Sir Charles says "Do not give JJ max money"

[Brotha2ThaNite]

He was on 790 the zone just now. Chuck said, he would not pay JJ max money. If you’re going to give that type of money to an NBA player he better put me over the top. JJ is not doing that right now.

He said they should do a sign-n-trade if JJ want Max Money.

He also talked more about the playoff road record. Chuck thought it was a typo when he saw that they have won only one game on the road and the losses were all blow outs. He said when he saw that the closest lost on the road was by 17pts (Monday's game) he had to go back to check the stats himself.

He said there is going to be losses but you do not see that many blowouts all together like that. A blowout will happen maybe once in every 20 losses.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Brotha2ThaNite

[wfhawkfan]

Personally, i think only players who can win 'ships as the best player on the team deserve the max. Kobe,Bron, d-whistle, Dwight, Dirk (i still think he is capable of leading a team to the ship), eventually Durant, Possibly Rose(in 3 yrs), Williams and Paul.

[EazyRoc]

Personally, i think only players who can win 'ships as the best player on the team deserve the max. Kobe,Bron, d-whistle, Dwight, Dirk (i still think he is capable of leading a team to the ship), eventually Durant, Possibly Rose(in 3 yrs), Williams and Paul.

I agree with everything except Dirk being able to lead his team to a championship. his best chance was when Miami won it. he's got the most talented team he's ever had and I don't think they'll win it this year.

[coachx]

He said when he saw that the closest lost on the road was by 17pts (Monday's game) he had to go back to check the stats himself.

Maybe he should check the stats again ? Monday loss was 111 to 104. That is 7 points Chuck, not 17 !

The Hawks are very capable of winning the next 2 games and giving the Magic a run for their money in Round 2. Lets allow this thing to play out.

[niremetal]

The idea that max money can/should only go to the 4-5 guys in the league who are capable of being one-man franchises is hogwash. The max salary is an artificial cap. If there weren't a max salary limit, LeBron would be getting $35M/year offers this summer, even if all the other cap and tax rules remained the same. Think about it this way: If the "max contract" really had some magical representative value, shouldn't one and only one player in the game get it? After all, Wade certainly is not "as worthy" of a max contract as LeBron. But most people still have no problem paying Wade the same amount that LeBron can get.

Players who don't fit into that category get max contracts all the time, and it's not crippling as long as the player stays "very good" or better (see Rashard Lewis, Garnett/Allen/Pierce). Hell, even if a max or near-max guy devolves into just a borderline starter (see Kirilenko, Kenyon Martin), the team can still contend.

People need to stop thinking of max money as representing some sort of magic number that actually reflects what a player is "worth" in an open market sense.

Edited April 28, 2010 by niremetal

[jhay610]

The idea that max money can/should only go to the 4-5 guys in the league who are capable of being one-man franchises is hogwash. The max salary is an artificial cap. If there weren't a max salary limit, LeBron would be getting $35M/year offers this summer, even if all the other cap and tax rules remained the same. Think about it this way: If the "max contract" really had some magical representative value, shouldn't one and only one player in the game get it? After all, Wade certainly is not "as worthy" of a max contract as LeBron. But most people still have no problem paying Wade the same amount that LeBron can get.

Players who don't fit into that category get max contracts all the time, and it's not crippling as long as the player stays "very good" or better (see Rashard Lewis, Garnett/Allen/Pierce). Hell, even if a max or near-max guy devolves into just a borderline starter (see Kirilenko, Kenyon Martin), the team can still contend.

People need to stop thinking of max money as representing some sort of magic number that actually reflects what a player is "worth" in an open market sense.

I know you and others have said this before but it bears repeating as it's a concept lost on most. +1 for you sir.

[Diesel]

Maybe he should check the stats again ? Monday loss was 111 to 104. That is 7 points Chuck, not 17 !

The Hawks are very capable of winning the next 2 games and giving the Magic a run for their money in Round 2. Lets allow this thing to play out.

