Is Joe Johnson to blame for the league's Problems?

[Plainview1981]

Shaq says he is a big part of the problem:

Shaq says Joe Johnson’s contract one reason for NBA mess

9:15 am September 21, 2011, by Jeff Schultz

Shaq: "I like you but you're overpaid. Now give me that ball."

Shaq: "I like you but you're overpaid. Now give me that ball."

There hasn’t been a lot of talk about the NBA lockout, and maybe that’s something the league’s owners and players should really be thinking about during their talks for a new collective bargaining agreement.

But the recently retired Shaquille O’Neal just spoke, and he says if you’re looking for a reason why the league is having significant financial issues, you can start with the Hawks’ Joe Johnson.

O’Neal told the New Orleans Times Picayune that Johnson’s six-year, $119 million contract is a an example of a franchise overpaying for a player despite lacking the revenue to pay the contract. Shaq completely left out the fact that Johnson too often is a no-show in the playoffs, but maybe he didn’t want to be too tough in his early days as a commentator.

http://blogs.ajc.com...-for-nbas-mess/

Edited September 22, 2011 by Hotlanta1981

[DJlaysitup]

IMO the key thing Shaq said was:

O’Neal told the New Orleans Times Picayune that Johnson’s six-year, $119 million contract is a an example of a franchise overpaying for a player despite lacking the revenue to pay the contract.

A franchise overpaying...this is so much of what I think this is all about. The owners trying to protect themselves from themselves and their own poor judgement.

And as much as I hate to be fair to the old ASG...if they hadn't done it some other team would have.

[AHF]

And as much as I hate to be fair to the old ASG...if they hadn't done it some other team would have.

That is why the issue won't be resolved by telling owners, "Just be smarter about it." The urge to overpay to try to be more competitive is systemic in all sports and not a function of the intelligence of individual teams. There will always be massive deals for guys like JJ, Arenas, Zito, ARod, McNabb, etc. and it is a function of how the league's rules are set up as to whether that ends up being an albatross, an impediment, or something you cut and move past.

[frosgrim]

I would put the Miami Heat as the top reason that Stern wants to get the new CBA designed so that more teams have a chance to compete for a title. I don't doubt that several owners, if not all, would like a better system where they don't have to over pay for a guy like Joe. Or least have a method for getting out from under that cap-killer sooner.

[AHF]

I would put the Miami Heat as the top reason that Stern wants to get the new CBA designed so that more teams have a chance to compete for a title. I don't doubt that several owners, if not all, would like a better system where they don't have to over pay for a guy like Joe. Or least have a method for getting out from under that cap-killer sooner.

The reason Joe looks so overpaid is that the max salary means that Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, etc. are underpaid as compared to what they would without a salary ceiling. Since multiple teams would have give Joe the max they could spend, I don't count him as being anything but the product of the economic system of the last CBA (I only consider guys materially overpaid if they got more than they should have gotten under that system).

[Marvin24Williams]

Shaq you weren't exactly worth that 5 year 100 million dollar contract offered by miami either.... a**hole

[EazyRoc]

He brought them a title so maybe he was.

[AHF]

I doubt the Hawks would have overpaid for Joe Johnson if there were no Bird Rights or a salary cap. But what do I know?

How would the removal of salary restraints have lowered his market price?

[AHF]

The Hawks are no longer left with the strange option of pay Joe the Max or lose out on all that available cap space. They can let him go and replace him in a world with no restraints. With the current system, it really is not feasible to let Joe go and still replace him because you are talking about an option between a roster spot worth ~$16 million versus ~$5.5 million in the first year.

But other teams were willing to pay him the max even with all those restraints so I just don't see how his salary would go down any material amount and see a majority of the max players that would have their salary go up. I guess I could see your argument being specific to the Hawks (i.e., the Hawks would not have signed him because that money on other players would have been more valuable) but not on the general market (i.e., that Joe would have been paid elsewhere, by the Knicks for example).

Edited October 12, 2011 by AHF

[AHF]

Joe's salary would not have gone down unless you want to tell a story of unrestricted salaries will drive up Lebron's price tag and that previous residual salary gain is now wiped out so Joe doesn't collect a "subsidized" salary. I'm not telling that story or getting into that. I haven't said Joe's salary would go down, I simply said the Hawks wouldn't have overpaid which would imply they would sign him at a lower salary or not sign him at all. I think its most likely they just wouldn't have signed him because it doesn't make sense to pay him that much on the open market.

I don't know if they would have signed him or not but I get this argument. Thanks for the clarification.