Gearon says offer to JJ was for the "max" they could offer.

[HawkItus]

You can't be serious. Dude. This isn't a war where a man can't join the other side. This is a business. I get paid well where I work but if someone offered me twenty million dollars to go somewhere else for the same job I'd take in a heartbeat. So would you and so would anyone else. Let's don't hold people up to some kind of utterly unrealistic expectation because we are fans of a team.

If somebody offered 10K more I'd leave in a heartbeat for the same job. Forget that.

[jhay610]

$20M should not be a big deal to a man that has already made +$70M and has the potential to make another $60M. Now I wouldn't be mad at Joe for taking the money but, as a huge JJ fan, I would be disappointed that he put money ahead of the city that has put him on the map.

C'mon man. Josh Childress went to the other side of the world for less than what we are talking about here. As has been pointed out., this is Joe's career contract. It's not like he has a similar revenue stream waiting for him when he hangs 'em up. He should absolutely try to make the most money he can while he can.

Now, hopefully the Hawks come with the correct offer and he stays.

I don't understand why players are often vilified or labeled "money-hungry" for trying to maximize their earnings. It most certainly is a business and we see the other side of that when fading stars get traded or are not resigned. Believe me, the Hawks won't be sending Joe pension payments when he can't play anymore.

Edited April 19, 2010 by jhay610

[Guest]

C'mon man. Josh Childress went to the other side of the world for less than what we are talking about here. As has been pointed out., this is Joe's career contract. It's not like he has a similar revenue stream waiting for him when he hangs 'em up. He should absolutely try to make the most money he can while he can.

Now, hopefully the Hawks come with the correct offer and he stays.

I don't understand why players are often vilified or labeled "money-hungry" for trying to maximize their earnings. It most certainly is a business and we see the other side of that when fading stars get traded or are not resigned. Believe me, the Hawks won't be sending Joe pension payments when he can't play anymore.

:handshake: You couldn't have said it any better. A lot of people forget that players earning potential has a short life span. Unlike most people who work up to retirement age 62 years, athletes reach retirement at about half that age.

[NineOhTheRino]

C'mon man. Josh Childress went to the other side of the world for less than what we are talking about here. As has been pointed out., this is Joe's career contract. It's not like he has a similar revenue stream waiting for him when he hangs 'em up. He should absolutely try to make the most money he can while he can.

Now, hopefully the Hawks come with the correct offer and he stays.

I don't understand why players are often vilified or labeled "money-hungry" for trying to maximize their earnings. It most certainly is a business and we see the other side of that when fading stars get traded or are not resigned. Believe me, the Hawks won't be sending Joe pension payments when he can't play anymore.

You make it should as if Joe needs the money. JJ has already made enough money to support he and his family for generations. It's just a matter of what you consider enough. You guys think JJ will be in the poorhouse 20 years after he's done? I don't. Why kill yourself over every penny when you already have more money than you can spend in a lifetime.

Edited April 19, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[spotatl]

Would you also say that Antoine Walker earned enough money to "support his family for generations"?

Edited April 19, 2010 by spotatl

[NineOhTheRino]

Would you also say that Antoine Walker earned enough money to "support his family for generations"?

difference is Joe is not an idiot. Antoine would have been broke regardless. All the money in the world will not raise your IQ.

JJ probably makes more money yearly from the compounded interest of his old money than every member of this message board combined.

Edited April 19, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[spotatl]

Its a whole lot easier to say that someone else has too much money and shouldn't care about getting more. Thats like someone who begs on the street corner trying to tell you that you make too much money and should your extra to him.

Its pretty laughable to say that Antoine Walker wouldn't have been better off with 40 million more dollars. Those players should try and get all they can while people are happy to pay it to them. And if Joe was only about winning and loyalty then he never would have played for the hawks in the first place.

Edited April 19, 2010 by spotatl

[Sothron]

You make it should as if Joe needs the money. JJ has already made enough money to support he and his family for generations. It's just a matter of what you consider enough. You guys think JJ will be in the poorhouse 20 years after he's done? I don't. Why kill yourself over every penny when you already have more money than you can spend in a lifetime.

So much ignorance to slay in this post, so little time.

1. It is not your place to decide when someone has "made enough money".

2. The free market system determines how much these guys get paid and what their value is worth. Joe's value is a maximum contract guy and he's going to get just that either from us or someone else.

3. I believe it is either fifty percent or seventy five percent of NBA players go bankrupt when their careers are over. Think about that before you start deciding whose "earned enough".

4. YOU might not care enough to make every penny you can but YOU don't speak for anyone but YOU.

5. It is every person's right in this country to try and earn (legally) what they can for as long as they can. No one has the right to tell Joe Johnson or any player they can't leave or shouldn't leave because "twenty million isn't that much" or however you said it.

I can keep going but I don't want to dogpile on.

[sturt]

NineOh, sometimes a person has to cut their rhetorical losses and just confess to the realization, "Okay, okay... I said something stupid... I at least have the integrity to admit it... can we move on?"... as opposed to attempting to bail out the Titanic with a bucket. I dare say we've all said something stupid online at one time or another... at least you're not holding political office wondering aloud if... speaking of water... Samoa will capsize... a proud moment for all Georgians in that district, to be sure.

[AHF]

Its pretty laughable to say that Antoine Walker wouldn't have been better off with 40 million more dollars.

While I agree with those who say the money is a legit reason for JJ to wait to do his contract this offseason rather than last, I have to disagree on this. It is hardly laughable to believe that someone who pissed away over $108 million wouldn't have simply pissed away another 40 million had he received it. For some people, no amount of money is too much to lose. While I wish the best for Antoine, he seems to have been one of those people who spent beyond their means regardless of how impressive those means were.

[DeacKillsaDevil]

there is no difference between 60 and 80 mill. Rich is rich. Ask guys like Hedo if the extra cheddar is worth all the headache that comes from being the highest paid guy on a mediocre team. Normally I'm the "take what they give you" type but we are in a recession and $60M is a helluva amount of money to be paid for playing child's game.

There is a huge difference considering the taxes he has to pay, which is gonna go thru the roof very soon.

[spotatl]

AHF- even in the worst case scenario for Antoine Walker losing another 40 million dollars would have had at least taken longer and so he would have been better off on the ride down. Maybe that time would have lead him to straighten out and save the ship or maybe he still would have ended up in bankruptcy- but an additional 40 million dollars does buy you more margin for error. And yes I think its laughable to think that it does not.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Nine . . would the same ring true the opposite way?

If the owners are "rich", and money shouldn't matter, would it be ungrateful of them to NOT pay JJ whatever amount of money the marketplace says he's worth?

It the Bulls offered JJ a 5 yr - 90 mill deal . . . but JJ wanted a 6 yr - 100 mill deal from the Hawks, should Hawks ownership let him walk?

[NineOhTheRino]

NineOh, sometimes a person has to cut their rhetorical losses and just confess to the realization, "Okay, okay... I said something stupid... I at least have the integrity to admit it... can we move on?"... as opposed to attempting to bail out the Titanic with a bucket. I dare say we've all said something stupid online at one time or another... at least you're not holding political office wondering aloud if... speaking of water... Samoa will capsize... a proud moment for all Georgians in that district, to be sure.

personally I'm not a man that's motivated by money. If I'm JJ I would take less money to play for a city I love. I understand that JJ is not from here so I don't expect him to have the attachment to ATL that I have. But I do believe there's a fine line between capitalism and greed. Having enough money for generations and trying get more just seems a little greedy to me.

Nine . . would the same ring true the opposite way?

If the owners are "rich", and money shouldn't matter, would it be ungrateful of them to NOT pay JJ whatever amount of money the marketplace says he's worth?

It the Bulls offered JJ a 5 yr - 90 mill deal . . . but JJ wanted a 6 yr - 100 mill deal from the Hawks, should Hawks ownership let him walk?

That's the thing. ATL doesn't have owners with deep pockets. Hawks owners are barley staying in business as is. As a JJ fan I hope he recognizes this and takes a deal that financially feasible for all parties.

Edited April 19, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[AHF]

AHF- even in the worst case scenario for Antoine Walker losing another 40 million dollars would have had at least taken longer and so he would have been better off on the ride down. Maybe that time would have lead him to straighten out and save the ship or maybe he still would have ended up in bankruptcy- but an additional 40 million dollars does buy you more margin for error. And yes I think its laughable to think that it does not.

Of course more money gives you more of a margin for error but the guy burned through $108M. I think it is a stretch to think that he would have turned things around before hitting rock bottom based on his prior behavior. Hence, it isn't laughable for someone to think that he would be in the same place with $148M instead of $108M. People that self-destruct can do it with any amount of money. I am sorry for Antoine that he didn't turn things around before he lost everything.

[spotatl]

I didn't say that he would have turned it around. I said he would have been better off to have 148 million to burn through rather than 108. I still don't see how this is even debatable.

[AHF]

I didn't say that he would have turned it around. I said he would have been better off to have 148 million to burn through rather than 108. I still don't see how this is even debatable.

If I could have $11 or $15 and I am going to blow whatever money I get on candy instead of buying a bus ticket home, how I am better off with having blown $11 on candy rather than $15 when I am sitting there with no money realizing for the first time that I have no way to pay for my bus ticket? That is Walker's position now. He has blown all his money and is sitting there wondering how he is going to get a bus ticket home. Who cares whether it was $148M or $108M that he burned? It isn't like he was spending the money to help the poor or doing something of value with the money.

The amount of money is nearly irrelevant if it is just going to be wasted. Given the massive, massive amount of money that Walker wasted, I don't find it laughable when someone says another chunk of money would not have made a difference for him because of the reckless choices he was making.

[spotatl]

Sorry AHF- I find it laughable you think that givng him an additional 40% of income wouldn't ahve helped him at all. I get your argument- I just think its laughable.

[niremetal]

ATL doesn't have owners with deep pockets. Hawks owners are barley staying in business as is. As a JJ fan I hope he recognizes this and takes a deal that financially feasible for all parties.

That pretty much shows that you have zero understanding both of the economics of the NBA franchise system and of how absurdly rich the Hawks' owners are individually. For a 30-second primer on the former, read this old post by me.

Edited April 20, 2010 by niremetal

[HawkWeisErrr]

Wow. The Hawks were ignorant by offering him that much. Thankfully they were bailed out by Joe's ignorance. 2 Ignorance's do not make a right.