Can someone tell me

[sasuke]

Why in the word Sund signed a 29 year old 2nd option who's almost exiting his prime to a max deal? Wasn't better to S&T him to NY for Chandler & TPE or just the TPE to later on take a younger player or perhaps a same age player with a smaller contract? If this is a small market with not so good attendance which causes you to run away from the luxury tax but still pretending to make the team a contending one.....WHY???????????????????

PS: I hope he's not thinking about letting Crawford's contract expires with nothing in return just to avoid the tax, cz that will make the JJ move look even more stupid.

[AHF]

You can find a lot of threads on this subject. My guess is that many posters won't want to rehash the discussions here. I would either do a search and go back to the weeks following the signing for some detailed discussion.

Welcome to the Squawk!

[Swatguy]

Why in the word Sund signed a 29 year old 2nd option who's almost exiting his prime to a max deal? Wasn't better to S&T him to NY for Chandler & TPE or just the TPE to later on take a younger player or perhaps a same age player with a smaller contract? If this is a small market with not so good attendance which causes you to run away from the luxury tax but still pretending to make the team a contending one.....WHY???????????????????

PS: I hope he's not thinking about letting Crawford's contract expires with nothing in return just to avoid the tax, cz that will make the JJ move look even more stupid.

Actually Atlanta is not a "small market". Atlanta is the 9th laregest market and a half million (10%) away from the 4th largest market (Philadelphia). I suspect there is apt opportunity for Sund to revisit Joe and Trade offers. Joe's injury/surgery have hampered these talks I'm sure.

[macdaddy]

We need Joe. That's the bottom line. Its a misconception that he is untradeable.

[tremor]

We need Joe. That's the bottom line. Its a misconception that he is untradeable.

True. There are teams willing to pay any money for top talent, even if it's second tier. As soon as Hawks announce that JJ is for sale teams like NY, NJ, Dallas, maybe Orlando (they consider bringing Arenas) stand in the line to get him.

[niremetal]

Why in the word Sund signed a 29 year old 2nd option who's almost exiting his prime to a max deal? Wasn't better to S&T him to NY for Chandler & TPE or just the TPE to later on take a younger player or perhaps a same age player with a smaller contract? If this is a small market with not so good attendance which causes you to run away from the luxury tax but still pretending to make the team a contending one.....WHY???????????????????

PS: I hope he's not thinking about letting Crawford's contract expires with nothing in return just to avoid the tax, cz that will make the JJ move look even more stupid.

I thought this type of thread had gone the way of pet rocks and Hannah Montana, but some people can't keep up with the times. So I'll at least try to contribute something new, while linking to past posts on some issues to avoid rehashing old arguments.

Here is a list of players to make the last 4 straight All-Star teams, with their age as of this opening night in parentheses:

Chauncey Billups (34)

Chris Bosh (26)

Kobe Bryant (32)

Tim Duncan (34)

Kevin Garnett (34)

Dwight Howard (24)

Allen Iverson (35)

LeBron James (25)

Dirk Nowitzki (32)

Amare Stoudemire (27)

Dwyane Wade (28)

...and of course...

Joe Johnson (29)

So out of that group of 12 players, Joe is 6th youngest.

If you expand that list to include guys who made the team last year and 2 of the 3 preceding years, these guys would be added to the list:

Jason Kidd (37)

Steve Nash (36)

Paul Pierce (33)

Pau Gasol (30)

Brandon Roy (26)

Carmelo Anthony (26)

Chris Paul (25)

Out of that combined group of 19 players, Joe is 9th youngest. In other words, Joe is slightly younger than the median perennial All-Star from the past 4 seasons. No one here is arguing that Joe Johnson is as good as Paul or Wade (much less LeBron or Kobe), but I certainly would argue that he falls in the same category as guys like Gasol, Garnett, Billups, Stoudemire, and Pierce (all of whom are max or near-max players) - not guys who can carry a team to the Finals alone, but capable of being a "co-alpha dog" alongside a couple other players of similar perennial All-Star quality players (like Billups/Pierce/Garnett) or the "beta dog" alongside 1 player of superstar quality (like Gasol or Stoudemire).

The idea that Joe is due to fade with age has been played out over and over and, near as I can tell, is mainly supported by superficially appealing comparisons between JJ and swingmen from the days of yore who faded after the age of ~30. The problem I have with such arguments is that the groupings they make are inherently arbitrary. The above list of perennial All-Stars should indicate that it's certainly possible to play at a high level well into your 30s. Joe's iron man playing record (his current injury is not structural and shouldn't turn into a chronic problem) and the fact that he relies on his athleticism way less than most swingmen should bode well for him to stand the test of time.

As for the idea that only super-duper-alpha-and-the-omega-dog type of players are the only ones who should get max contracts, that's absurd. The fact that Gasol, Rashard, Garnett/Allen/Pierce, Vince, and Kirilenko are (or, in the case of Allen and Pierce, were until 6 months ago) max or barely-below-max players on contending teams should tell you that's not true. The max is an artificial cap on player's salaries, not a magic number that signals that all players making that amount must be of comparable quality. If it were, no one but LeBron and Kobe would get the max.

Edited December 8, 2010 by niremetal

[macdaddy]

I thought this type of thread had gone the way of pet rocks and Hannah Montana, but some people can't keep up with the times. So I'll at least try to contribute something new, but will simply link to past posts on some issues to avoid rehashing old arguments.

Here is a list of players to make the last 4 straight All-Star teams, with their age as of this opening night in parentheses:

Chauncey Billups (34)

Chris Bosh (26)

Kobe Bryant (32)

Tim Duncan (34)

Kevin Garnett (34)

Dwight Howard (24)

Allen Iverson (35)

LeBron James (25)

Dirk Nowitzki (32)

Amare Stoudemire (27)

Dwyane Wade (28)

...and of course...

Joe Johnson (29)

So out of that group of 12 players, Joe is 6th youngest.

If you expand that list to include guys who made the team last year and 2 of the 3 preceding years, these guys would be added to the list:

Jason Kidd (37)

Steve Nash (36)

Paul Pierce (33)

Pau Gasol (30)

Brandon Roy (26)

Carmelo Anthony (26)

Chris Paul (25)

Out of that combined group of 19 players, Joe is 9th youngest. In other words, Joe is slightly younger than the median perennial All-Star from the past 4 seasons. No one here is arguing that Joe Johnson is as good as Paul or Wade (much less LeBron or Kobe), I certainly would argue that he falls in the same category as guys like Gasol, Garnett, Billups, Stoudemire, and Pierce (all of whom are max or near-max players) - not guys who can carry a team to the Finals alone, but capable of being a "co-alpha dog" alongside a couple other players of similar perennial All-Star quality (like Billups/Pierce/Garnett) or the "beta dog" alongside 1 player of superstar quality (like Gasol or Stoudemire).

The idea that Joe is due to fade with age has been played out over and over and, near as I can tell, is mainly supported by superficially appealing comparisons between JJ and swingmen from the days of yore who faded after the age of ~30. The problem I have with such arguments is that the groupings they make are inherently arbitrary. The above list of perennial All-Stars should indicate that it's certainly possible to play at a high level well into your 30s. Joe's iron man playing record (his current injury is not structural and shouldn't turn into a chronic problem) and the fact that he relies on his athleticism way less than most swingmen should bode well for him to stand the test of time.

As for the idea that only super-duper-alpha-and-the-omega-dog type of players are the only ones who should get max contracts, that's absurd. The fact that Gasol, Rashard, Garnett/Allen/Pierce, Vince, and Kirilenko are (or, in the case of Allen and Pierce, were until 6 months ago) max or barely-below-max players on contending teams should tell you that's not true. The max is an artificial cap on player's salaries, not a magic number that signals that all players making that amount must be of comparable quality. If it were, no one but LeBron and Kobe would get the max.

Dude, you are on fire lately with your posts. I hope that doesn't signal you are out of work or something. You should start a blog.

I agree with this totally and $125 million is a lot but how much less would we have been able to sign Joe for. Lets say in theory we still would have been able to keep him for $100 million over 5 years. Or even $90. The savings per year amounts to about what we pay Zaza or less. Its a lot but its not like its burying us. If we decide to trade him sometime then the impact of that 'max' deal is not that huge.

To me the biggest negative of a deal like that would be in lost opportunity to bring in better talent and I don't see where that was happening.

[niremetal]

Dude, you are on fire lately with your posts. I hope that doesn't signal you are out of work or something. You should start a blog.

Ha! Nah. I just finished a big assignment at work and am taking a couple days to decompress. As for my own blog, I tried that once (it was a political blog). It didn't work out.

Edited December 8, 2010 by niremetal

[Diesel]

Why in the word Sund signed a 29 year old 2nd option who's almost exiting his prime to a max deal? Wasn't better to S&T him to NY for Chandler & TPE or just the TPE to later on take a younger player or perhaps a same age player with a smaller contract? If this is a small market with not so good attendance which causes you to run away from the luxury tax but still pretending to make the team a contending one.....WHY???????????????????

PS: I hope he's not thinking about letting Crawford's contract expires with nothing in return just to avoid the tax, cz that will make the JJ move look even more stupid.

Momentum.

Joe's not close to being done and we have a big problem recruiting stars to come here. If the Shaq debacle doesn't prove that, then you're blind. Let's consider the opposite. Life without Joe. I suppose we'd still be about .500. However, we would have lost trade and player value for nothing. BTW, Chandler sucked at the time. Chandler sucked so much that Dallas signed Heywood to a big contract. Chandler's just fortunate that Heywood got hurt early because Heywood was the projected starter.

The other thing is that our attendance sucks, but without Joe, it would suck even worse. Don't be fooled, right now, we're beating weak teams. The good teams are coming. Hopefully, we can roll along until Joe is healthy and he can come back and give us Joe time again.

As far as the notion that Joe is not a good player: He's a good ball handler, defender, and scorer. These are things tha McGrady never were at the same time. We paid Joe because he is all that and a 4 time allstar. The only 4 time allstar that we have had since Nique. It's the price of having a high calibre player.

[Randy]

Looks like we will get the chance to see what life w.o. Joe would look like. And if he heals up good, we can hopefully see what it looks like with him.