Great News! Joe Johnson will likely be resigned!

[mrhonline]

With ~$93M being the five-year max from another team, I see Joe seeking $100M over six years from the Hawks (either to sign or in a S&T). He's not making $7M at age 35 (if he accepted a five-year deal), it's a round number, and it's close to the $17M he reportedly wants.

Year 1: $13.2M

Year 2: $14.6M

Year 3: $16.0M

Year 4: $17.4M

Year 5: $18.7M

Year 6: $20.1M

The better option, if Sund is crafty, is this:

Year 1: $16.2M (max, assuming $54M cap)

Year 2: $16.2M

Year 3: $16.2M

Year 4: $16.2M

Year 5: $16.2M

Year 6: $16.2M

It's "only" $97.2M, but it's still more total money than anyone else can offer. Note that you MUST replace Marvin or Bibby at a greatly reduced cost for this to work financially.

[spotatl]

mrholine- lets say it were legal to add a 6th year at 7 million dollars. Do you really think that Joe would accept that? I can't see him taking that at all- He would be better off hitting unrestricted freeagency again a year earlier.

And if you really don't think that Joe will be worth even 7 million dollars a year in that season then giving him a 6th year seems like a pretty big mistake even if it were "only" 16.2 million in your balanced scenario.

Maybe Joe would accept something where the 6th year were only guaranteed 5 million dollars (or some numbers) if waived by the start of FA that offseason. Then the Hawks would be protected a little if Joe's game absolutely collapses but the Hawks offer would also be much better than the other teams who couldn't offer that 6th year. Joe would accept that because even if the Hawks waived him he could both collect his 5 million plus whatever he could get as an UFA.

Edited February 23, 2010 by spotatl

[AHF]

There is still the possibility that an expiring contract of a worthless player has real value in the next CBA - ala Tracy McGrady - so it isn't like a 6th year would necessarily be total lost value if JJ's game jumps the shark.

[JackB1]

They were saying on 680 this morning that if we resign Joe for max money, then we will have no $$$ left to do anything else.

Is that true?

[spotatl]

jack- technically thats not true. The Hawks theoretically could sign Joe to the max, resign Josh Childress, spend the whole MLE, and even sign another player for the 2 million dollar BAE.

The real problem is that by maxing out Joe Johnson it puts the Hawks in danger of paying the luxury tax and doing those additional things would make the problem even worse. (no one knows what the luxury tax number is)

The other issue is that even if the Hawks don't resign Joe they wouldn't have the caproom to go out and sign a max type free agent.