enough said

but the worst ever? Is he stupid? Well, going on some of their articles the last few months, I’d be inclined to say he just may be.

Joe is actually the third best player.

4, 5, and 6 aren’t exactly true though. Trading him is not an automatic, especially considering the uncertainty of the collective bargaining agreement and what changes it will bring. If Jerome James and Zach Randolph can be dealt, anyone can, but it’s not a certainty. You are assuming in 5 that we’d go Bibby and Crawford as a backcourt, which is FAR from a certainty, should Joe opt elsewhere, and in actuality it is very unlikely those two would be our starting backcourt. And while Joe is a solid defender, our best is either Smoove or Horford, not Joe. Not even close, although the team really does lack a truly elite defender. Horford is solid, as is Joe, and Smoove has special numbers and highlights, but I don’t think anyone on the team can really claim to be among the best at their position.

Also, 3, more than just athletic guys have problems aging. See former HawkSteve Smith, who seems like a very comparable player to Joe in my eyes.

…but I have to dissent on some issues here.

1. His gap between himself and Josh and Al is almost gone. The case could have been made last year that Al and Josh should have been the all-stars and Joe left home. The statistics are proving this out as well…except for points per game, impacted by the immense amount of possessions Joe uses on offense.

2. Not only doesn’t he do well moving the ball when doubled, but this was less the case last year with Crawford and Smith becoming more important offensively.

3. Most of his comps show a decline coming as soon as potentially next season. (Finley, Smitty, et al)

4. This was flatly shown to be untrue with Bronn’s analysis of hoopnumbers.com’s adjusted +/- and by Bret LaGree’s end of the season review of Joe’s year. Smith and Horford are the best on the team and Joe is fading…fast.

5. Based on the last bullet (#4), I’d say that we’re already there. Losing Joe would at least allow us the flexibility of re-tooling that while building around Josh and Al. Not the best news for next year, but after that we be able to get some players to peak with Al and Joe, not drag their primes down.

6. The downside to keeping him is paying a player, who is already in the 18-19 range in PER, even in his prime, superstar level salary in an unknown economic future where his 20M/year can easily restrict our abilities to add players who are peaking around our younger core. And if things change economically, who is trading for this contract?

Bottom line, it’s a short term move designed to tread water made by folks who aren’t going to be around when the pain hits.

But we will be.

I appreciate what Joe has done (#2 Hawk of the Decade as I ranked him), but giving him a 6 year contract, when he has already peaked, for almost 20M/year is franchise malpractice.

considering how they didn’t make offers to Smoove or Chill before someone else did. Why offer Joe what no one else can? Oh how I hope you’re right, not that we lose Joe, but that we aren’t paying him $120m over 6 yrs.

sad as that sounds…

6’8, used to bodying up….Iso-Joe on the ice?

If Joe doesn’t get paid here, he’ll get paid somewhere. Gil had no chance to make that money anywhere.

Which is why I say with a new gameplan his decline may be graceful. and we all know players lose their legs but his court vision can increase and his assist ratio. he could be a better playmaker because he isn’t a bad one now. he is relied on a lot by the hawks which is why his Smarts of the game could help in the future……..though not at the expense of future players that could take us to the next level and signing current players(al josh teague, etc)

That could keep him from turning zombie in the playoffs