The Curious Case of a Joe Johnson extension
Sekou Smith is reporting that the Hawks are in talks to extend Joe Johnson before he hits unrestricted free agency next summer. Jeff Schultz has immediately put out a cease and desist order on the whole thing saying
There’s no need to commit now. Let Johnson prove he’s the player he needs to be to earn that kind of money. If he doesn’t prove it next year, no other team is going to blow him away in negotiations any way. If he does prove it, then give him the world. And if he proves it and turns down the world from the Hawks, then obviously he never wanted to be here anyway.
The whole extending of Joe is a very convoluted, dark issue. It is one that easily gets a fan talking like a guy in a suit rather than a guy in a jersey. We start weighing what Joe has done and what he will do on a pro and con level and all of a sudden we are not fans. We are just cost benefit gurus.
But Joe's future with the team so directly effects the overall direction it is hard not to delve into these waters. So without minimizing the impact our good man Joe has had on the team and the fans, it is time to step back and see how the Hawks can best go about dealing with Johnson.
Joe is still in the prime of his career so getting sentimental about how he has helped drag (basically by himself for a few years) the team from laughing stock to seven national tv games is pretty irrelevant. We are not talking about giving Tom Glavine one more year. Joe's next contract is going to be max money or close to it.
Saying thanks but no thanks
I have long been in this camp. I think the Mike Woodson/Joe Johnson mindset of substitution has worn down Joe's body. He is an old 28. He has averaged more than 39 minutes each of the last six years. Plus his effectiveness has begun to wain. Joe takes more shots to get less points these days. I figured some GM was willing to ignore these stats and overpay for an in decline Joe, and the Hawks could comfortably say good bye and feel good about it. Joe did what we payed him to do. He made the Hawks relevant again.
But then what?
The NBA salary cap is pretty much rocket science. I don't know how it works. But what I do know is that next summer the Hawks will be very close to the top of the cap and that you cannot go over the cap without using a myriad of exceptions and that if you use too many of those exceptions you have to pay a luxury tax and the Atlanta spirit are not going to do that. That is all I got.
So the Hawks need an exception next summer to do just about anything. Luckily, the Larry Bird rule allows teams to go over the cap to sign their own players. I have no idea why, but the Hawks can do it. They can have Joe back. The problem is if they let Joe go they are not really going to be able to sign anyone of equal or half as equal value. You do not just get to shed contract and spend that money. That would be too easy.
Even if I think Joe is on the downward track, I don't think he is in free fall by any means, and Jamal Crawford and Mo Evans at the two guard is not exactly a picture perfect replacement of Joe if he walks.
So we do what exactly?
I am with Schultz. I do not think Joe is worth a max contract a year before he is a free agent. I would be much more comfortable with a nine 11-12 million dollar a year deal. That would be a reasonable salary to keep Joe and a reasonable one to trade if necessary.
The only way this is possible is if Joe looks at the economy and the teams that can spend money and he decides Atlanta is worth a hometown discount.
The other possibility is to risk the free agent market, and losing Joe for nothing (which would be truly the only unacceptable outcome). Not that many teams are going to have the ability to sign Joe outright without a sign and trade. The economy and shrinking salary cap is basically putting restricted status on all but the very elite players.
In the end
It is time for the organization to think creatively. They have had the fairly easy task of just needing to sign the players they drafted (and Sund has executed that task well). However, if they just follow course and max Joe out because they think the team, its fans, and the surrounding players cannot function without him, they have over payed for Josh and Marvin and ignored the overall climate of the NBA. Every playoff team has a best player, but they don't all have a cornerstone player.
A lot of options exist, including bringing Joe back, but they are not all good options. And the lazy move here is the worst of them all.
Update! With another point of view: Bret is ready to wave the white flag if a max extension goes down.
0 recs |
29 comments
|
Comments
Like you...
I’d have no problem with an extension on the cheap (well, not cheap but a few mil per year below max, which can then be used for a role player like in the current situation with Joe Smith).
But Schultz actually makes a good point in that for Joe to truly earn max money, he does it this year by taking us to the Eastern Conference Finals or better. He stays on that borderline between star and second fiddle, and without that leading star to go with a second fiddle just isn’t worth the money imo.
And on the “if not Joe, then who” question, that is already on the roster. Jamal Crawford can slide in as starting 2, and you would expect in that situation for Marvin Williams, or Al Horford, or both, to pick up the rest of the offensive slack. Both of those two are developing young offensive players and could fill the void of focal point offensively if Joe leaves. of course, you’d still have the problem in that both seems as passive and unaggressive as Johnson, but I think the money saved could be used to fill other holes. You’d still have Bibby, Crawford, Williams, Smith, and Horford (once he signs an extension), with Teague off the bench. Not a bad start, especially if you can put together a strong second unit with $10-15+ million that would otherwise be spent on Johnson.
