A Little Humor

by Fan Scribe Chris on Aug 3, 2010 12:11 PM EDT

When looking through my old basketball cards this morning, I found this gem.

There hasn't been much exciting news in the Hawks universe recently, so let's all share a giggle today. For all of the talk of the Hawks needing a big man, I think the team is in infinitely better shape with Al holding it down than the team was in the JK era.

When reading the back of the cards for underwhelming players, it's always funny to read how the writers have to stretch to write about the positives in the player's career. In this case there's the classic, "Led Hawks in shooting percentage in 1990." Yeah, but he averaged 3.7 ppg! (and 5.8 over his career). I would say the return on that investment was quite poor.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Pretty sure I have that card too

by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 3, 2010 12:38 PM EDT reply actions

on the upside, he has a great serial killer name

Jon Francis Koncak

by hawksdawgs on Aug 3, 2010 1:31 PM EDT reply actions

I wish I could find humor with Koncak.

by Darrell30909 on Aug 3, 2010 1:41 PM EDT reply actions

Ah c'mon man.

Don’t be a party pooper.

by Fan Scribe Chris on Aug 3, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions

And playing the role of Koncak's contract . . .

The contract of Joe Johnson.

by Evil Dallas on Aug 3, 2010 1:46 PM EDT reply actions

heh.

by Fan Scribe Chris on Aug 3, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Please...

Joe is at least a valuable player. Koncak on the other hand, was given a contract with a higher yearly salary at the time than Magic, Bird, and Jordan.

by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 3, 2010 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

And in 2015-2016

Joe Johnson will be making almost $25M dollars for that last season. We’ll be able to put together quite a who’s-who out of players making less than him.

The key is that his contract will be eating all the cap room and being untradeable forcing tough decisions with other players much like Koncak’s deal back in the day.

by Evil Dallas on Aug 3, 2010 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions

When Joe Johnson is 50 years old

He will be more productive than Koncak was. So no it is not the same. That is not meant as a slight at Koncak, not his fault that someone thought offering him that kind of money was a good idea.

http://www.peachtreehoops.com/

by Kris Willis on Aug 4, 2010 8:04 AM EDT reply actions

Koncak's contract was the beginning of ridiculously overpayed role players.

Next year when the NBA is locked out, and I believe it will be, think of how humorous this contract was. The only similarities to humor were : the player and contract were both a joke.

by D4 on Aug 4, 2010 8:47 AM EDT reply actions

Sure there are huge differences

I never meant to compare Joe Johnson to Jon Koncak as players. I meant to compare the decisions to sign those players to huge contracts and the huge contracts affect on the rest of the roster and cap.

Koncak was actually matched, it was Detroit who decided he was worth that much. The Hawks management at the time chose to match for fear of losing him for nothing. In retrospect it would have been better to let him go to the Pistons and maybe it would have tripped up the Bad Boys. His contract threw off what everyone else wanted to be paid and set expectations for him that he could never reach. In 90-91, Koncak made 1.5M of the 11.9M salary cap. He played the 5th most minutes and was a role player producing the stats that Zaza puts up in half as many minutes. Not good bang for the buck. In 93-94 he was making 2.9M out of a 15.1M cap and that was when Nique was traded.

Joe Johnson was paid the full max because the Hawks management was afraid of losing him for nothing. They paid him far more than anyone else could even offer. His contract will set expectations that Joe will undoubtedly have trouble meeting. Remember how well he handled the fan response to him not living up to expectations back in May. His contract with be 16.3M of the 57.1M cap this year. He’s the top player and was already making 14M before so that isn’t the outrageous part. In 2012-2013 Joe will make 19.7M which will likely be over 1/3 of the total cap when Josh Smith is in the final year of his current deal. That’s when you should soak in the similarities again not between the players Johnson and Koncak, but between the contracts and impact of those contracts on other decisions.

by Evil Dallas on Aug 4, 2010 2:46 PM EDT reply actions

I don't think anyone is saying that over the long term

that the Joe deal isn’t going to have serious ramifications on the salary cap. Still we don’t even know what the landscape of the NBA might look like by then. I still don’t see the comparison between the two deals because Joe is a serviceable player and Koncak never was. That in itself is a big difference in my opinion.

I will agree with one thing, I wish the Hawks had chose not to match the Pistons offer of Koncak as that could have potentially had some long term effects to their championship years. It might have changed the Hawks fortunes in those years as well.

http://www.peachtreehoops.com/

by Kris Willis on Aug 4, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions

In retrospect

Jon Konchak’s deal started at 12% of the cap and went up to about 20%. There are rules in place now that prevent the level of increases the contract had (450K a year which was about 30% of year 1 compared to the 10.5% max now). It is remembered as a horrible deal because of how little performance he had under it. The modern equivalent in size and scope was Jerome James deal with the Knicks.

Joe Johnson’s a much better player, but his deal has the potential to be much worse. Allen Houston level bad. Am I jumping the gun on the comparison on the negative effect of the two deals? Yes, but when other key players start get shipped out because of the space it eats it would be a little late to sound a warning.

My take would be different if Hawks ownership had deeper pockets or a willingness to spend to make a run. I would say that Joe’s deal was a necessary overpay in the future to make the best run now. They didn’t do that. They spent tons of money on Joe and then retained Jason Collins adding nothing of note. If we field the same team as last year are we realistically expecting a longer stay in post-season? It’s as if ownership decided to sacrifice the future to win now and then changed their minds half way through the sacrifice.

by Evil Dallas on Aug 4, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions