Why is it Never Mentioned that D Wade is 28?

[Jungle Jack]

Hello,

For all of the grief the Hawks have been getting for signing a 29 Year Old JJ for a Max Contract, I have not read a single mention of the fact that Wade is only 1 Year younger than JJ. I am not saying that Wade is not the better Player, but JJ has no real injury history to speak of while Wade has often been hurt.

It really has been frustrating to read all of the bashing of the Hawks for signing JJ when not a single "expert" thought the ASG would even offer him the Max. Moreover, in spite of winning 53 Games and being the 3 Seed, we are not even in the discussion of Eastern Conference contenders when we have retained our core and field one of the youngest Teams in the NBA.

Prior to the ASG offering JJ the Max, all stories spoke about how dysfunctional our Front Office is, yet since Sund has been here, the ASG has retained every Player with the exception of Childress. It is just so frustrating that the National Media has given the Hawks no respect whatsoever. Choosing instead to berate us for signing a 4 time All Star to a Max Contract who is only 1 year older than Wade.

Cheers,

JJ

[hazer]

Don't rely on the thoughts, comments, writing of others as the basis for your own satisfaction. I personally enjoy being underestimated year after year :headphones:

[RedDawg#8]

I agree, if any player is more likely to decline due to age at the end of their contract, it will be Wade before Joe.

As far as the media goes, I think they along with some of us here, look at the franchise and can see it isnt the prototypical model that the league is used to, both in the front office and on the court, and their arent any "STAR" figures within our organization outside of Nique that they are in bed with.

What I dont get tho, is how the Hawks get a rep similar to the Falcons in terms of "losing history" (or if you want to use an NBA team then the Clippers). We historically arent a losing franchise. We may have had those many years of futility early this decade but we tend to have always had playoff caliber teams throughout our existece. In spite, its like ppl are actually waiting for us to go "back to irrelevancy" but actually, we have always been relevant in the NBA.

Edited July 9, 2010 by RedDawg#8

[High5]

The upside to having Wade on your team is much, much higher than having Joe on your team.

[Packfill]

I think Wade's age and injury history have been noted as potential concerns by ESPN and the like. I think the reason it is not discussed more prominently is because of Wade's unquestioned ability now and the fact that there is not a franchise in the NBA that would not give Wade a max deal now if it had the cap space to do so.

[BudBall]

Wade is better that's why

[clicklandshopping]

I agree, if any player is more likely to decline due to age at the end of their contract, it will be Wade before Joe.

As far as the media goes, I think they along with some of us here, look at the franchise and can see it isnt the prototypical model that the league is used to, both in the front office and on the court, and their arent any "STAR" figures within our organization outside of Nique that they are in bed with.

What I dont get tho, is how the Hawks get a rep similar to the Falcons in terms of "losing history" (or if you want to use an NBA team then the Clippers). We historically arent a losing franchise. We may have had those many years of futility early this decade but we tend to have always had playoff caliber teams throughout our existece. In spite, its like ppl are actually waiting for us to go "back to irrelevancy" but actually, we have always been relevant in the NBA.

Very true statement! Speaking for myself, I think we should keep everyone intact and see how LD can utilize them. I get frustrated as anyone else about some of our players, but we have a good nucleus of players and we just need a few more pieces. Lets try and add pieces. I think if we could get more hustle out of all of our players, we would not need anyone.

[red2play]

Wade is better that's why

And not by a little. More like by leaps and bounds. Oh yeah, and he's given the Heat a Championship AND brought Lebron and Bosh.

[KB21]

I agree, if any player is more likely to decline due to age at the end of their contract, it will be Wade before Joe.

As far as the media goes, I think they along with some of us here, look at the franchise and can see it isnt the prototypical model that the league is used to, both in the front office and on the court, and their arent any "STAR" figures within our organization outside of Nique that they are in bed with.

What I dont get tho, is how the Hawks get a rep similar to the Falcons in terms of "losing history" (or if you want to use an NBA team then the Clippers). We historically arent a losing franchise. We may have had those many years of futility early this decade but we tend to have always had playoff caliber teams throughout our existece. In spite, its like ppl are actually waiting for us to go "back to irrelevancy" but actually, we have always been relevant in the NBA.

This.

From 1980-1999, the Hawks only had 3 losing seasons.

[Jungle Jack]

The upside to having Wade on your team is much, much higher than having Joe on your team.

Hello,

In my original Post, I stated that Wade was a better Player. My point is that his age has barely been mentioned while JJ's is constantly mentioned. Moreover, we have been successful against the Heat in the Playoffs against the Wade led Heat.

I realize with the Heat adding Bosh and LBJ, this is an entirely different Team. I am glad to see Beasley leave the Conference as he definitely gave Smoove problems for whatever reason. I also think Beasley still has the potential to be All Star.

I wish we would have given up a 2nd Rounder to get him as look what we got with this Year's 2nd Round Pick.

In a sense, we had no problem against the Heat. The Raptors with Bosh were not relevant and we got the shaft when playing the Cavs last Season. I realize with all 3 together, it changes everything. However, it is hard to see the Heat having much depth due to spending so much on the three.

Cheers,

JJ

[dlpin]

Well, one of the reasons people mention Wade's age less often is because minutes matter as much as age:

Wade 17717

Johnson 25794

8000 minutes is a HUGE difference. So while Wade is just 1 year and a half younger than Joe Johnson, he has played the equivalent to more than three seasons LESS than Johnson.

[Atlantaholic]

A "declining" Wade is still better than Joe Johnson in his prime. Injuries could be a concern though.

[Johnnybravo4]

Honestly I think that If you put JJ on the Heat championship team they still win. The good thing about JJ is that his skills aren't dependent on athleticism like Wade's is. Wade is pretty undersized and it will become apparent when he can no longer blow by people.

s

[Jungle Jack]

A "declining" Wade is still better than Joe Johnson in his prime. Injuries could be a concern though.

Hello,

I really am a big fan of Wade, but what has the Heat accomplished since Shaq left? I realize it is an entirely different situation now, but the Heat have not been relevant since Shaq left until now. While LBJ has done irreparable damage to his image, he still led the Cav's to the best Regular Season Record last year. This a team now considered not able to make the Playoffs without him. I suppose the same can be said of the Heat without Wade and was said if we lost JJ.

Again, I am not disputing that Wade is a better Player. However, JJ is pretty darn good and if any other Team had signed him to a 5 Year/100 Million Dollar Contract, I really do not think there would be any criticism. I cannot believe I am defending JJ as he is absolutely my least favorite Hawk. It is just I cannot believe how harsh the reaction has been to the ASG giving him a Max Contract.

Cheers,

JJ

[RedDawg#8]

Well, one of the reasons people mention Wade's age less often is because minutes matter as much as age:

Wade 17717

Johnson 25794

8000 minutes is a HUGE difference. So while Wade is just 1 year and a half younger than Joe Johnson, he has played the equivalent to more than three seasons LESS than Johnson.

But if you go there, you have to note that the reason Wade has so many fewer minutes is because he has missed so many games over his career due to injury.

Out of a possible 574 games, Wade has only played in 471 or 82% of them, missing approximately 60+ games to injury in 7 seasons. On the otherhand, Joe has played in 699 games out of a possible 738 or roughly 95% of them, missing about 30 games to injury in 9 seasons.

Wade, 37.6mpg, also has avg. more minutes per game than Joe, 36.9/

So in short, Joe has played more minutes than Wade because for 1, he had a two season advantage, but 2, he has proven to the more durable player even at an older age. Wade's style of play suggests that he will continue to suffer injuries in the future while Joe really has only had 1 major injury in his career. So again Wade is the Better player, but in 5 years he will be the one closer to the end of his career while Joe will still be making his living shooting from the outside.

[Jungle Jack]

Hello,

I meant to point out that disparity in minutes due to injury as well. Also, JJ is about 3 inches taller which allows him to play more positions than Wade. I realize that JJ's performance in the Playoffs has been lackluster, but hopefully LD's new Offensive System will change that. Given JJ's size and all around game, he should be a matchup nightmare. Hopefully, with a real Offensive Plan beyond ISO Joe, he will be. Moreover, in a 7 Game Series, Teams spend more time scheming to shutdown the best Player.

With the continued maturation of Horford, Smith, and hopefully Williams, I really like our Team. I am cautiously optimistic about Jordan Crawford and really think Jamal Crawford will be even better as he is in a Contract Year. Again, I just do not understand why the Hawks are getting absolutely no mention of being a contender. Due to Boston's Playoff appearance, they have seemed to leapfrog us in all discussions. In spite of the fact that an already old core is going to be another year older.

Cheers,

JJ

[KB21]

Well, one of the reasons people mention Wade's age less often is because minutes matter as much as age:

Wade 17717

Johnson 25794

8000 minutes is a HUGE difference. So while Wade is just 1 year and a half younger than Joe Johnson, he has played the equivalent to more than three seasons LESS than Johnson.

Realize that Dwyane has played almost 3 fewer seasons than Joe Johnson. Joe came into the league back in 2001, while Wade was drafted in 2003. Dwyane Wade has also missed significant time with injuries, whereas Joe hasn't. Dwyane has played 471 career regular seasons games and 66 playoff games in his 7 year career.

[KB21]

But if you go there, you have to note that the reason Wade has so many fewer minutes is because he has missed so many games over his career due to injury.

Out of a possible 574 games, Wade has only played in 471 or 82% of them, missing approximately 60+ games to injury in 7 seasons. On the otherhand, Joe has played in 699 games out of a possible 738 or roughly 95% of them, missing about 30 games to injury in 9 seasons.

Wade, 37.6mpg, also has avg. more minutes per game than Joe, 36.9/

So in short, Joe has played more minutes than Wade because for 1, he had a two season advantage, but 2, he has proven to the more durable player even at an older age. Wade's style of play suggests that he will continue to suffer injuries in the future while Joe really has only had 1 major injury in his career. So again Wade is the Better player, but in 5 years he will be the one closer to the end of his career while Joe will still be making his living shooting from the outside.

Good stuff. Wade is the better player now, but because his style is based upon athleticism and his ability to draw contact, his decline will be a lot sharper than Joe Johnson's. While it is likely that both players will decline, I wouldn't be surprised to see Joe as the more effective player when he's 33 and DWade is 32.

[dlpin]

First, Wade's injuries so far haven't been of the chronic, life long sort, so I don't see him getting injured that much in the future.

Second, while Wade relies more on athleticism than JJ, there is also a minimum level of athleticism required to play as a guard in the NBA. Bibby never relied much on athleticism and yet see how far he has fallen in a short period of time.

I mean, you can't seriously tell me that right now, assuming max contract for both, you wouldn't want to have Wade over JJ for the next 6 years. Even if the choice is between a 32 year old Wade over a 34 year old JJ.