To the Joe Haters....

[Diesel]

You all who say that you want to trade Joe because he's not a #1 option..

let me ask.

What #1 option will you trade him for?

You bringing back Kobe?

You bringing back Wade?

I really am interested in knowing how you plan to replace our #1 option with the standards that you have set for the #1 option?

According to what I'm reading from you all.. he has to be a guy who can lead us to a championship. (I have seen this more than 1 time).

Since we're in this game to win the championship...

What #1 are you eying with Joe's contract.

Or do you think we don't need a #1?

Is really simple...

Share with us your #1 option plan... or say... We don't need a #1 option!

[buckeye242424]

There's a lot of grey area when defining a number one option. I'm not exactly sure what constitutes being labeled a number one option? Is it the teams best player? Is it the guy that averages the most points? Is it the most talented player?

Clearly - LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Durant, Dirk, Rose fall into the category of a number one option. We're not getting any of those guys.

Is Melo? How about Danny Granger, is he considered a number one option? I'm not exactly sure...

I'm with Diesel. If we trade Joe, what talent are we going to get back that matches his? How are we going to get better if we lose him. I'm not talking salary relief, I'm talking on the court....

[MaceCase]

One has to ask themselves and remember this glaring issue though, what number option was Joe before he arrived in Atlanta? We paid a 4th option number 1 option money and he did his best to fill that role despite not touching elite superstar status and for that I'm sure all are grateful but the mistake that was made was to continue to pay him superstar money despite knowing that he will never achieve that status. My question is this, why couldn't we have repeated that same process? Why couldn't we have identified a Marcus Thornton, Nick Young, JR Smith, Wes Matthews, Arron Afflalo, Michael Beasley, etc. etc, etc.? All players with superior shot creating skills and talent that were traded for peanuts or will be available free agents. All players that are not considered #1 options currently but could develop into that role if given the same responsibility and confidence that Joe was. See the fallacy here is that you are trying to argue what top flight option was available instead of or for Joe when the reality is that through scouting, gut instinct, or plain dumb luck we could have rolled the dice and found a young player on the cusp of stardom similar to how we found Joe in the first place.

[willthepureshooter]

One has to ask themselves and remember this glaring issue though, what number option was Joe before he arrived in Atlanta? We paid a 4th option number 1 option money and he did his best to fill that role despite not touching elite superstar status and for that I'm sure all are grateful but the mistake that was made was to continue to pay him superstar money despite knowing that he will never achieve that status. My question is this, why couldn't we have repeated that same process? Why couldn't we have identified a Marcus Thornton, Nick Young, JR Smith, Wes Matthews, Arron Afflalo, Michael Beasley, etc. etc, etc.? All players with superior shot creating skills and talent that were traded for peanuts or will be available free agents. All players that are not considered #1 options currently but could develop into that role if given the same responsibility and confidence that Joe was. See the fallacy here is that you are trying to argue what top flight option was available instead of or for Joe when the reality is that through scouting, gut instinct, or plain dumb luck we could have rolled the dice and found a young player on the cusp of stardom similar to how we found Joe in the first place.

The reason we don't look at those guys as a #1 is because they're streaky and barely #2's on their respective teams.

[Joker]

There's a lot of grey area when defining a number one option. I'm not exactly sure what constitutes being labeled a number one option? Is it the teams best player? Is it the guy that averages the most points? Is it the most talented player?

Clearly - LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Durant, Dirk, Rose fall into the category of a number one option. We're not getting any of those guys.

Is Melo? How about Danny Granger, is he considered a number one option? I'm not exactly sure...

I'm with Diesel. If we trade Joe, what talent are we going to get back that matches his? How are we going to get better if we lose him. I'm not talking salary relief, I'm talking on the court....

I really don't think trading Joe is an option like trading Marvin. Not that it's the same situation but those guys either don't have value or their value is greatly diminished. Al Horford is untouchable unless the price is Dwight. Josh Smith is our best asset that's truly tradable but Jeff Teague is our asset that has the most value after Al. Teague as the main piece will get us CP3, not Smith. Smith would be a salary and stat guy for a team like New Orleans. The problem with Teague only a few teams need PG's and depending on the team is how high they will rate Teague from my understanding when talking to others. We can get a lot from Portland, LAL, New Orleans if CP3 on the block, and Phoenix for Teague as the main piece. Otherwise, Smith value is stable. It's not rangy from franchise to franchise like Jeff's is. But it's not really high for his caliber. Guys like Rondo, Noah, who are the same talent value as Smith are worth more on the market. Smith is worth what a good player in a position that's not a big is worth. His value is slightly higher than Devin Harris.

