1:39 PM EDT reply actions

I asked this in the other thread

but I’ll put it here too. What happens if the Hawks lose the 4th seed next season? What will we make of Joe’s value then?

by Co Co on Oct 2, 2009 3:41 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

that wouldn’t change anything for me in and of itself. Did we lose the 4th because someone int the Chi/Tort/MIA/Wash area won 55 games? Did we take major steps back? Did Joe get injured and miss a huge chunk of the season?

I personally don’t think we should get too psyched up about the 4th seed. I’m not going into the season thinking, "we have to defend the 4 spot" like we are defending a title or something. We’re not. We’re a top 10(ish) team right now. If Joe plays great and the Hawks are clearly into the top 5 at the end of the year, then that will increase his value. If he plays great and we take a step back, it probably won’t change the market much.

So I guess that’s my answer, it’s more about how Joe plays than how we compare to the rest of the teams in the East.He really doesn’t have much to lose, as long as he keeps playing well

by thirdfALCON on Oct 2, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions