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

[Guest]

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.

He is being offered what the market will bear..no ignorance in that...Manu got extended for 3 years at 13mil per and he is older than Joe.

[AHF]

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.

A guy can't survive on over $110,000,000.00 and you find it laughable that an additional 36% income isn't going to prevent him from going bankrupt? Come on. Who is stretching now? It obviously wasn't a lack of funds that destroyed Antoine's finances so why is it ridiculous to think would additional money wouldn't make the difference?

The guy was self-destructive and would have destroyed himself if he had $200M unless he changed his behavior.

Thus, it seems like a pretty reasonable inference to conclude that the underlying behavior was the issue and not a lack of funds. I don't know why that conclusion is laughable.

Edited April 20, 2010 by AHF

[spotatl]

you find it laughable that an additional 36% income is going to prevent him from going bankrupt?

Please show me where I said that the extra money would have prevented him from going bankrupt? All I said is that he would have been better off/ I just don't see how its possible to think that Antone Walker wouldn't have been better off with another 2 years of guaranteed contract at 20 million dollars per year. And extra guaranteed years are exactly what we are talking about here in case you forgot that.

Edited April 20, 2010 by spotatl

[AHF]

Please show me where I said that the extra money would have prevented him from going bankrupt? All I said is that he would have been better off/ I just don't see how its possible to think that Antone Walker wouldn't have been better off with another 2 years of guaranteed contract at 20 million dollars per year. And extra guaranteed years are exactly what we are talking about here in case you forgot that.

If Walker just continues the self-destructive behavior for the time it takes him to burn through the 40M why is he better off bankrupt a little later? For people who are in destructive cycles with drugs, gambling, etc. I see a pretty reasonable view that there is no "better" until they can break the cycle. For someone like him - for whom you are not talking about extra years - just extra money because he was paid during every year of his playable career and beyond - he still winds up like (or likely to be like) the kid who spent all his money on candy . Unless you think there is a meaningful difference between the excesses that $110M can buy and the excesses that $150M can buy such that it is appreciably "better" to have blown another $40M on excesses, I don't see much difference myself and certainly don't find it laughable to think that others might not see any appreciable difference.

Like I said, for JJ I see the difference between the money and the years. I am totally on board with that and have been saying that since the day it was reported that he rejected the 4 year deal from Atlanta. But for someone like Walker, I do see a very legit argument that an additional $40M (say he made $18M/year the last four years of his NBA career rather than $8M/year) would not have made any appreciable difference for him.

Edited April 20, 2010 by AHF

[spotatl]

If you go bankrupt quickly after losing your job, its literally laughable to think that someone wouldn't have been better off keeping their job 2 more years.

[AHF]

If you go bankrupt quickly after losing your job, its literally laughable to think that someone wouldn't have been better off keeping their job 2 more years.

You are now changing the argument on Antoine. There is no possibility of Walker having kept his job 2 more years - he has already been out of the league for two years as it is. That wasn't even discussed above until your last post. Your earlier posts were all about the money he earned during his career - not the years:

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

(The answer here, of course, is "yes, but he was self-destructive and wasted it).

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

an additional 40 million dollars does buy you more margin for error.

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.

I find it laughable you think that givng him an additional 40% of income wouldn't ahve helped him at all.

The issue was whether the additional money would have made a difference for Walker. It was only after all the above quotes that you introduced the notion of additional years into the conversation on Walker and by inference the argument in favor of a spendthrift trust - if the money is paid out over time then he can't have wasted it yet.

But on the issue of whether an additional 40M earned during his career would have made a difference as we originally were discussing, I don't see why it would - Walker's problem was never a lack of funds. But I at least see it as something reasonable minds can disagree over - and thus not "laughable."

Edited April 20, 2010 by AHF

[spotatl]

AHF- I think you missed the whole point of the conversation. Its whether a NBA player would be smart to leave 2 guaranteed years and 20 million dollars sitting on the table. The OP thought that a NBA player already had so much money that signing a 4 year contract vs a 6 year contract doesn't matter. And I'm sorry you wasted so much time trying to defend that statement but its absolutely laughable.

[AHF]

AHF- I think you missed the whole point of the conversation. Its whether a NBA player would be smart to leave 2 guaranteed years and 20 million dollars sitting on the table. The OP thought that a NBA player already had so much money that signing a 4 year contract vs a 6 year contract doesn't matter. And I'm sorry you wasted so much time trying to defend that statement but its absolutely laughable.

I am surprised we have been having this discussion. I very clearly said in my first post on this thread to which you responded that I agreed that it didn't make sense for JJ to turn leave 2 guaranteed years and the money that comes with that on the table:

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 disagreed that it was the same situation with Antoine Walker, however, because I thought is was reasonable for someone to believe that throwing additional money onto Walker's career earnings would not have avoided bankruptcy for him because he had been so irresponsible with his gambling and other excessive costs.

They are two very different situations and should not be viewed in the same light. There is a legit argument based on his past behavior that Walker with an extra $40M probably means it just burns a hole in his pocket.

For JJ, I have previously said:

This is why I have never read much into his failing to get a deal done last season. He would have to be a moron to pass on a 5 or 6 year contract to sign a 4 year deal when his leverage this offeason is about 100X more than it will be in 4 years.

At a minimum, Joe wants 5 years rather than 4 and certainly will be asking the Hawks for 6 years.

I think JJ's move to hold off on a contract extension makes all the economic sense in the world and that our ability to offer an extra year will be very important to him at this point in his career. I am not in the crowd that thinks that JJ's refusal to sign a 4 year deal last offseason when he can get a 6 year deal this offseason is necessarily an indication that he has written off a future in Atlanta.

etc.

No question, I disagree with anyone who thinks that JJ should have just re-upped last summer. But I don't think anyone is laughable for saying that an additional 40M for Walker doesn't make a difference for him at the end of the day due to his poor judgment on finances. For Antoine, he blew through $110,000,000.00 and I don't think someone who views another 40M as not making much of a difference is laughable for that view.

Edited April 20, 2010 by AHF

[NineOhTheRino]

well....i still think he should have taken the original offer. I'll sum up my thought process with this: $20M should not be a big deal to a man that will earn as much as $140M in his lifetime.

Rich is rich.

Edited April 20, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[Swatguy]

well....i still think he should have taken the original offer. I'll sum up my thought process with this: $20M should not be a big deal to a man that will earn as much as $140M in his lifetime.

Rich is rich.

The simple fact that waiting untl this summer Joe will sign a 5 or 6 year contract instead of a 4 year deal. That is perhaps 25 to 40 more million, as well as, two more years of franchise security. It really is simple.

[Diesel]

: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.

Uhm.

Most people don't ever see 1 Million dollars in a lifetime of working.

The bench player in the NBA probably makes 1 Million per year. Randolph Morris is making more this year than many people will ever make.

[Diesel]

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.

I think what you guys are missing is that the most important thing is WHEN...

If he was given the 40 Million at the same time as the 71 Million, then it's likely that he would have just spent that up too.

However, if he were given the 40 Million now, I think he would be much more responsible.

Hitting Rock bottom often opens your eyes.

[AHF]

I think what you guys are missing is that the most important thing is WHEN...

If he was given the 40 Million at the same time as the 71 Million, then it's likely that he would have just spent that up too.

However, if he were given the 40 Million now, I think he would be much more responsible.

Hitting Rock bottom often opens your eyes.

That has been my point. The only time Walker could have gotten the $40M is during his playing career. Had he gotten another $40M during his career when he was paid the $110M already, I don't think it is laughable for someone to think he would end up in the same situation he is in now.

If you are talking about something like spendthrift trust or a magical toothfairy that gives $40M after someone's professional career is over, I agree that the odds are much, much better that he handles that money more responsibly. At that point, a lack of funding has been an issue and reality for him. During his career, which is the only time he could have earned that kind of money, it was not.

[spotatl]

Once again- the whole conversation was about getting extra 2 extra guaranteed years. If you don't think he would have been better off with 2 extra guaranteed years at 20 million per year I don't know what to do but laugh.

Edited April 21, 2010 by spotatl

[AHF]

Once again- the whole conversation was about getting extra 2 extra guaranteed years. If you don't think he would have been better off with 2 extra guaranteed years at 20 million per year I don't know what to do but laugh.

Again, that doesn't make sense to me in light of the last 30 or so posts where it was $$ and not years but OK.

[spotatl]

The whole conversation is about JJ waiting so he can get more years on his contract. I don't think this would make anyone selfish and Antoine walker was just the example I used to illustrate the point. And yes I still find it laughable that you prolonged it so much.

[AHF]

The whole conversation is about JJ waiting so he can get more years on his contract. I don't think this would make anyone selfish and Antoine walker was just the example I used to illustrate the point. And yes I still find it laughable that you prolonged it so much.

I said in the first post and for the past 6 months or so that JJ is right. Walker could not get additional years and is not in the same position as JJ - although it was possible he could have gotten a higher salary. It is apples to oranges.

Edited April 21, 2010 by AHF