Wages Of Wins Calls The Atlanta Hawks One Of The NBA's Most Reckless

by Kris Willis on Sep 15, 2011 12:01 PM EDT

The Wages of Wins blog just completed a top ten of the most reckless teams in the NBA. The New York Knicks are No. 1 but your Atlanta Hawks check in at No. 8 and I will let you guess why.

The Atlanta Hawks.

Owner(s): Atlanta Spirt LLC (Michael Gearon, Jr., Bruce Levenson, Ed Peskowitz, J. Rutherford Seydel, Todd Foreman, J. Michael Gearon, Sr., and Beau Turner, Bud Seretean)

Reckless Contract Values: ~$189 Million

I get to count the Hawks as repeat offenders for overspending. They signed Joe Johnson to a huge contract in 2005, even though he had never been worth it. They repeated that mistake in 2010 They make the list for being dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.

One of the things I hate about the lockout the most is that everyone is searching for something to write about. That is why we get stories like this one about Johnson's unbelievably huge shoe vault with extravagant security. Before you know it that story has spread to about four other sites but more on that in a minute. While we have debated the contract extension at length, we have not talked about the Hawks decision to as the Wages of Wins writer describes "overpay" Johnson in 2005.

My view probably won't be very surprising. With the system that was in place I believe it was going to take Atlanta overpaying to bring a quality player in here. Johnson was one the hottest names on the market and the first big name free agent to show any interest in the Hawks in some time. So what say you? What is the feeling on Johnson's 2005 deal and where does it stack up with the decision to give him the max in 2010?

One more note, Johnson's truck and now his shoe vault has made news like he is the only highly paid athlete to buy or build extravagant things. Seriously is this news really? Who care? I sure don't. If somebody wants to give me a million dollars then I promise you I am going to buy something that I don't currently need.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm okay with the 2005 contract.

At the time considering where the Hawks were, he was worth every penny. The bottom line is they were going to have to overpay to get a quality player to come here. I have no issues with that contract. I’d even argue it was money well spent.

@cocoqt81

by Co Co on Sep 15, 2011 12:10 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

I am glad I am not the only one that feels that way

@Kris_Willis

by Kris Willis on Sep 15, 2011 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

same

M-V-TEAGUE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Upon hearing that the nfl lockout was over, I faced in the general direction of Seattle and gave them the finger. GO RAMS
Follow me at @Th3_Prophet

by Throw on Sep 15, 2011 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

he also performed to the level that was expected from that contract

I dont have an issue with it. I dont like the current deal, but it is too late now.

by Dwalk1217 on Sep 15, 2011 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah I’d say the Hawks got their money’s worth out of the 2005 contract. The reason the Hawks didn’t become elite after that were due to bad decisions in the draft and later ill-advised extensions to Marvin, Bibby, and Joe. But Joe’s first contract was perfectly fine.

by redwards95 on Sep 16, 2011 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Salary capped league, means you can’t hold onto aging stars. Unless you want to be the Colts of today.

If anyone knocks baseball I get upset, because I think it's a wonderful life.

by BeatTehMets on Sep 15, 2011 12:14 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

The question was not about the 2010 extension

The question was about ‘overpaying’ Johnson to come to Atlanta in the first place

@Kris_Willis

by Kris Willis on Sep 15, 2011 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions

great move

http://sportsandgrits.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 15, 2011 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Actually, The Lockout actually changed my opinion on Joe's Contract

i’m ok with both of them. once I get the fandom out of my system, i’m ok with the Atlanta Spirit giving Joe a contract in 2005 and then resigning him in 2010.

In 2005 this team was a joke, we hadn’t been to the playoffs in years and this team really had nothing to hold its hat to. To get the player that actually became the best player out of that free agent class. (Ray Allen, Michael Redd to name a few) that’s an accomplishment.

In 2010, this team had a chance to keep their investment and took it. who knows if he would have taken less, but we have him and we are going to have a much better chance of playing in May and June because of it. i still can’t see a better player than Joe Johnson who is willing to leave a city to come play for the Hawks. The fact that he could have gone elsewhere and chose to stay here shows that he still wants to be a Hawk and that is more than we could say about alot of other players in the NBA.

Be happy with what you have Atlanta, it still just a game.

by Bryant Singleton on Sep 15, 2011 12:56 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Also, in regards to the mans posessions

Who gives a crap. In 1970, Joe Namath was walking around with Mink Coats.

These guys are athletes that contribute to a Billion Dollar Organization. there is nothing necessary in this world that costs over $100,000 (a decent-sized house). Once you are getting paid over $1 million a year you’re darn near guaranteed to buy something unnecessary. get off your high horse America.

by Bryant Singleton on Sep 15, 2011 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I definitely agree...

The first contract was definitely worth it. Initially many people would say that the Hawks overpaid for Joe, but in hindsight he contract was worth what he brought to the team. 4 out of 5 years of the contract he was an All-Star and many regarded him as the 3rd best SG in the league for much of that contract.

As far as the current contract, he is still the 3rd or 4th best SG in the league and still made the All-Star game. I am one that thinks that keeping Joe was the best thing Atlanta could have done last summer. The latter part of the contract will be when Joe may not be able to play up to the money. Until the 5th and 6th year of the contract, it will be very much worth it.

by jdewayneatl on Sep 15, 2011 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Completly back the 2005 contract.

He was one of the reasons the franchise began it’s upstart. We needed a player and Atlanta was not a prime destination for anyone. New coach, new owners, little veteran presence. This was going to be a rebuilding franchise and everyone knew. It’s completely homer to think that we were going to get a “superstar” in this situation. Johnson showed promise in the playoff the season before and I’d rather we go with that than the other options. Just to put into perspective, Larry Hughes was also a Free agent in 2005 so this could have gone much, much worse.

Ron Artest = Ron (sm)Artest - He Is The Most Interesting Man In The World

by JoshChildressAfroIsCure4Cancer on Sep 15, 2011 1:18 PM EDT reply actions

Wages of Wins need to find new researchers.

We are now in the Alex Meruelo Era. Atlanta Spirit LLC who?

Ron Artest = Ron (sm)Artest - He Is The Most Interesting Man In The World

by JoshChildressAfroIsCure4Cancer on Sep 15, 2011 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Hmm...

Steve Belkin says the 2005 contract is a bunch of bull, man.

As for me, the 2005 deal worked out fine. We had to overpay to get a guy in here who could score. As hindsight proves, the contract did not prevent the club from being competitive in the long term.

Now, this 2010 deal won’t work out fine if NBA team spending comes down the way it probably should. Hell, Meruelo might be feeling like Belkin after the new CBA gets done.

by Thrashy Thrashy on Sep 15, 2011 1:24 PM EDT reply actions

The first contract was fine

5 years $70 million is very fair for what Joe provides. But his value to the team didn’t increase at all over the life of that contract, and yet the Hawks re-upped him like his value nearly doubled. That’s where the Hawks screwed up.

by NajehDavenpoop on Sep 15, 2011 3:17 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Does it matter what he drives or how many shoes he has?

I mean he is a young man. He has earned it. And if anything, what people who don’t follow Hawks don’t get, is how much of a professional JJ really is.

He does not run around behing a Thug (think Isiah Rider), get in trouble at bars, be seen around town dating 20 women at same time. So now they have to come after him for having a lot of basketball shoes!!! SMDH IF that was all the trouble our professional athletes got into, then we have no problems.

I repast, Joe Johnson, is a pro’s pro. Independent of whether the contract old or new are fair or not, picking on him for having cars or a lot of shoes (which by the way most pro athletes get for free a lot of them) is really really low

by ATLpaul on Sep 15, 2011 8:03 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

It all goes back to that contract and this is their way of poking fun at it

I mean there is no telling what some of these professional athletes have in their houses.

@Kris_Willis

by Kris Willis on Sep 16, 2011 7:46 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I rec'd everyone

But I think we’re being distracted from the real issue.

Here’s everyone’s role
Joe Johnson – score in volume, QB the offense
Jeff Teague – defend, steals, transition
Josh Smith – play inside, defend, steals, transition (struggles outside)
Kirk Hinrich – defend? QB the offense
Marvin Williams – defend? shoot 3s? (really can only drive and score against smaller guys, struggles vs length)
Zaza Pachulia – defend Dwight and frustrate off bench

Did we plan on getting past the Bulls this year? Did we adjust our roster to Miami? The franchise is reckless and doesn’t want to see the problems with the roster. Or sees them and scapegoats the players.

