Sir Charles says "Do not give JJ max money"

[HawksFan87]

Charles Barkley is an overweight idiot, screw him and his opinion. With that said still wouldn't give up that type of money to joe...

[wfhawkfan]

That doesn't make sense. It is like arguing that Andrew Bogut shouldn't have been paid the same amount as Dwight Howard on their rookie contracts. Both were #1 draft picks who would have been paid more in a free market. You'd always rather have the better player for the same money (Dwight), but both Bogut and Howard as #1 picks deserved that same salary. The question isn't whether Bogut deserves to be paid as much as Howard because Howard's salary is determined by cap restraints. The question is whether Bogut is worth taking #1 based on the value he brings to a club.

Similarly, if Joe isn't worth $25M it is because he isn't worth $25M but if Joe would be worth $27M in a free market and Wade would be worth $32M and Lebron would be worth $35M, then all three of those guys should be getting the same $25M max salary.

Whether Rashard is worth $25M has nothing to do with what Lebron gets paid under an artificial cap limit that pays him well under his free market value and has everything to do with the value he brings to a team. For Rashard, I don't think he is worth the max because I think his play doesn't justify the maximum salary but that has nothing to do with what the top 5 or so players in the game are making.

I will certainly agree that the maximum salary structure makes a player like Lebron even more valuable because you are not only getting a superstar on the court but it frees up salary you can use to increase the overall value of the players on your team since Lebron's salary is capped artificially low but unless you have the choice of getting a guy like Lebron that is only an academic consideration.

I feel salaries should be viewed in relative, not absolute terms. I think this is were we differ. With yrs of service being equal, Lebron and Joe just shouldn't be paid the same. It shouldn't matter what a player is worth in free, open market. Lebron is a better player than joe, so therefore, he should be compensted more no matter what the salary cap is. Lebron may be worth 35 mil, but he is not going to get it, he can only get 23mil. If Joe was worth 23 mil in a open market, it wouldn't be the max a team was willing to pay for a player. Since Bron's salary is held artificial low, it should apply to Joe as well. (BTW, I love healthy debate)

Edited April 28, 2010 by wfhawkfan

[tbhawksfan]

Would haved loved to have seen the team with a competent coach before things got this far.

[HawkWeisErrr]

Let some other team make that mistake.

[Dejay]

All I know . . . is that when Miami and Chicago and New York "show JJ the money", these same people who didn't want him re-signed for big money bet not cry about how the Hawks aren't doing anything to improve the team . . if they let JJ walk.

You don't challenge for titles in this league with a collection of "good" players. You need star caliber players.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner!!!

Whether JJ deserves the 'max deal' or not is inconsequential. The fact remains that the Hawks will not be in any position to replace his productivity if he was to skip town. What we'll have instead is a dejected locker room and fanbase who watched the team's leading scorer head for 'greener' pastures while the front office is deciding whether to bring Flip Murray or Childress back; that has 44-38, a 7th seed, and a 4-0 sweep in the first round by Orlando in front of 8,000 empty seats written all over it. Them's the facts, ladies and gents.

I've seen the list of available free agents for 2010 and after the first tier of guys, it isn't all that good. What, you want old Ray Allen or do you want to hope/wish/pray that Tracy McGrady or Michael Redd opts and can give you something without falling to the ground as if he was sprayed by bullets from an AK-47? If you can find a way to replicate JJ with a better player or a collection of better players that the Notorious A.S.G. can actually sign, I'm all ears.

[Sothron]

no man walking this earth deserves to make $20 million dollars per year.

I'm not giving him a penny over $15 million.

lol what are you a communist? Do you even know what a free market is?

[HawkItus]

lol what are you a communist? Do you even know what a free market is?

Exactly. Not to mention he has no problem with the owners who make considerably more.

[AHF]

I feel salaries should be viewed in relative, not absolute terms. I think this is were we differ. With yrs of service being equal, Lebron and Joe just shouldn't be paid the same. It shouldn't matter what a player is worth in free, open market. Lebron is a better player than joe, so therefore, he should be compensted more no matter what the salary cap is. Lebron may be worth 35 mil, but he is not going to get it, he can only get 23mil. If Joe was worth 23 mil in a open market, it wouldn't be the max a team was willing to pay for a player. Since Bron's salary is held artificial low, it should apply to Joe as well. (BTW, I love healthy debate)

Taking that to the extreme, are you saying JJ should get less than $6.05M next season since that is Durant's salary and Durant is better than JJ or are you buying into salary caps for rookies and just not buying into them for veterans?

Assuming the latter and that you don't believe in relative payment when it comes to rookie contract players, your position you wouldn't pay max money for Dwayne Wade or Dwight Howard. Lebron is a better player than Wade and Howard and should be compensated more no matter what the salary cap is. In turn, Wade and Howard are better players than Chris Paul and Deron Williams and so Wade and Howard should receive less than the max and Paul and Deron should receive less than Wade and Howard, and so on and so forth.

If we had this salary cap structure back in the early 90's, you would have argued against giving Hakeem Olajuwon a max contract because Jordan was a better player and therefore Hakeem should be paid less.

I think that is crazy. Guys like Hakeem, Howard, Wade, etc. should absolutely be getting the maximum salary even though they are clearly not as good as the league's top player. You cannot argue for max deals for those guys if you truly believe what you are saying about "relative" pay scales. Once you stop making relative comparisons you have abandoned the fundamental principle of your argument and you are arbitrarily line drawing. On the other hand, if you think that Wade and Howard are both exactly the equal of Lebron, then I understand how you could group them together.

I fundamentally can't buy into that concept. I don't know how you can reconcile your view of "relative" salaries with the fact that the league is artificially capping the salaries of the players who would make the most in a free market while that same structure does not in any way depress or cap the salaries of (non-rookie contract) players who are worth equal to or less than the maximum salary in a free market. Lebron's salary is a functino of the caps in the CBA and is independent of what he could negotiate and is well below his maximum bargaining power in a free market JJ's salary is going to be at or near the max and represent all or nearly all of his bargaining power in a free market environment. How is doing a relative comparison of those players comparing apples to apples when one player's salary will be based on his market leverage and the other player's contract will be based on the CBA? Raise the max contract in the CBA to $30M and JJ would not get that. Lebron would in a second. It is apples to oranges because the factors that are used by GMs to arrive at the right salary figure are totally different for Lebron and JJ.

[wfhawkfan]

Taking that to the extreme, are you saying JJ should get less than $6.05M next season since that is Durant's salary and Durant is better than JJ or are you buying into salary caps for rookies and just not buying into them for veterans?

Assuming the latter and that you don't believe in relative payment when it comes to rookie contract players, your position you wouldn't pay max money for Dwayne Wade or Dwight Howard. Lebron is a better player than Wade and Howard and should be compensated more no matter what the salary cap is. In turn, Wade and Howard are better players than Chris Paul and Deron Williams and so Wade and Howard should receive less than the max and Paul and Deron should receive less than Wade and Howard, and so on and so forth.

If we had this salary cap structure back in the early 90's, you would have argued against giving Hakeem Olajuwon a max contract because Jordan was a better player and therefore Hakeem should be paid less.

I think that is crazy. Guys like Hakeem, Howard, Wade, etc. should absolutely be getting the maximum salary even though they are clearly not as good as the league's top player. You cannot argue for max deals for those guys if you truly believe what you are saying about "relative" pay scales. Once you stop making relative comparisons you have abandoned the fundamental principle of your argument and you are arbitrarily line drawing. On the other hand, if you think that Wade and Howard are both exactly the equal of Lebron, then I understand how you could group them together.

I fundamentally can't buy into that concept. I don't know how you can reconcile your view of "relative" salaries with the fact that the league is artificially capping the salaries of the players who would make the most in a free market while that same structure does not in any way depress or cap the salaries of (non-rookie contract) players who are worth equal to or less than the maximum salary in a free market. Lebron's salary is a functino of the caps in the CBA and is independent of what he could negotiate and is well below his maximum bargaining power in a free market JJ's salary is going to be at or near the max and represent all or nearly all of his bargaining power in a free market environment. How is doing a relative comparison of those players comparing apples to apples when one player's salary will be based on his market leverage and the other player's contract will be based on the CBA? Raise the max contract in the CBA to $30M and JJ would not get that. Lebron would in a second. It is apples to oranges because the factors that are used by GMs to arrive at the right salary figure are totally different for Lebron and JJ.

A respect to yrs of service was included in my post. Durant obviously can't get paid more than Joe yet, but when it comes up in 3-5 yrs, he will get max. All im saying is, if a player is not good enough to be the centerpiece of a champ. caliber team, then he shouldn't be paid max. I listed a group of players who I think are max guys in my first of this thread. If I am paying somebody the maximum amount they are able to receive, I at least want a decent chance at receiving the maximum return

[GameTime]

Whether JJ deserves the max is beside the point. Do we think that this team can win it all? Because Horford may very well be a Top 5 player in his position by next year (if not already) and will want max as well.

Edited April 28, 2010 by GameTime

[LordOfNYork]

god I hope knicks don't fall sucker to this guy. He'll get eaten alive in the city baby!! His best choice is to stay in ATL or play with Wade. He's a #2 and it's nothing wrong with that

[mrhonline]

For me, it's quite simple.

1. This team as constructed is not skilled enough to win an NBA championship.

2. The AS will not pay the luxury tax.

3. Re-signing JJ to max money will financially limit this team's options moving forward.

4. The Hawks have only three assets that could be moved to dramatically change the direction of the franchise: Joe Johnson, Al Horford, Josh Smith

My solution? Sign-and-trade Joe Johnson for some combination of the following:

1. A scorer on the wing (e.g., Caron Butler).

2. Draft picks

3. Young players

4. Financial flexibility (e.g., Erick Dampier's contract)

5. Salary dump of either Bibby or Marvin

For me, if "competitive" is all that the Hawks can muster for the next 3-4 years, I'd prefer to do that with Horford/Smith/Crawford + assets acquired in a S&T than with the current roster.