Edited May 26, 2011 by nbasuperstar40

[MaceCase]

The reason we don't look at those guys as a #1 is because they're streaky and barely #2's on their respective teams.

Those guys are just examples and you missed my point entirely. What option and what characteristics did Joe display in Phoenix to warrant him a max contract and literally the keys to the franchise? We are discussing Joe now but what exactly was he at the age of 24 when we first inked him? He was the very definition of an average player that did not display any efficiency until his contract year.

[Joker]

Those guys are just examples and you missed my point entirely. What option and what characteristics did Joe display in Phoenix to warrant him a max contract and literally the keys to the franchise? We are discussing Joe now but what exactly was he at the age of 24 when we first inked him? He was the very definition of an average player that did not display any efficiency until his contract year.

Stats and talent. He was worth that deal. Is he worth this deal? Well it depends what Atlanta puts around Joe since he's a mainstay. If things stay the same, he is not worth close to his deal. If we get a superstar, he is worth is deal. It's that simple for Joe. He didn't look average in Phoenix. He was very talented there. That much was visible like James Harden for the Thunder.

Edited May 26, 2011 by nbasuperstar40

[MaceCase]

Stats and talent. He was worth that deal. Is he worth this deal? Well it depends what Atlanta puts around Joe since he's a mainstay. If things stay the same, he is not worth close to his deal. If we get a superstar, he is worth is deal. It's that simple for Joe. He didn't look average in Phoenix. He was very talented there. That much was visible like James Harden for the Thunder.

Harden has put up a better season in his second year than Joe did up until he actually arrived in Atlanta. If you want to argue that Joe displayed better potential than production in Phoenix then also admit that the myriad of players I mentioned have also displayed great potential to go along with actual production. The reality of Joe's contract is that it will never look good because it severely hampers this team's and ownership's ability to actually acquire said superstar. The only way that is possible now is that a current member grows into that role or we manage to draft/trade/ sign on the cheap a similar type player to who I have mentioned. I just don't see any sweetheart deals as being available for Marvin so the whole "Joe will be fine once we acquire Paul and Dwight" argument is rather moot.

[Joker]

Harden has put up a better season in his second year than Joe did up until he actually arrived in Atlanta. If you want to argue that Joe displayed better potential than production in Phoenix then also admit that the myriad of players I mentioned have also displayed great potential to go along with actual production. The reality of Joe's contract is that it will never look good because it severely hampers this team's and ownership's ability to actually acquire said superstar. The only way that is possible now is that a current member grows into that role or we manage to draft/trade/ sign on the cheap a similar type player to who I have mentioned. I just don't see any sweetheart deals as being available for Marvin so the whole "Joe will be fine once we acquire Paul and Dwight" argument is rather moot.

We aren't getting a superstar without Joe. He's the one player that superstars WANT to play with. So to say he hampers it is a flat out lie. It is a moot point but the only one we can logically use until it's no longer a possibility.

[macdaddy]

For a Joe Johnson led team to be a contender we will need a second scorer who isn't Jamal. I know you don't like to talk about money but I just don't see us being able to pay a great post scorer and pay Joe and decent complements. If we could trade Joe and add 2-3 quality nba players I think we'd mesh better.

If money is no object then i'd keep him. Its like Chipper realized long ago. He could be an *ss and get paid 60% of the team's salary and finish 3rd every year or he could still be filthy rich and go to the playoffs because the team can afford complements. I'm not saying Joe could have done that because the NBA is different. Of course that's what they did in Miami right?

[MaceCase]

We aren't getting a superstar without Joe. He's the one player that superstars WANT to play with. So to say he hampers it is a flat out lie. It is a moot point but the only one we can logically use until it's no longer a possibility.

It's a lie? Are you serious? It's a lie? I guess the truth is that stars are lining up to take a massive paycut to play with Joe. Sure plenty of players would love to have Joe as their sidekick but at the expense of their own money? f*** outta here. It's moot point because it is entirely without logic, Nba.

[Joker]

It's a lie? Are you serious? It's a lie? I guess the truth is that stars are lining up to take a massive paycut to play with Joe. Sure plenty of players would love to have Joe as their sidekick but at the expense of their own money? f*** outta here. It's moot point because it is entirely without logic, Nba.

No, what I am saying is no one will sign with Atlanta without Joe being here. They just aren't that attractive of a team. With Joe, they are attractive. With Joe and Al, they are extremely attractive. We aren't going to have money to sign a top FA any time soon no matter what. They will sign an ext via trade. It's that simple.

Edited May 26, 2011 by nbasuperstar40

[Diesel]

One has to ask themselves and remember this glaring issue though, what number option was Joe before he arrived in Atlanta? We paid a 4th option number 1 option money and he did his best to fill that role despite not touching elite superstar status and for that I'm sure all are grateful but the mistake that was made was to continue to pay him superstar money despite knowing that he will never achieve that status. My question is this, why couldn't we have repeated that same process? Why couldn't we have identified a Marcus Thornton, Nick Young, JR Smith, Wes Matthews, Arron Afflalo, Michael Beasley, etc. etc, etc.? All players with superior shot creating skills and talent that were traded for peanuts or will be available free agents. All players that are not considered #1 options currently but could develop into that role if given the same responsibility and confidence that Joe was. See the fallacy here is that you are trying to argue what top flight option was available instead of or for Joe when the reality is that through scouting, gut instinct, or plain dumb luck we could have rolled the dice and found a young player on the cusp of stardom similar to how we found Joe in the first place.

Actually, there are two problems with your conception.

First.. Joe didn't barely fill the role. Joe is a freaking 5 time allstar. Voted in by coaches and not fans. Moreover, his skill on the court has not diminished as some may say. Compare his playoffs this year to any other year as a Hawk? You will find that he hasn't had a better playoffs. You know the games that really count. Joe Showed up better in this past playoffs than he has ever as a Hawk.

Second. You put up a group of Streaky players. Non of those Jokers has shown consistency with their current team. Some have been traded. Maybe traded twice.. and are still on shaky ground.

The other thing that you did not state is that we don't need a #1 option. That's what you're saying. Which begs the question why are we getting rid of Joe again?

[Diesel]

Those guys are just examples and you missed my point entirely. What option and what characteristics did Joe display in Phoenix to warrant him a max contract and literally the keys to the franchise? We are discussing Joe now but what exactly was he at the age of 24 when we first inked him? He was the very definition of an average player that did not display any efficiency until his contract year.

Joe was coming off of a season where he shot 47+% from three. He had played some PG and he had made himself indispensable to the Suns.

Here's a quote for you:

"Johnson's increasingly imminent departure is a coup for the desperate Hawks and an undeniable blow to the Suns, who have long considered the versatile swingman no less critical to last season's overwhelming success than any of their three All-Stars: Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion and Nash. Next to Nash, the league's newly minted MVP, Johnson was the only other dependable playmaker on a 62-win team and shot a deadly 47.8 percent from 3-point range."

Name of external link

"Landing Johnson, meanwhile, ranks as a huge catch for Hawks general manager Billy Knight, who has struggled since last summer to convert his considerable salary-cap space into a marquee acquisition. Having whiffed a year ago in its attempts to score free agents such as Kenyon Martin and Erick Dampier, Atlanta has been quietly optimistic that it would be able to import Johnson as a point guard to team with its cadre of young swingmen: Al Harrington, Josh Childress, Josh Smith and Marvin Williams, selected No. 2 overall in the recent draft."

The guys you listed are not where Joe was when he was in Phoenix. Joe played next to the League MVP and Stoudamire but that doesn't mean that he wasn't good.

For a Joe Johnson led team to be a contender we will need a second scorer who isn't Jamal. I know you don't like to talk about money but I just don't see us being able to pay a great post scorer and pay Joe and decent complements. If we could trade Joe and add 2-3 quality nba players I think we'd mesh better.

If money is no object then i'd keep him. Its like Chipper realized long ago. He could be an *ss and get paid 60% of the team's salary and finish 3rd every year or he could still be filthy rich and go to the playoffs because the team can afford complements. I'm not saying Joe could have done that because the NBA is different. Of course that's what they did in Miami right?

Mac, we have too many sacred cows...

True evaluating means that you point out what works and what doesn't work.

Right now.. Josh and Horf doesn't work.

Right now, Marvin doesn't work.

The things that work on this team are:

Joe, Hinrich, Jefferson, and Zaza. Those should be labeled untouchable and we move from there.

[mrhonline]

The obvious answer to your question is that the Hawks are going to have to draft that #1 option, which is why I would advocate a serious rebuild if you're going to dump JJ's contract off on some unlucky guy. IOW, you have to move Joe along with Josh Smith.

