The Uncurious Case of Joe Johnson.

by dkrib on Aug 5, 2009 12:45 PM EDT

Ed. note: A fanpost counter point to the post The Curious Case of a Joe Johnson extension. Cheer. Hawksdawgs.

Sorry Hawksdawgs, there is nothing curious about Joe Johnson. If the Hawks have the opportunity to extend Joe, they should do it NOW!!!.. If he takes anything less than max we should do it NOW!!. If Joe goes next summer, we will not be able to replace him with anything remotely close in terms of skill level. Here we go again, taking success for granted.

5 years and 75 million??? That will be a very good deal for the Hawks. Please Sund go ahead and make this happen.

5 reasons why we should resign Joe.

1. MATCHUP: He is a match up nightmare for other 2 guards. Please look around the league and let me know if you see any 6ft 7 guards that weight around 240 pounds ?? You don't let such players go!!. Who else on the Hawks team demands a double team??

2. LACK OF APPRECIATION OF PHOENIX. The Suns looked like they got the better deal then. However, that was the beginning of the end for Phoenix. Looking back, they would gladly pay him the 70 Mil for 5 years. Please let us not do the same thing .He is just reaching his peak( generally, players peak at 28,29) and based on the next point, he is not likely to dropoff significantly over the next 5 years.

3. PRODUCTION: Joe's production and effectiveness will most likely not go down because he does not rely on athleticism which tends to reduce with age. He relies on his skills, size and strength which is not likely to slow down as he gets older. The reason why Joe played long minutes was because we needed him to do that to win games and the team was very young. Look for Joe to be more efficient in terms of minutes and FG% since the team is getting older and more experienced .

4. ABILITY TO CREATE SHOTS: Joe is the only player on the team that can create his own shot. Besides Crawford who is far less efficient, he is the only player that can go 1 on 1. Good coaching or not, YOU NEED THAT IN THE NBA TO WIN GAMES !!!!.

5. FREE AGENCY 2010. Make no mistake about it. Joe will be courted VERY HARD next summer by teams below the cap. Make no mistake about it teams around the league will gladly pay Joe max money next summer. Why risk losing him for nothing???Pay the guy now if he wants to stay for less than max. You never know what will happen next year.

A FanPost expresses the opinion of the community member who wrote it and not that of the blog management.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Joe making max...

the question remains though, is Joe capable of being the lead player for a champion. After all, this thing is about winning and winning championships. If Joe can, then resign him. If not, then anything approaching max money is too much.

As for replacements, there is no single replacement for all that Johnson can bring, but you can fill the void with improvements of the entire team, especially younger guys like Horford, Smith, Williams, and Teague. Imagine taking the $10-15 mil that would go to Johnson and spend it instead of bringing back Chill from Europe and other bench weapons so you’re looking at a rotation of Bibby, Crawford, Williams, Smith, Horford, Teague, Chill, Zaza, and others. That’s not an ideal top 8, but with improvement from the young guys and the right additions to the bench, you’re looking at not losing ground of a regular playoff team and still maintain some roster flexibility to go add someone who can actually help win a championship.

That is the question that must be answered along with this extension dilemma, is Joe Johnson able to lead this team to a championship, and if not, who can be brought in that is?

by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 5, 2009 1:19 PM EDT reply actions

First of all, I don’t want a part of any long term plan that involves Jamal Crawford. The supposed benefit of JJ leaving would be that you’re going to start running the offense through the younger guys, with lots of athletic ability. Utilizing Crawford would run contrary to that, as he is a pure chucker. JJ actually does a decent job of sharing the ball, but Crawford has never been anything but a shoot-first guard. And he’d be a huge step back in terms of defense-whereas JJ is good defensive 2 who can guard several different positions, Crawford fails to guard most of the men he encounters.

There’s a lot left to be determined. If Jeff Teague comes out like gangbusters next year, looking like the next Deron Williams, I’d absolutely let Joe walk, and then see what I could get for Crawford’s expiring contract. While I loved the trade that brought Crawford here (a lot of junk for a useful NBA player), if Teague turns out to be a very good NBA PG, I’d happily turn Crawford into a bunch of different junk next season, hoping to just find one decent player. That’s assuming a best-case scenario for Teague’s development, but if it happens, having Josh Smith, Marvin Williams, Al Horford, and a Teague/Bibby rotation at PG looks really solid (with upside). From there, just sign a 2 who can play solid defense without falling over on offense, and then attempt to either bring back Childress or package him for draft picks (just imagine this debate if we’d actually drafted Brandon Roy).