[ngc7]

Here's a new question i havent seen asked yet.

If we let Joe walk. When will the money he was gonna get (lets say almost max money) be there for us to use? I know it will not be there next season but will it ever be there to use? If not then we give him whatever he wants. Plan and simple.

[Diesel]

I feel salaries should be viewed in relative, not absolute terms. I think this is were we differ. With yrs of service being equal, Lebron and Joe just shouldn't be paid the same. It shouldn't matter what a player is worth in free, open market. Lebron is a better player than joe, so therefore, he should be compensted more no matter what the salary cap is. Lebron may be worth 35 mil, but he is not going to get it, he can only get 23mil. If Joe was worth 23 mil in a open market, it wouldn't be the max a team was willing to pay for a player. Since Bron's salary is held artificial low, it should apply to Joe as well. (BTW, I love healthy debate)

Uhm... The only reason Lebron isn't getting 35 million is because of the cap.

Lebron has to be paid within the cap structure. (Period).

Some May feel the same way about Dirk and Mello... How dare they be paid the same as Lebron.

The problem is that you can't look at it relative to other players. There's a limiting force in the Salary. You have to base it upon how important is he to your team.

Cleveland is going to offer Lebron the most that they can because that is how much he is worth to their team.

Do you believe that Joe is not worth that much to our team?? I can't understand how you can see us in the playoffs over the last 3 yrs and not see Joe Johnson showing up and carrying us.

[Diesel]

For me, it's quite simple.

1. This team as constructed is not skilled enough to win an NBA championship.

2. The AS will not pay the luxury tax.

3. Re-signing JJ to max money will financially limit this team's options moving forward.

4. The Hawks have only three assets that could be moved to dramatically change the direction of the franchise: Joe Johnson, Al Horford, Josh Smith

My solution? Sign-and-trade Joe Johnson for some combination of the following:

1. A scorer on the wing (e.g., Caron Butler).

2. Draft picks

3. Young players

4. Financial flexibility (e.g., Erick Dampier's contract)

5. Salary dump of either Bibby or Marvin

For me, if "competitive" is all that the Hawks can muster for the next 3-4 years, I'd prefer to do that with Horford/Smith/Crawford + assets acquired in a S&T than with the current roster.

That's about as logical as giving away a $5,000,000 winning lottery ticket for 200 $25,000,000 lottery tickets when the odds are 10,000,000 to 1.

What we should do is dump salaries of Marvin & Bibby... But be Smart about it.

Resign Chillz.

Address our bigs and toughness.

BUT resign Joe.. First and foremost.

You know what has struck me about this whole conversation?

Nobody has mention us going after Joe and Wade or Joe and Bosh?

Why not?

A few years ago, I made a post called "Welfare mentality".

Letting your star walk and trying to SNT him for smaller pieces and draft picks = Welfare Mentality.

[mrhonline]

That's about as logical as giving away a $5,000,000 winning lottery ticket for 200 $25,000,000 lottery tickets when the odds are 10,000,000 to 1.

Except the Hawks don't have a winning lottery ticket. They've got four of the six winning numbers, but that's pretty darn useless, isn't it?

What we should do is dump salaries of Marvin & Bibby... But be Smart about it.

Who in this market would take on Marvin or Bibby in a salary dump unless they were getting some major incentive (read: Joe Johnson)?

[Diesel]

Except the Hawks don't have a winning lottery ticket. They've got four of the six winning numbers, but that's pretty darn useless, isn't it?

The Heat are now out of the playoffs. Do you think they're saying... Let's trade Wade for some lesser players and draft picks so that we can start rebuilding without him. His salary would prevent us from building around him...

Do you think that's the conversation in Pat Riley's office?

Who in this market would take on Marvin or Bibby in a salary dump unless they were getting some major incentive (read: Joe Johnson)?

Like I said, we have to be smart about it. Both Bibby and Marvin have value to the right teams. Many teams need a good vet BU PG. Many teams would like a defensive Sf. We shouldn't not look to trade these guys.

[NineOhTheRino]

lol what are you a communist? Do you even know what a free market is?

i never said he should not be allowed to make it.

[mrhonline]

The Heat are now out of the playoffs. Do you think they're saying... Let's trade Wade for some lesser players and draft picks so that we can start rebuilding without him. His salary would prevent us from building around him...

Do you think that's the conversation in Pat Riley's office?

1. Wade is a FAR better player than JJ.

2. The Heat have shown a willingness to pay the luxury tax.

Any other ridiculous analogies?

[Diesel]

1. Wade is a FAR better player than JJ.

2. The Heat have shown a willingness to pay the luxury tax.

Any other ridiculous analogies?

The Truth = Wade without Shaq = First round playoff Exit AT BEST.

The point is that we are making assumption of what our owners will do. I think when you consider that we have a championship quality player (not that he singlehandedly can win one) but that he is good enough to get us into the championship picture (with help)...You don't just give that up for Hope and pieces.