Josh Smith was never drafted to defend Joakim Noah, he did it in game 1. Marvin was never drafted to be a corner 3 point shooter.

“First of all, Knight said, I dont consider Childress a forward. I consider him a 2 (guard). I like guys who can overmatch other players. Thats what he can do at the 2. Hes long enough to bother the shooter. He can score. Hes going to create problems.

Of course, that still leaves Marvin Williams, Smith and Harrington, all seemingly suited for the same position? No problem, according to Knight.

“We have three quality forwards,” the GM said. “The NBA is too stuck on saying youve got to have a small forward and a power forward. Whats wrong with being a basketball player? Whats wrong with being just a forward?”

Um Mr. Knight/Sund problem is defending other basketball players? Now Horford wants to be a forward and is working on his 3s to fit in.

This team will never be a natural fit together, and thats why the franchise is reckless. They just think you can good players out there and make it stick.

NO. You have to maximize roles out there.

Joe Johnson is continually Forced to Operate with Bad Spacing. Marvin

This team really isnt a team at all. There are plenty examples, for instance, with Smith at the 3 clogging the passing lanes and rebounding above avg for a 3, this is our best defensive lineup>>> However the offense of Smith and Horford make it attrocious offense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqEys0sM4kI

Smith once again shows he is a strict PnR player
Horford Once Again Shows He Can’t Roll from Elbow Area and the Pop is easily defending
Johnson’s only option is to kick out to Josh Smith for 3

This is why ATL is reckless. They dont even have a cohesive team. Only big names who fail when they try to take on superstar scoring roles.

In 1957, the team advanced to the Finals, losing to the Boston Celtics in a double-overtime thriller in game seven. In 1958, the Hawks again advanced to the NBA Finals where they avenged their previous year's defeat against the Boston Celtics, winning the series 4-2. Bob Pettit scored 50 points in Game 6 in front of a crowd of 10,218 in St. Louis. The victory gave the Hawks their first and only NBA Championship.

by PointGuardSlim on Sep 16, 2011 12:38 PM EDT reply actions

2005 Contract

I think the 2005 signing was bad, but not the contract per se. Joe earned the dollar value and to say he was never worth it before misses the point. Most teams in the league don’t have the luxury of being attractive to every free agent. For Atlanta to land an elite player they need to either draft great, trade a bunch of pieces for a star, or guess right on an up and coming player and pay more than other teams to get him. That was Joe. It was correctly determined that Joe could be a go-to player and they paid (and traded) to get him. Multiple playoffs and all-star appearances later it seems silly to look back and say he was overpaid.

The reason I think the signing was bad (or more appropriately the trade) has little to do with Joe and everything to do with the rest of the team. Atlanta didn’t stay horrible long enough in the rebuilding process to acquire enough stud talent to truly compete for a title. Maybe we did stay horrible enough, but blew too many lottery picks, but I think they spent in free agency 1 summer too early. I site OKC as an example of rebuilding better because they had more weapons in their arsenal at the time they started winning. Signing Joe took the Hawks from worst team in the league to 6-7th worst lowering the chances of landing a future superstar.

My logic doesn’t go without risk though. If you lose too long you risk losing a player to the stench of losing. My example of that is Jason Terry. When his rookie deal was up he had to get out of Atlanta. He’d never be a part of winning here regardless of personal ability. He was tainted by the experience and keeping him risked tainting another group of young players. At some point in time you need to augment your youth to help them to the next level.

The other way the contract could be criticized is that Joe doesn’t provide the marketing appeal that should be necessary to get a max deal. While true that’s not as much recklessness as it is a reality of NBA rules. There aren’t enough players that have that extra something to go around. Some teams can’t play the marketing game and just have to focus directly on winning. To do that you have to spend and the options are constrained. Joe was a valuable piece we could get when we had nothing to build on. Resigning him was questionable but I remember a lot of nba pundits saying the Hawks were damned either way. If he walks the rules left no way to realistically replace him and the rules also made it so that the only way to keep him was to overpay.

by Evil Dallas on Sep 16, 2011 2:59 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs