Why giving JJ the max is ridiculous

[thecampster]

Giving someone the max is easy when it isn't your money or worse yet it's monopoly money to most of the posters here. Here is what Giving JJ the max means. Please God let every Squawker read this in it's context.

If we give JJ the max, the last 3 years of the deal will be 20, 22, 24 million approximately. That means that one player will control 33-40% of the cap all by himself. That is lunacy. That is no way to build a team unless that player is named Kobe, Lebron, Dwayne, Dwight or a few players in their prime. Giving Joe the max is a 10 million dollar raise 6 years from now. That's not free money, it's money that is being taken away from signing other players. You can go over the cap year one to sign your own players, but after that, subsequent signs have to fit cap rules.

If you sign JJ tonight ASG, you are telling every Hawks fan, this is it. This is what you get for the next 6 years. Hawks under contract in 3 years (assuming Horford signs for similar money to Josh Smith) in 2012/2013.

JJ - 19 million

Josh - 13.2 million

Horford - 13 million

Marvin - 8.3 million

Zaza - 5.2 million

Teague - 2.4 million

Jordan Crawford - 1.2 million

62.3 million total - 5 million over the current cap.

That's your team guys. You sign JJ for the max and you are looking at Teague, JJ, Josh, Marvin and Horfod and absolutely no bench in 3 years. You are over the cap with 5 slots to fill. for everyone saying pay JJ the max, you are not thinking this through. This will handcuff us for years to come.

[MaceCase]

Ever heard of a trade? Draft maybe? It's inconceivable to overreact and pretend that the squad we have now will be exactly the same next year yet alone 3-4 years from now. Too many fluid factors to just start claiming gloom and doom.

[Seano]

That's your team guys. You sign JJ for the max and you are looking at Teague, JJ, Josh, Marvin and Horfod and absolutely no bench in 3 years. You are over the cap with 5 slots to fill. for everyone saying pay JJ the max, you are not thinking this through. This will handcuff us for years to come.

Oh. So trades will no longer be allowed in the NBA?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but c'mon, let's be realistic here. Why do you assume that would be our roster in 3 years time?

[LastDon]

Giving someone the max is easy when it isn't your money or worse yet it's monopoly money to most of the posters here. Here is what Giving JJ the max means. Please God let every Squawker read this in it's context.

If we give JJ the max, the last 3 years of the deal will be 20, 22, 24 million approximately. That means that one player will control 33-40% of the cap all by himself. That is lunacy. That is no way to build a team unless that player is named Kobe, Lebron, Dwayne, Dwight or a few players in their prime. Giving Joe the max is a 10 million dollar raise 6 years from now. That's not free money, it's money that is being taken away from signing other players. You can go over the cap year one to sign your own players, but after that, subsequent signs have to fit cap rules.

If you sign JJ tonight ASG, you are telling every Hawks fan, this is it. This is what you get for the next 6 years. Hawks under contract in 3 years (assuming Horford signs for similar money to Josh Smith) in 2012/2013.

JJ - 19 million

Josh - 13.2 million

Horford - 13 million

Marvin - 8.3 million

Zaza - 5.2 million

Teague - 2.4 million

Jordan Crawford - 1.2 million

62.3 million total - 5 million over the current cap.

That's your team guys. You sign JJ for the max and you are looking at Teague, JJ, Josh, Marvin and Horfod and absolutely no bench in 3 years. You are over the cap with 5 slots to fill. for everyone saying pay JJ the max, you are not thinking this through. This will handcuff us for years to come.

I think that when the hawks brass are saying max that they are referring to max number of years but there is no way we should out bid our selves by 20 mil. Personally I would let him walk because IMO he is not what makes the highlight factory special. I think that the team would be more exciting with an athletic Childress and would be jus as dangerous. I think the hawks frontline Smith, Horford, Williams are the heart of the team. And yes I said WILLIAMS if JJ leaves he averages at least 17ppg, that 7 point increase along with the 13 we get from Chillz would make up for the lost of JJ. The danger lies in letting teams within the conference form 3 headed monsters. So therefore we should overpay and dump the contract on Cuban or NY next season when JJ be JJ next season in the playoffs.

