Joe Johnson is fit for his contract says...Bill Simmons?
Alternate title: Second look at fiscal sanity for Joe's contract?
Buried within an entertaining read regarding some problems/solutions for the NBA's haves and have mores comes this Hawks-centric tidbit from Simmons regarding the highest payed players in the league and those who should and shouldn't have the sized contract.
And Joe Johnson, who has been married to the fact that he signed the biggest contract of last season, for better or worse, comes out on the "belongs on the list" from Simmons.
Really, it's true:
Twenty-two players are scheduled to make more than $15 million for the 2011-12 season: Kobe Bryant ($25.5m), Tim Duncan ($21.4m), Rashard Lewis ($21.4m), Kevin Garnett ($21.2m), Gilbert Arenas ($19.1m), Dirk Nowitzki ($19.1m), Pau Gasol ($18.7m), Dwight Howard ($18.1m), Carmelo Anthony ($18.4m), Amar'e Stoudemire ($18.2m), Joe Johnson ($18m), Elton Brand ($17.1m), Chris Paul ($16.4m), Deron Williams ($16.3m), LeBron James ($16.0m), Chris Bosh ($16.0m), Dwyane Wade (15.7m), Paul Pierce ($15.3m), Zach Randolph ($15.2m), Antawn Jamison ($15.1m), Brandon Roy ($15m), Rudy Gay ($15m). Only Lewis, Arenas, Brand, Jamison and Roy don't belong on that list ... and if our "four-year max" rule was in place, Lewis' deal would be done; Arenas, Brand and Jamison would be in their final year, and Roy would have two years left. Either way, we're batting 78 percent on big-ass deals. Not bad.
What? Well, no matter that Joe made the fictional cut of Simmons' "earns it" list, the stats say otherwise.
Of the players listed above by Simmons, Johnson actually doesn't show well in spreadsheet form. Here is a chart highlighting the advanced statistics of Adjusted PER (Hoopdata), Win Shares and Win Shares per 48 minutes (Basketball-Reference).
Uh-oh. Joe does not fare well in any of these categories, trailing even Brand in every category.
Well sure, but how about the playoffs?
Granted, the playoffs are a small sample size, especially when it comes to teams that are gone after round one, like the Knicks and Amar'e Stoudemire, but Joe still doesn't rise very high in this look, either.
So how/why doesn't Simmons toss Joe in the bad contract fire? Well, he had no choice after listing how he determines franchise players in this system:
"3. We define a 'Franchise Player' as someone who's played at least four consecutive years with one team and made three All-Star teams OR two first or second All-NBA teams during that time. Any 'Franchise Player' automatically gets a $17 million cap figure, but can be paid $500,000 per years of service beyond that number without it counting on the cap. For instance, if Dwight Howard wants to sign with the Lakers next summer, they could offer only his franchise cap number ($68 million over four years). Orlando gets the benefit of that $500k bump - eight Howard/Orlando seasons multiplied by $500,000 - so they can offer him a four-year deal worth $87 million.13 The longer he stays in Orlando and keeps playing at a 'Franchise' level, the more money Howard can earn.
Joe Johnson: 6 years as a Hawk, all consecutive----(5) straight All-Star appearances. Bingo.
In this system, Joe Johnson fits the "Franchise Player" profile and still qualifies heading into next season, no matter what the other numbers, as shown above, say.
So, despite a second look, it looks as if the value Simmons sees in Johnson is related to days past and status as an All-Star and former All-NBA player, which is why he's not thrown on the fire as one who doesn't fit the bill for his contract.
Johnson has 5 years and 100 million dollars left on his deal and needs a bounceback '11-'12 campaign to turn back his statistical decline and avoid further comparisons to Michael Finley.
I'm hopeful that Johnson, who just turned 30 on June 29th, can battle back and play to his 2009-2010 level and return to Simmons' list again next offseason.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The argument can be made that Joe deserves more than $15 million per year RIGHT NOW since he is the go-to scorer on a team that has been to the second round of the playoffs three years in a row. The biggest problems with Joe’s contract are its length and the built-in raises over the course of its length, and that Simmons article doesn’t address anything other than those players’ salaries for THIS YEAR.
If the Hawks had signed Joe to two or three years of a max salary deal, I don’t think we’d be complaining.