And the idea of Joe leaving town...
sorry for the double post. But there’s a couple ways to look at it. Joe gets a max extension now, has a season this year much like his last two, and the team is left with an unsatisfying feeling going forward and a HUGE investment in a core of players that proved themselves incapable of making the next step. If you sign him to a max extension and DO take that next step, then it’s money well spent, but the likelihood of that is suspect. Don’t sign him now, and still take that next step towards the Eastern Conference Finals, and Johnson STILL has to go through Atlanta since salary cap rules make it so the Hawks can pay him significantly more than any other team (so he stays or brings something in return with a sign and trade). And the replacement, like I say above, is already in the Hawks fold. You have Williams, Horford, Crawford, Josh Smith, and of course Josh Childress over in Europe who could be given a deal at say half what Johnson would make and be used behind Crawford and Williams as 6th man, joining Zaza and Teague in a strong second unit.
good point
the hawks had to pay a premium on Joe because he was a restricted free agent and they were…well they were the hawks.
minus that premium. Joe has been what they paid for. the best player most nights. a 3 time all star. and has been a main cog in leading the team back to the playoffs. but he never had a year that made him a max money guy without the premium.
and now at an old 28, it would be tough to argue such a contract. joe wants a max deal? he should have to go out this season and prove he is such a player.
9 million!!!
Comon hawksdawg…You are saying resigning Joe for 9milllion??? Is that not an insult to Joe and all he has done for the team…
i mean it is not chump chains
and yea i would be fine with 10 million over five years too.
the thing is i think he is worth about that. If Joe can go out and find a lot more money, odds are that team is going to need to swing a sign and trade to make it happen. very few teams will be able to sign Joe outright.
so either you wait and get something in return or you sign him now for cheaper or you wait and allow joe to see his market value is not quite max money anymore. i think those are your three best options.
but again, like i said in the post, i love joe johnson and what he has done for the Hawks. In my mind, he has not underachieved. but this is no swan song contract. we are talking about the direction of the team for the next half decade. i am not willing to give joe max money because i love that he met expectations with his last contract.
We will definately not sign him for less money than we did Josh
60-65 million over 5 years seems about right
agreed and i changed it in the post
but who do you think will be better. Josh Smith in the final year of his deal or a 31 year old Joe Johnson.
That completely depends on Josh
I don’t think that Joe is going to be much worse than he now though, if that’s what your asking. He’s been a pretty durable player except for that time we were tanking, and that time he broke his face.
He is durable,...
but at some point all these minutes take its toll. I mean, he’s not a man of steel; he’s flesh and bone and sooner or later something will begin to break down. Eddie George was an extremely durable running back, but after so many carries his body reached its limit. Basketball isn’t as physical as football, but I have to believe Johnson can’t keep playing 40 minutes per without it impacting his body at some point.
I'm wondering
if this is one of those things that makes news because there is no news. I mean, at this point, what’s Sund got left to do? He resigned Bibby, resigned Zaza, made the trade for Crawford, and essentially has resigned Marvin. Joe Smith is dithering, so the only thing left for Sund to do is put out feelers on JJ to see what it would take to extend him.
At least, that’s the way I’m viewing this. I really doubt a deal gets done, but with a lot of off-season remaining and very little left to do, it makes sense that you’d start looking at what it would take to keep your star player around beyond next season. It can’t hurt negotiations next year to show the man a little preemptive loyalty by letting him know that we want him in the future, and you may get lucky and determine that he will provide a home-town discount.
The thing with these kind of deals...
Isn’t how the player performs in the first year of the deal, but how he performs over the life of the deal, particularly at the end.
In the NBA, we get the benefit of those bloated contracts for otherwise useless players being a nice trade chit (think Theo Ratliff’s expiring contract that Simmons loves to poke fun at), but there’s a long time between then and there. Five or six years for a 28 year-old perimeter player that we’ve run into the ground the last few years is a dangerous game to play.
Seriously, Hollinger did a great analysis last year of Johnson’s numbers, and how he fell off a cliff performance-wise as the year went on because Woody ran him into the ground…again.
I agree with Schultz on this, prove it. It isn’t as if this team got to the Eastern Conference Finals on Joe’s back. Granted, the team was basically starting from scratch, but in the grand scheme of the NBA, this team has accomplished nothing. Nada. Zip. Won a playoff series only to get steamrolled by the team that didn’t even make the Finals.
I really fail to understand why fans of the team realize we’ll need to make dramatic changes at some point for this team to take the next step, but then balk whenever one of those big opportunities really presents itself.
If I’m Sund, I hold off, and if the Hawks are having a disappointing year, its time to look at moving Joe to a contender for some serious young talent or cap room for a big push in 2010 at the trade deadline.
Personally, I’d like to see how Joe performs under another coach before we think about whether or not he deserves that kind of deal. That won’t happen, but its clear he doesn’t deserve “The Man” money, because he’s not that kind of player.
Anybody who says he deserves the same payout as the LeBrons/Kobes/Garnetts/Howards/(heck, even Brandon Roy’s max contract) is being silly.
are talking about either
(my palm hit enter ><)
Anyway I think it’s pretty obvious that this team would take a major step back if we lost Joe. Statistically he’s not that great, but he is such a well-rounded player, and has so many responsibilities on this team that there would be a huge hole without him (with or without Woodson).
I agree that it would be silly to give Joe a max contract. But if you think we’d be anything but a lottery team without Joe, your being equally as silly.
Biased JJ Fan
I am a huge fan of Joe Johnson and a huge Hawks fan. So naturally I would want Joe Johnson to remain a Hawk. So my comment to the Hawks extension of JJ is a resounding YES! It makes me giddy. Joe Johnson deserves the respect of a contract extension. In fact for the Hawks not to extend him the offer is a slap in his face. Why not? Brandon Roy, Lebron and Wade got offered extensions. So Joe doesn’t deserve it cause he’s not a so called superstar. According to whose standards? Joe Johnson is as important to the Hawks organization as any other over rated, over advertised NBA player is to his team. At least in my eyes he is. Here’s hoping JJ decides to sign that extension. Go Hawks!
Unless Teague turns out to be way better than expected (and Woody gives him way more minutes than expected), I don’t see how the team could even stay as good as it is now without bringing back Joe. They just don’t have the salary cap flexibility to let Joe go and sign somebody better unless they also traded somebody else (but then the new guy would be replacing 2 players and it’s hard to believe the team as a whole could be better that way).
On paper Joe should play less minutes this year due to having Crawford and Teague backing him up. Then hopefully in ‘10-’11 he’ll have a new head coach that will implement an offense that doesn’t rely so heavily on the iso-Joe. If those things happen, Joe could age a lot more gracefully than some of you fear and be worth a hefty extension for at least the first 2 or 3 years after which he could be traded to Boston. ;)
Thing is...
Summer 2010 is going to be something of a bonanza in terms of free agents. The list is pretty ridiculous when you look at it. So why lock ourselves into Joe now?
Why not make a push for DWade or one of the other marquee players at max dollars? Or the summer of 2011 when Chris Paul is available?
For all the credit we give Joe on being the leader of this team, he’s got a nasty habit of disappearing in big games (see: The Heat Series, The Celtics Series last year, the Cavs series this year) and not being the vocal leader this team really needs to take a step to the next level. You really have to wonder, at 28, if he’s got it in him. He’s a very good player, no doubt, but the great player deserving of another max contract? Not even close.
Last thing I want the Hawks to do is cripple their long-term prospects by locking into a 6 year deal with Joe that leaves up with a broken down perimeter player that’s the focus of the offense in 3-4 years.
Course, I’d still opt for firing Woodson and seeing what Joe can do in a real offense. But that’s a pipedream at this point.
The short answer is most of those great players won’t actually make it to the free agent market. They’ll be signed to extensions by their current teams before then. So by not re-signing Joe now, the Hawks risk losing him in free agency and not being able to replace him with somebody comparable.
I agree...
with most of the names on there, except Chris Paul. I just don’t see him staying with the soon to be Seattle Supersonics.
never said that...
if I had to guess there, I’d say he goes to the Knicks.
But, between Wade, Lebron and Paul, he’s the only one I can see skipping town. Bosh makes sense to leave Toronto, because well, doesn’t all their stars? But other than him, I can’t really see that many of the big names said to be available in 2010 actually doing anything but resigning with the home team. Paul seems the same way for 2011, mainly cause they are the worst run franchise in the league (including the Clippers).
Sign Joe
Sign Joe $15M a year/5 yrs. The Hawks are getting close, and the continuity and flow of the offense will be preserved with Joe under contract. Yes, the Hawks need another player, but who doesn’t…that’s not Joe’s fault, but the team’s image is improving and will continue to improve as long as he’s here, that’s for sure…Actually, I think Hawk fans should be rejoicing that the Hawks are far enough ahead of the game to be talking with Joe already!
Solution: sign Joe and trade Jamal Crawford…
I honestly believe....
That Joe Johnson is the best player the hawks have had since nique.
I mean, is it his fault that he got played alot of minutes because Woodson didn’t want trust the offense without him? Remember one of the main reasons that the Suns were a 60 win team was because of JJ. He was just one of several pieces on that team. Now, we have a team of supporting characters (without a definite big) that can spell the backcourt. With all of that said, just like I would tell the falcons GM, pay the man the money!
Atlanta will win a championship....someday
who would you rather take the last shot...
joe johnson or dwayne wade?
Atlanta will win a championship....someday
I think it's an absolute insult....
to NOT give joe whatever it takes to keep him as a member of the hawks after all he’s done for us.he’s an amazing player and we would not be a playoff caliber team without him. oh yeah and to “jrauch” that’s complete bullcrap that he disappears in big games. Remember game 4 of the boston series when he scored 20 points in the fourth quarter i would call that a pretty big game.

by 
