I have to agree here. The one thing that is for certain, Joe Johnson is a difference maker for the Hawks. I look at it like this, Joe Johnson (to me) is better for our team than Rashard Lewis or Ray Allen was for their teams when they got max money. Without Joe, I have a feeling that we would go back to being a non-playoff team with aging veterans that are sought after by the league. IN other words, a feeder team. We would be training our players to go elsewhere... because there's no real sports I.D. in Atlanta. Chuck needs to understand, the only way that we will build a followable franchise is that we hold on to the players who have gotten us somewhere.

So, I would resign Joe and I would start to consider what Horf or Smoove can do to either improve themselves or improve us.

[AHF]

The idea that max money can/should only go to the 4-5 guys in the league who are capable of being one-man franchises is hogwash. The max salary is an artificial cap. If there weren't a max salary limit, LeBron would be getting $35M/year offers this summer, even if all the other cap and tax rules remained the same. Think about it this way: If the "max contract" really had some magical representative value, shouldn't one and only one player in the game get it? After all, Wade certainly is not "as worthy" of a max contract as LeBron. But most people still have no problem paying Wade the same amount that LeBron can get.

Players who don't fit into that category get max contracts all the time, and it's not crippling as long as the player stays "very good" or better (see Rashard Lewis, Garnett/Allen/Pierce). Hell, even if a max or near-max guy devolves into just a borderline starter (see Kirilenko, Kenyon Martin), the team can still contend.

People need to stop thinking of max money as representing some sort of magic number that actually reflects what a player is "worth" in an open market sense.

You beat me to the punch here and I agree 100%.

[wfhawkfan]

The idea that max money can/should only go to the 4-5 guys in the league who are capable of being one-man franchises is hogwash. The max salary is an artificial cap. If there weren't a max salary limit, LeBron would be getting $35M/year offers this summer, even if all the other cap and tax rules remained the same. Think about it this way: If the "max contract" really had some magical representative value, shouldn't one and only one player in the game get it? After all, Wade certainly is not "as worthy" of a max contract as LeBron. But most people still have no problem paying Wade the same amount that LeBron can get.

Players who don't fit into that category get max contracts all the time, and it's not crippling as long as the player stays "very good" or better (see Rashard Lewis, Garnett/Allen/Pierce). Hell, even if a max or near-max guy devolves into just a borderline starter (see Kirilenko, Kenyon Martin), the team can still contend.

People need to stop thinking of max money as representing some sort of magic number that actually reflects what a player is "worth" in an open market sense.

I just feel that if a team is gonna pay the max amount for a player, then it better be a player who you can build a championship contending team around. The teams you mentioned that still contend after giving max money to "non-max guys" all over the luxury tax by 6+ mil. I don't think it is fair to compare ourselves with them. If the max is 25 mil,but you say lebron would get 35mil in a pure open market, that still doesn't justify giving Joe or Rashard 25mil. It is up to the owners and gm's to realize that certain players shouldn't get paid the same.

[Brotha2ThaNite]

I'm sorry,

Here is the link

http://www.790thezone.com/instantreplay/

[NineOhTheRino]

no man walking this earth deserves to make $20 million dollars per year.

I'm not giving him a penny over $15 million.

Edited April 28, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[Brotha2ThaNite]

Maybe he should check the stats again ? Monday loss was 111 to 104. That is 7 points Chuck, not 17 !

The Hawks are very capable of winning the next 2 games and giving the Magic a run for their money in Round 2. Lets allow this thing to play out.

My bad, It was the Saturday game.

You can listen to the audio now to clear up anything I said wrong. Sorry.

[AHF]

I just feel that if a team is gonna pay the max amount for a player, then it better be a player who you can build a championship contending team around. The teams you mentioned that still contend after giving max money to "non-max guys" all over the luxury tax by 6+ mil. I don't think it is fair to compare ourselves with them. If the max is 25 mil,but you say lebron would get 35mil in a pure open market, that still doesn't justify giving Joe or Rashard 25mil. It is up to the owners and gm's to realize that certain players shouldn't get paid the same.