But if Teague turns out to be the next Acie Law, I’m going to try to resign Joe at under the max. Next offseason, I’m looking at anything I can do to move Childress, Bibby, and Crawford all out of here and hoping to just get a mid-level PG (younger than Bibby) back. Then it’s just a matter of hoping to catch lightning in a bottle via the draft, looking for both Joe’s replacement and/or the next PG. It’s probably not the best long-term plan, but the Hawks would be good enough at 2-5 to be a winning team for several years, and if you’re hoping to strike gold in the draft, you might as well put a good product on the floor in the meantime so you can build a fanbase and make money.

by Bronn on Aug 5, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

For the record, ...

I am not advocating “a part of any long term plan that involves Jamal Crawford”. He is signed through next year, and the comment was more towards IF Joe leaves, he could step in as starting SG for a year until a better option comes available or can be found. “Long term plan” involves more than just a single season imo, especially one where he has a backup around 25-30+ minutes per with Chill.

by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 5, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m just not a fan of any scenario that puts Crawford into the starting 5. He’s probably best served in the Flip Murray role, as a streak scorer who can off the bench and generate offense. If Joe leaves, I certainly don’t want to replace him with a man who will likely shoot just as often, at lower efficiency, while playing worse defense. I’d like to simply distribute JJ’s offensive possessions between Marvin, Horf, and Josh (in that order).

by Bronn on Aug 5, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions

great counter post

although i did not take a complete anti joe stance.

but without taking any of the positives you said, i would stand by the fact that joe johnson is not a max contract player. compared to the upper elite guys in the game.

and i dont take away the positives you mention because I agree with them all. the big negative with joe is that he and woodson have shown a desire/necessity for joe to dominate the ball and the shots.

if joe can change his role and allow the more athletic, younger lead the team (and take more of a suns like role) then of course i want him back.

by hawksdawgs on Aug 5, 2009 1:34 PM EDT reply actions

I think the fact that we don't know what will happen next year is the problem

He has a lot of miles on him, and if we sign him to a close to max contract, we are essentially setting our core team in stone for the next 5 years, when we aren’t a title contender now.

This feels a lot like it did when the Wizards signed Arenas to a max deal a few years ago.

by thirdfALCON on Aug 5, 2009 2:27 PM EDT reply actions

great call on the wizards

they have four guys with big contracts (gilbert, butler, heywood, and jamison) and they signed all four knowing the ceiling was less than a championship.

i dont want that. (although I think the Hawks core (marvin, josh, al, and maybe teague) all have more room for improvement than the washington core.

by hawksdawgs on Aug 5, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah it was worse when whashington did it.

all their players were already in their primes, and iirc, Areanas was coming off an injury that he still hasn’t proven he can come back from.

by thirdfALCON on Aug 5, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Most of these points deserve a huge caveat

That being, Woodson. JJ is a huge product of Woodson’s system using him as the sole focal point, whether he is on or off for the night. In fact, take this to the macro level and away from all of the micro level pro’s and con’s, and the entire issue on if you give him an extension period, relies heavily on what one believes the situation with Woody is going to be going forward.

If Woodson isn’t going to be around, then I don’t think we should be giving out a max contract to him now, but instead letting him play his current deal out and see if he fits into the plans for the future and whatever system/coach will be brought in. If Woodson is sticking around, then sure, bring him back, but not for more than three years and definitely not near max money.

by Jesse28 on Aug 5, 2009 3:22 PM EDT reply actions

Biased JJ Fan

Well said! Good points! I agree! What you said dkrib! YES to the Joe Johnson extension offer!

by DPhenomenal1 on Aug 5, 2009 11:36 PM EDT reply actions

Let's remember

Its a small sample size, but Marvin got to the line something like 50 times in the two games Joe missed this year, and seemed like a completely different offensive player who could shoulder the load as a perimeter player/slasher.

I don’t think Joe is as irreplaceable as people think.

by jrauch on Aug 6, 2009 10:01 AM EDT reply actions

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…

by realdreamcards on Aug 6, 2009 11:14 AM EDT reply actions

15 per is too much...

12-13 sounds nice, preferably a little less.

by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 6, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions

15 IS TOO MUCH

i mean i love Joe and what he’s done but hes’ no where near as aggressive as he should be to warrant 15mil a yr.
id rather resign Horford than Joe since big man that are sound are hard to come by to say the least a 2guard is a dime a dozen hell look at morrow at GSW.
i think this has to lead to a sign and trade i mean but for who though?

by ca$hmere36 on Aug 7, 2009 12:46 AM EDT reply actions

Are you serious????

I see people comparing the hawks to the wizards?!?!? Give me a break, Arenas and Joe are two different players, even though the wizards OVERPAID for arenas, Joe is the better player. 15 too much? What are we the owners?

Atlanta will win a championship....someday

by maxxj3 on Aug 8, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions