The Toronto game should KILL the life without JJ talk.

[MVP23]

Joe Johnson doesn't play, we win a road game by 20 points. I don't care if its the Nets, its still a NBA team, and the Nets have been playing.."good" basketball as of late. Now...when we go up there to Toronto, and beat them without Joe, I want this talk to end. All we need is another Big man, and a scoring guard, and we're fine..

.....whats that I see? Ball Movement ion the 4th Quarter?....I'm walking on sunshine!

[Deeman]

:laughing5: :laughing5: :laughing5:

Cmon dude we beat the worst team in the leauge without their best player. Don't get carried away now.

[MVP23]

I bet my left nut that game is much closer if Joe plays.

[exodus]

The Nets have won 7 games and didn't have their best player.

[TheTruth]

As much as I don't like the pounding of the basketball and making a somewhat difficult shot more difficult, he is still the guy who draws double teams and can make clutch shots. We are not a very good team without him. Besides, we won't have much more than the MLE and a tad bit of cap space if Joe doesn't come back. We won't be able to get a good scoring guard and a big man with that.

Yes, we won on the road without Joe against a garbage team without its second leading scorer (Harris) and Yi who gave us fits in the last game. That doesn't mean we can win like we do without him. But make no mistake, we either overpay to keep Joe and work to keep climbing up the Eastern Conference, or we let him go and try to sign some average guard while Crawford starts and faces double teams and lower FG% because he then becomes the focus of the defense with no one else who strikes fear in them.

[mrhonline]

IMHO, the decision on whether to keep JJ will come down to finances.

[Diesel]

I think tonight we got a picture of the contrast.

The ball moved around a lot freer. It was still the nets though. However, guys like Mo Evans and Marvin and ZA DAMN ZA were getting wide open looks because we were actually moving the ball.

I say resign Joe and find a strong willed PG.

We need a pure PG who will handle the ball and run the offense.

[Diesel]

IMHO, the decision on whether to keep JJ will come down to finances.

I think it will come down to finances vs. Winning.

Just Like Donovan McNabb.

Philly has held on to McNabb all this time.. but now to write that one more check knowing that you are not going to win the Superbowl is hard. Especial when Vick is cheaper.

[hawkman]

Joe Johnson doesn't play, we win a road game by 20 points. I don't care if its the Nets, its still a NBA team, and the Nets have been playing.."good" basketball as of late. Now...when we go up there to Toronto, and beat them without Joe, I want this talk to end. All we need is another Big man, and a scoring guard, and we're fine..

.....whats that I see? Ball Movement ion the 4th Quarter?....I'm walking on sunshine!

This thread angers me.

[TruJerz]

I bet my left nut that game is much closer if Joe plays.

for some reason, i agree. We are better with JJ but when he plays the ball doesnt move as much because Joe Johnson likes to go one on one and hold the ball for at least 5 seconds. Hawks can win games without JJ..the guy we need out there the most is Josh Smith. Im not saying we are better without JJ but I think the game would of been closer. But if we needed someone to make shots because no ones shots were falling, thats where JJ can bail you out but that wasnt needed tonite cause Jamal had it going

[Supporter]

I bet my left nut that game is much closer if Joe plays.

You're probably holding peanuts in both hands, liar.

[High5]

We beat arguably the WORST team in NBA HISTORY who was playing WITHOUT arguably THEIR BEST PLAYER (and a player who plays very well against us) and you are beating your chest over something? Come on man, you're becoming crazier than Diesel.

[dlpin]

I think it will come down to finances vs. Winning.

Just Like Donovan McNabb.

Philly has held on to McNabb all this time.. but now to write that one more check knowing that you are not going to win the Superbowl is hard. Especial when Vick is cheaper.

Difference is that the NFL has a hard cap, so if they let McNabb go they can instantly use all that money to upgrade several positions. The nba doesn't have a hard cap, so the only plus of JJ walking is the owner's wallet getting fatter, as you wouldn't be able to sign someone of equal value.

[Plainview1981]

The Nets have won 7 games and didn't have their best player.

Lopez has been NJ's best player THIS SEASON. Not last year though.

That doesn't mean I agree with the OP though.

It's either JJ or bust. I've been fairly happy with his play this year and I've been far less critical of him than in the past. It's not all beautiful roses, but this is the situation and ownership will have to decide if the team is on the court is good enough to spend the money on. If you remove JJ, Josh or Al from this team and don't replace them with someone nearly as good or better, the team WILL suffer in the long run.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Hotlanta1981

[thecampster]

What people fail to realize in the JJ leaving talk is he isn't just going to walk in free agency. It is far better for a team that is under the cap to do a sign and trade to acquire a player than to just acquire the player. If Chicago, New York or any other possible destination for JJ wants to do their best in the off season it is in their best interest to tender JJ a contract and then work out a sign and trade with the Hawks. This gives the Hawks players in return without penalizing us (we can take back JJ's salary in players but not in signing FA's). This in turn allows the team that wants to sign JJ to still have that available cap money to go after another free agent (see how the celtics were built a few years ago).

We will not be losing JJ for nothing. It is in Johnson's best interest to allow this as it means better players at his coming destination. Johnson is leaving..get used to that. But we will get something in return, do not worry about that. So what you now need to ask yourself is what do teams like Chicago, New York and the other FA players have that we would like to take back but they don't need. Remember that the deal doesn't have to only be JJ. Bibby, Marvin or other players could leave to even out the deal. Roll that around in your noodles a while.

[tbhawksfan]

What people fail to realize in the JJ leaving talk is he isn't just going to walk in free agency. It is far better for a team that is under the cap to do a sign and trade to acquire a player than to just acquire the player. If Chicago, New York or any other possible destination for JJ wants to do their best in the off season it is in their best interest to tender JJ a contract and then work out a sign and trade with the Hawks. This gives the Hawks players in return without penalizing us (we can take back JJ's salary in players but not in signing FA's). This in turn allows the team that wants to sign JJ to still have that available cap money to go after another free agent (see how the celtics were built a few years ago).

We will not be losing JJ for nothing. It is in Johnson's best interest to allow this as it means better players at his coming destination. Johnson is leaving..get used to that. But we will get something in return, do not worry about that. So what you now need to ask yourself is what do teams like Chicago, New York and the other FA players have that we would like to take back but they don't need. Remember that the deal doesn't have to only be JJ. Bibby, Marvin or other players could leave to even out the deal. Roll that around in your noodles a while.

Ditto. I've been imaging senarios that bring us a dominant PG and another starting caliber C. A JJ S&T and moving Bibby might take this team to the top.

[niremetal]

What people fail to realize in the JJ leaving talk is he isn't just going to walk in free agency. It is far better for a team that is under the cap to do a sign and trade to acquire a player than to just acquire the player. If Chicago, New York or any other possible destination for JJ wants to do their best in the off season it is in their best interest to tender JJ a contract and then work out a sign and trade with the Hawks. This gives the Hawks players in return without penalizing us (we can take back JJ's salary in players but not in signing FA's). This in turn allows the team that wants to sign JJ to still have that available cap money to go after another free agent (see how the celtics were built a few years ago).

We will not be losing JJ for nothing. It is in Johnson's best interest to allow this as it means better players at his coming destination. Johnson is leaving..get used to that. But we will get something in return, do not worry about that. So what you now need to ask yourself is what do teams like Chicago, New York and the other FA players have that we would like to take back but they don't need. Remember that the deal doesn't have to only be JJ. Bibby, Marvin or other players could leave to even out the deal. Roll that around in your noodles a while.

Wow. That is quite possibly the most absurd post I've seen on this subject. Did you really just say that other teams are better off doing a sign-and-trade to get JJ (and in the process giving us players that are worth a damn) instead of signing him outright? Your logic on that point has so many holes that I don't know where to begin. So I won't.

[thecampster]

Ditto. I've been imaging senarios that bring us a dominant PG and another starting caliber C. A JJ S&T and moving Bibby might take this team to the top.

As an example of what could be done. Washington is a player in the free agent market and needs to be rid of the gilbert Arenas fiasco. They could offer JJ the max and trade us Al thornton and Arenas for JJ in a sign and trade to even the salaries. That fixes the point guard issue. Then you can off Chillz to come back and drop Jason Collins (thornton takes his spot) and boom you have your team.

Arenas/Teague/Bibby

Chillz/Crawford/Mo Evans

Marvin/Thornton

Josh/Joe Smith

Horford/Pachulia/Morris

Draft a big in training and there you go. No missing JJ.

[MaceCase]

What people fail to realize in the JJ leaving talk is he isn't just going to walk in free agency. It is far better for a team that is under the cap to do a sign and trade to acquire a player than to just acquire the player. If Chicago, New York or any other possible destination for JJ wants to do their best in the off season it is in their best interest to tender JJ a contract and then work out a sign and trade with the Hawks. This gives the Hawks players in return without penalizing us (we can take back JJ's salary in players but not in signing FA's). This in turn allows the team that wants to sign JJ to still have that available cap money to go after another free agent (see how the celtics were built a few years ago).

We will not be losing JJ for nothing. It is in Johnson's best interest to allow this as it means better players at his coming destination. Johnson is leaving..get used to that. But we will get something in return, do not worry about that. So what you now need to ask yourself is what do teams like Chicago, New York and the other FA players have that we would like to take back but they don't need. Remember that the deal doesn't have to only be JJ. Bibby, Marvin or other players could leave to even out the deal. Roll that around in your noodles a while.

Where are you getting this from? A team under the cap can sign free agents outright without any need for any sign and trade scenario. A sign and trade in this situation mostly benefits JJ because he can get 6 years and the maximum pay raises from us. The team that he is signing with is not obligated to give up much if anything to us because they are not constrained by having to match salaries.

There is no need for them to give up any valuable piece or draft pick from their team as those parts are actually what is making that team more attractive to the free agent in addition to the money. Chicago is not going to give us Noah, or Taj Gibson or Rose for Joe but they would be willing to give up Hinrich or James Johnson and a 2nd. New York is not going to give up Gallo or Chandler or any other picks but Eddy Curry is available. Scratch that, New York would probably hold onto Curry as he's a hefty expiring deal which we all know has value.

Look at Rashard Lewis as a better indicator of how this works as all Seattle got for him was a 2nd rounder and a TPE from the under the cap Magic. The Boston team you cited was already well above the cap and traded hefty contracts as filler along with young prospects and draft picks to get KG and Allen. Theo Ratliff and Wally Z were both instrumental to match salaries in that case as each was making 13 mill.

It is not all roses like you like to depict it, if Joe wants out he can leave us high and dry. The only bargaining chip Sund has if Joe leaves is appealing to his greed but make no mistake, those teams that can sign him don't owe us nada. Your post mostly applies if he wanted to go to LA, Orl or Dallas, teams already over the cap. Only then would we have bargaining power.

[NineOhTheRino]

As an example of what could be done. Washington is a player in the free agent market and needs to be rid of the gilbert Arenas fiasco. They could offer JJ the max and trade us Al thornton and Arenas for JJ in a sign and trade to even the salaries. That fixes the point guard issue. Then you can off Chillz to come back and drop Jason Collins (thornton takes his spot) and boom you have your team.

Arenas/Teague/Bibby

Chillz/Crawford/Mo Evans

Marvin/Thornton

Josh/Joe Smith

Horford/Pachulia/Morris

Draft a big in training and there you go. No missing JJ.

Arenas for JJ is a risky proposition. Dude missed the previous 2 years for a banged up knee and missed this year because he wanted to be Clint Eastwood. 3 straight years of no meaningful basketball....no thanks

Edited March 17, 2010 by NineOhTheRino