That doesn't make sense. It is like arguing that Andrew Bogut shouldn't have been paid the same amount as Dwight Howard on their rookie contracts. Both were #1 draft picks who would have been paid more in a free market. You'd always rather have the better player for the same money (Dwight), but both Bogut and Howard as #1 picks deserved that same salary. The question isn't whether Bogut deserves to be paid as much as Howard because Howard's salary is determined by cap restraints. The question is whether Bogut is worth taking #1 based on the value he brings to a club.

Similarly, if Joe isn't worth $25M it is because he isn't worth $25M but if Joe would be worth $27M in a free market and Wade would be worth $32M and Lebron would be worth $35M, then all three of those guys should be getting the same $25M max salary.

Whether Rashard is worth $25M has nothing to do with what Lebron gets paid under an artificial cap limit that pays him well under his free market value and has everything to do with the value he brings to a team. For Rashard, I don't think he is worth the max because I think his play doesn't justify the maximum salary but that has nothing to do with what the top 5 or so players in the game are making.

I will certainly agree that the maximum salary structure makes a player like Lebron even more valuable because you are not only getting a superstar on the court but it frees up salary you can use to increase the overall value of the players on your team since Lebron's salary is capped artificially low but unless you have the choice of getting a guy like Lebron that is only an academic consideration.

[AHF]

no man walking this earth deserves to make $20 million dollars per year.

You say that because you are using the word "deserves" as meaning something independent from "value in a free market."

[niremetal]

I just feel that if a team is gonna pay the max amount for a player, then it better be a player who you can build a championship contending team around. The teams you mentioned that still contend after giving max money to "non-max guys" all over the luxury tax by 6+ mil. I don't think it is fair to compare ourselves with them. If the max is 25 mil,but you say lebron would get 35mil in a pure open market, that still doesn't justify giving Joe or Rashard 25mil. It is up to the owners and gm's to realize that certain players shouldn't get paid the same.

I will grant that Boston paid the tax before they because successful. But for the other teams, you've got your history backwards.

This is the first year that the Magic have paid the luxury tax. Last year and the year before - the first two years in which they were paying Rashard the max - their payroll was a couple mill below the tax threshold, just like ours. Neither the Nuggets or the Jazz paid the tax last year either, despite the fact that K-Mart and AK-47 were on the same contracts. So you are just plain wrong about that. The only reason the Jazz will be paying it this year is because the cap dropped lower than expected and they weren't able to dump enough salary at the deadline to get below the threshold (though it wasn't for lack of trying, considering that they dumped Maynor and Brewer in exchange for a peppercorn and a box of chocolates).

I've said it a million times, but no one seems to listen - unless you're Boston/LA/NYK (ie teams with huge national revenue streams even when the team sucks), the rule is that you don't pay the tax until AFTER you make at least the Conference Finals and get the huge increase in present gate/sponsor revenues and future ticket sales that go with it. The cause-and-effect in basketball is winning->spending, not spending->winning. Hate to break it to you, but sports are a business. Owners don't spend money that they don't think they'll earn back.

In any case, the Nugs, Jazz, and Magic were each able to pay a less-than-superstar player a max salary and still make the Conference Finals without paying the luxury tax.

That doesn't make sense. It is like arguing that Andrew Bogut shouldn't have been paid the same amount as Dwight Howard on their rookie contracts. Both were #1 draft picks who would have been paid more in a free market. You'd always rather have the better player for the same money (Dwight), but both Bogut and Howard as #1 picks deserved that same salary. The question isn't whether Bogut deserves to be paid as much as Howard because Howard's salary is determined by cap restraints. The question is whether Bogut is worth taking #1 based on the value he brings to a club.

Similarly, if Joe isn't worth $25M it is because he isn't worth $25M but if Joe would be worth $27M in a free market and Wade would be worth $32M and Lebron would be worth $35M, then all three of those guys should be getting the same $25M max salary.

Whether Rashard is worth $25M has nothing to do with what Lebron gets paid under an artificial cap limit that pays him well under his free market value and has everything to do with the value he brings to a team. For Rashard, I don't think he is worth the max because I think his play doesn't justify the maximum salary but that has nothing to do with what the top 5 or so players in the game are making.

I will certainly agree that the maximum salary structure makes a player like Lebron even more valuable because you are not only getting a superstar on the court but it frees up salary you can use to increase the overall value of the players on your team since Lebron's salary is capped artificially low but unless you have the choice of getting a guy like Lebron that is only an academic consideration.

Yup.

no man walking this earth deserves to make $20 million dollars per year.

Workers of the world unite!

Edited April 28, 2010 by niremetal

[HawkItus]

It's funny to hear this from Chuck. He was basically a Joe Johnson in his time. He didn't make the finals until his phoenix gig. And that was with a better team. Remember the Scotty Pippen experience? Scotty called him overated and lazy.

The two ex-Dream Teammates have not spoken since Pippen's Sept. 29 interview on ESPN, in which he said he should have listened to Michael Jordan, who said Barkley would never win a championship because he lacked dedication.

Pippen went on to call Barkley "a very selfish guy" who "didn't show the desire to want to win."

Pippen was asked whether he should apologize to Barkley, who had criticized Pippen for wanting to be traded after only one 50-game season with the Rockets, with whom he had signed a five-year, $67.2 million deal.

"I wouldn't give Charles Barkley an apology at gunpoint," Pippen said in the interview. "He can never expect an apology from me. If anything, he owes me an apology for coming to play with his sorry fat butt."

Edited April 28, 2010 by sultanofatl

[coachx]

The two ex-Dream Teammates have not spoken since Pippen's Sept. 29 interview on ESPN, in which he said he should have listened to Michael Jordan, who said Barkley would never win a championship because he lacked dedication.

Pippen went on to call Barkley "a very selfish guy" who "didn't show the desire to want to win."

Pippen was asked whether he should apologize to Barkley, who had criticized Pippen for wanting to be traded after only one 50-game season with the Rockets, with whom he had signed a five-year, $67.2 million deal.

"I wouldn't give Charles Barkley an apology at gunpoint," Pippen said in the interview. "He can never expect an apology from me. If anything, he owes me an apology for coming to play with his sorry fat butt."

Great stuff !

Out of all the guest TNT has had............I can't say that I ever remember Pippen visiting the studio with Chuck was there. Maybe Earnie and Kenny can make that happen now........it would be great for ratings.

Edited April 28, 2010 by coachx

[99PROBL3MS]

Those saying Joe isn't a "max" worthy player because he doesn't. "Put you over th top" don't see how flawed that logic is. No single star puts his team over the top. It is the players around him that puts the team over the top and makes them a contender.

The perfect example of this is Wade and the Heat or Kobe from a few years ago. You really don't think Joe could lead a championship caliber teaqm with the supporting cast of Lebron or Kobe? I definitely think so. Would he deserve to make more than since he is the best player on a better team? He is still the same player right.

As the other have said, these other guys may be worth millions more in terms of free-market value. Due to actual constraints on salary he probably should bpaid "max" money.

[Diesel]

I just feel that if a team is gonna pay the max amount for a player, then it better be a player who you can build a championship contending team around.

The bottom line is this. IS Dawayne Wade a max player? If you go by Chuck and your hard and fast rule, then no he's not. Neither is Lebron. Neither player can win a championship on their own and needs a good player to pair with for them to be in contention.

If Joe Johnson played with Shaq in his prime, do you think the outcome would not be a championship?

If you say Yes, and you still believe that a max player ought to be able to carry a team into the championship picture, then the only max playesr in the league should be Shaq and Tim Duncan.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

All I know . . . is that when Miami and Chicago and New York "show JJ the money", these same people who didn't want him re-signed for big money bet not cry about how the Hawks aren't doing anything to improve the team . . if they let JJ walk.

You don't challenge for titles in this league with a collection of "good" players. You need star caliber players.