Joe Johnson's Contract

[ryandauwalker]

I think this is a topic that gets Sund's name thrown in the mud unnecessarily. With the market environment, there is no question that somebody would give him the max (or very near). So many teams had excess cash, and Joe was on the top of his game. We would have been in a tough spot without him, and who knows the domino effect that would have taken place if we let him walk for nothing. This is certainly not an argument for it, but something under consideration.Here's my claim: there was NO WAY that he would stay here for the length of the contract. Whether it would be via trade or amnesty, we would not keep him for the duration of his time. I believe that Sund felt very confident that we could unload him for scraps (or cut him). It's a risk for sure, but I think that was a major factor in allowing him to be signed.Think about his last contract... The Hawks got him for a very good deal. While Ferry pulled off a great trade, who is to say that Sund wouldn't have done something similar? Or maybe next year for not as good of a return? It's speculative and nobody can be sure of how Sund would have respond, but in end, the contract was a great one and I'm glad we offered it in hindsight.

[benhillboy]

I hated Joe and both of his contracts. Just my two cents. Look no further than Brooklyn's identical number of losses to us yet their + $20 million payroll to see his impact.

[nathan2331]

I hated Joe and both of his contracts. Just my two cents. Look no further than Brooklyn's identical number of losses to us yet their + $20 million payroll to see his impact.

I don't see how your HATED Joe Johnson. Even though he never will live up to his contract, he is still a versatile SG most teams in the NBA would love to have. Like it or not, he just wasn't the player our team needed him to be. But he was able to keep this team relevant. And the reason why they're doing not much better than us despite payroll is because that team has overpayed for players in order to assemble a team that can at least win a few games. This isn't like baseball where having deep pockets means you can sign whoever you want. Once you go over the tax line you better have your most important pieces in place or making moves to get those players gets a whole lot harder. Billy King has dug that team a grave that will be hard for them to get out of. Who pays Humphries 12 million, Joe Johnson 20+ million, Wallace 10 million... the list goes on.

[Guest]

Joe was signed before any amnesty provision was known.

This was not a Sund move anyway, it was clearly Gearon Jr.

[nathan2331]

Joe was signed before any amnesty provision was known. This was not a Sund move anyway, it was clearly Gearon Jr.

I don't think we would have amnestied him until there was about 1-2 years left. His contract was too large for the ASG (let alone most owners) to pay without getting anything back.

[MaceCase]

Always wondered why Joe didn't negotiate any option years into his deal. For a guy at that stage of their career they usually at least want the option of knowing that they can go pursue a ring elsewhere if need be......even if they aren't likely to exercise it. Couple that with the report that the one hold up on signing his contract was negotiating a no trade clause and I begin to wonder if Joe was just happy chilling in the A for the length of the deal.

[ryandauwalker]

Joe was signed before any amnesty provision was known. This was not a Sund move anyway, it was clearly Gearon Jr.

Good point on the amnesty provision. However, in those circles, they might have had a feeling that it was coming.Nevertheless, the overall theme is that we signed that contract knowing that we weren't going to pay the final years. The earlier years were a discount, and those were the ones where Joe was a Hawk.

[tonegully]

They offered joe the money and he took it. He was leaving for Chicago anyways. I would've taken the money also. I just hope we don't have joe part 2

[yungsta]

after that disastrous and embarrassing playoff exit in 2010 and in 2009 and what joe said about the fans it was a horrible basketball decision and a business decision to give him the max. Giving him the max was a statement to the fans saying we are happy just making the playoffs and have no intentions of trying to build a contender.

after the 2010 magic series and the joe johnson max contract the hawks franchise stock went down significantly.

[taz]

No team in their right mind would have given him the max. It was just a failed effort by the ASG to increase the chance of selling the team. That's why he got the max plain and simple

[Ruckus]

If he would have walked, everyone would have freaked out. We only paid on that contract for a small time thanks to Ferry. Still though it was a really bad contract.

[ryandauwalker]

I am NOT defending the contract as a whole. I'm defending the part that the Hawks took on. I think from the beginning that when it was signed, the Hawks knew we'd find a way to cut him loose before the really bad years.

[coachx]

It worked out OK since Ferry found a RUSSIAN sucker to take the contract off our hands.We forget that we had some reason to believe we were close to contending. We took Boston to 7 games the year they won it at all. We were very young that year. Horford was a rookie, Josh was young, and Joe was like 27.We went to the 2nd round several times in a row. Some were blow outs and some competitive. Had some bad luck with injuries in the 2nd round too.........in the end it was evident we reached our peek and the window was closing with JJ as a #1 option. Glad that Russian took his cap space off our hands.It proves to the NBA that we will offer max contracts to players we believe in......we did it with JJ twice.