I read it the same way
I’m still not completely sure I agree that he was worth THAT much this past season – but it’s a much closer argument.
But a couple of years from now when the dollars are higher and the production lower?
bad argument
The fact that he’s not delivering as the ‘go to’ scorer (I’d dispute that that’s who he is – he’s the guy that the coach and team say is the guy, but hasn’t delivered as that guy much) is all that matters to me. The biggest problem with the contract isn’t the length or raises. It’s that he doesn’t raise the level of his play or the play of his team. Seriously, tell me in the playoffs (other than the Boston series FOUR years ago, and Game 1 of the the Orlando series) when Joe went off. In the regular season, I remember like 2 games where I was like – Joe went the pluck off (one was vs. mighty Sacramento). So, I’m not disputing Joe’s good-ness. he’s good, but he’s only about $10M good for what he does for this team. If he can’t lead, can’t explode, can’t exploit a double team, can’t defend, and can’t put people in seats – he’s not worth more than $10M. So, I’d be complaining no matter how many years we had him signed to. I was all for letting him walk, taking the draft picks, and ceding the team’s future to Josh and Al.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on Jul 12, 2011 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
To be clear
I was not making that argument myself, just pointing out that it can be made. The last three years of Joe’s deal are indefensible. The first three years are bad, and I agree that the Hawks would have probably been better off letting him walk, replacing him with a handful of role players, and giving Teague more offensive responsibility, but RIGHT NOW for all his faults he “led” (using that word loosely) the Hawks to the second round for the third season in a row, so one could make the argument that he deserves that kind of money for THIS YEAR based on the Hawks’ team performance, which is what Simmons did. Looking at him as an individual player, though, and disregarding the team’s success, his deal looks insane already.
by NajehDavenpoop on Jul 12, 2011 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions
fair enough
can’t argue with that. Still waiting to see the guy just dominate a basketball game that means something. Can’t see what ASG sees that I don’t.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on Jul 15, 2011 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm wondering if the contract was done to distance themselves from the Pete Babcock era where superstar players and fan favourites were traded away for players who barely gave the Hawks a full season
I was definitely in the boat of letting him walk and structuring the offense around Al & Smoove, with the addition of a defensive minded 2.
Will making it back to the Eastern Conference Semis give Larry Drew another year at the helm?
fair point
while that would be crazy – I’m willing to accept any answers since all the rational ones are used up. I mean if he was like Blake Griffin and was bringing people to the building – I could still justify it (and not like it), but the guy isn’t the reason anyone comes to Philips. So, how do you get a ROI on Joe Johnson?
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on Jul 18, 2011 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Here’s the most important number to me…
2nd round playoff series wins with Atlanta: 0
Barring Jeff Teague turning into Rajon Rondo overnight, I don’t see that number increasing for the remainder of Joe’s contract.
I think he meant series victories
@Kris_Willis
by Kris Willis on Jul 12, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
even if it was 2
2 wins over 3 years sucks….
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on Jul 12, 2011 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
out of curiosity
is this the same guy who wrote that article that defended mike bibby and his defense?
I like to think of Jeff Teague as our secret weapon..... so secret that the Atlanta coaches have no idea who he is.
Nope. He has always been aware of Mike's defensive shortcomings.
I love Simmons. At least he lives and breathes NBA.
I'm on the Twitter: twitter.com/edgrohl
That was Tom Haberstroh who wrote an article taking the exact opposite position about Bibby’s defense after he went to Miami.
by NajehDavenpoop on Jul 12, 2011 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions
JJ can help a team as the number 2 or 3
He is not the number 1 option on the team, He can be stopped. As a Chris Bosh type or Boozer, second or third option on his team, JJ will be fine.
In his defense, the stats this year may look the way they do because of his elbow injury. And his style of play is not taxing, so he should have longevity.
Still there is no way to defend that contract. It is pure madness for a team that is now handcuffed and can’t improve in other areas. It is not “yet” Rashard Lewis or Arenas bad, but it could get there in time.
I still say dangle him in front of Cows and NY and NJ and see what can be milked from them.
Read the same article - noticed the same thing
I was just happy to read an article that didn’t bash the Hawks. So I stayed silent.

by 


