[AHF]

The things that work on this team are:

Joe, Hinrich, Jefferson, and Zaza. Those should be labeled untouchable and we move from there.

Jefferson?

Why should Hinrich and Zaza be labeled untouchable? Those guys are clearly movable, IMO. (All Hawks are movable but those two seem easily movable.)

[macdaddy]

Mac, we have too many sacred cows...

True evaluating means that you point out what works and what doesn't work.

Right now.. Josh and Horf doesn't work.

Right now, Marvin doesn't work.

The things that work on this team are:

Joe, Hinrich, Jefferson, and Zaza. Those should be labeled untouchable and we move from there.

I think Teague shows that promise that we really need to keep. Zaza brought the efffort in the playoffs. I'm not sure why you declare that Hinrich works. We've seen very little of him as a Hawk. Not sure why Joe 'works'? If anything the record shows that a Joe led team is a middle of the pack team. He looked good in some games in this past playoffs but he looked bad and made some bad mistakes at critical times in other games. Sure double-team and all that mumbo jumbo but that's why he's paid top dollar to be able to handle that.

[NekiEcko]

First of all, nobody on this team is untouchable for the right set of players, even JJ with his contract can be traded (Chicago would love to have him as their SG). I know that people will say that his contract is too much but if you are a team that needs a SG that can get you into the next level.

I believe that Joe was letting his contract play him this year then he paying for his contract. When you were getting paid more than Leboy, Wade, Bosh and even Kobe. People is going to look at you as a #1 option but he didnt perform to that level at all.

I think it was the contract, injuries, double teams and the new offense that was hurting his production alot. To me, he works better under like a Knicks or old Suns O that is totally chaos and not too many set plays, when he set his feet and double teams comes, he is too stiff and try to hold on to the ball for long periods of time then that will cause alot of trouble.

Did he deserve a new contract, Yes but that much money, No.

Also I think the landscape of the East is changing as the Bulls(if they get a scoring SG, watch out) and Heat (No Big 3) is going to be the top dogs. Boston is getting older but still dangerous. As long as Dwight is there, Magic is going to be in that fight. New York and 76ers is upcomers with a few more pieces can overtakes the Hawks. RIght now, the only way we are going to get to the ECF is that we bring in a Option #2 for Joe or bring in a Option #1 to turn Joe into Option #2. I think that if Josh and Al played their game then they can be that option.

At the end, nobody is untouchable right now, and JJ is in that group until he can provide that he can be that #1 Option

[Crank]

I dont have a plan for a #1 option but while I think Joe is a good player he is no #1 option which is why I deem us to be screwed .

We have a team full of #2 and #3 options .

[Diesel]

The obvious answer to your question is that the Hawks are going to have to draft that #1 option, which is why I would advocate a serious rebuild if you're going to dump JJ's contract off on some unlucky guy. IOW, you have to move Joe along with Josh Smith.

You obviously missed the last time we tried to build through the draft? Out of 5 lotteries, we have 2 players to show for it... and they are Marvin and Horf.. a 2nd and 3rd pick... And only one of them have lived up to their billing. So again... We have to realize that our strength is not in drafting but in trading. Building teams (the successful teams that do it) usually can trade for what they need.

Jefferson?

Why should Hinrich and Zaza be labeled untouchable? Those guys are clearly movable, IMO. (All Hawks are movable but those two seem easily movable.)

Yeah, they are movable. Everybody is movable. However, I would use these guys as a framework unless a really good deal comes along.

Zaza is a good BU C.

Hinrich is a good BU PG.

By virtue of being BUs, they are movable. However, i would not go out seeking a trade for these guys.

I think Teague shows that promise that we really need to keep. Zaza brought the efffort in the playoffs. I'm not sure why you declare that Hinrich works. We've seen very little of him as a Hawk. Not sure why Joe 'works'? If anything the record shows that a Joe led team is a middle of the pack team. He looked good in some games in this past playoffs but he looked bad and made some bad mistakes at critical times in other games. Sure double-team and all that mumbo jumbo but that's why he's paid top dollar to be able to handle that.

I don't think you can drop our losing on Joe. We've yet to have a real center. For you Horf fans, Horf is a good substitute during the regular season but he gets creamed in the post season.

I don't know if we've had the type of coaching that leads to championships. The original plan was the team would grow with Woody then we'd find the right coach to take them further. Is LD the right coach? Doubtful, he's just as green as Woody was. He's a continuation of Woody with a shot to use his own plans. I applaud him for his playoffs. However, I question weather he can make them listen.