[clicklandshopping]

Giving someone the max is easy when it isn't your money or worse yet it's monopoly money to most of the posters here. Here is what Giving JJ the max means. Please God let every Squawker read this in it's context.

If we give JJ the max, the last 3 years of the deal will be 20, 22, 24 million approximately. That means that one player will control 33-40% of the cap all by himself. That is lunacy. That is no way to build a team unless that player is named Kobe, Lebron, Dwayne, Dwight or a few players in their prime. Giving Joe the max is a 10 million dollar raise 6 years from now. That's not free money, it's money that is being taken away from signing other players. You can go over the cap year one to sign your own players, but after that, subsequent signs have to fit cap rules.

If you sign JJ tonight ASG, you are telling every Hawks fan, this is it. This is what you get for the next 6 years. Hawks under contract in 3 years (assuming Horford signs for similar money to Josh Smith) in 2012/2013.

JJ - 19 million

Josh - 13.2 million

Horford - 13 million

Marvin - 8.3 million

Zaza - 5.2 million

Teague - 2.4 million

Jordan Crawford - 1.2 million

62.3 million total - 5 million over the current cap.

That's your team guys. You sign JJ for the max and you are looking at Teague, JJ, Josh, Marvin and Horfod and absolutely no bench in 3 years. You are over the cap with 5 slots to fill. for everyone saying pay JJ the max, you are not thinking this through. This will handcuff us for years to come.

Well that unfortunately is the price you have to pay for success. One good thing is we have a very young nucleus that is able to be traded because of their talent level. These will be hard decisions when it's time for Teague and Jordan to re-up, but I think this roster will get better every year. If not, even Joe will be able to be traded in about 3 Years!!

[thecampster]

Ever heard of a trade? Draft maybe? It's inconceivable to overreact and pretend that the squad we have now will be exactly the same next year yet alone 3-4 years from now. Too many fluid factors to just start claiming gloom and doom.

But because you are over the cap, you can only get value for value when trading. So I stand by the statement that giving a non max type player 33-40% of your available cap is lunacy.

[clicklandshopping]

I think that when the hawks brass are saying max that they are referring to max number of years but there is no way we should out bid our selves by 20 mil. Personally I would let him walk because IMO he is not what makes the highlight factory special. I think that the team would be more exciting with an athletic Childress and would be jus as dangerous. I think the hawks frontline Smith, Horford, Williams are the heart of the team. And yes I said WILLIAMS if JJ leaves he averages at least 17ppg, that 7 point increase along with the 13 we get from Chillz would make up for the lost of JJ. The danger lies in letting teams within the conference form 3 headed monsters. So therefore we should overpay and dump the contract on Cuban or NY next season when JJ be JJ next season in the playoffs.

I agree somewhat, especially about Marvin. But I also think that JJ makes our team more legit in terms of drawing free agent. If Jamal would have been traded here without JJ on the team I think he would have never agreed to come off the bench and be a role player. I think if one of those guys would have become a go to guy who can pass, play D, and command double team like JJ,we probably would have let him walk.

[KB21]

Giving someone the max is easy when it isn't your money or worse yet it's monopoly money to most of the posters here. Here is what Giving JJ the max means. Please God let every Squawker read this in it's context.

If we give JJ the max, the last 3 years of the deal will be 20, 22, 24 million approximately. That means that one player will control 33-40% of the cap all by himself. That is lunacy. That is no way to build a team unless that player is named Kobe, Lebron, Dwayne, Dwight or a few players in their prime. Giving Joe the max is a 10 million dollar raise 6 years from now. That's not free money, it's money that is being taken away from signing other players. You can go over the cap year one to sign your own players, but after that, subsequent signs have to fit cap rules.

If you sign JJ tonight ASG, you are telling every Hawks fan, this is it. This is what you get for the next 6 years. Hawks under contract in 3 years (assuming Horford signs for similar money to Josh Smith) in 2012/2013.

JJ - 19 million

Josh - 13.2 million

Horford - 13 million

Marvin - 8.3 million

Zaza - 5.2 million

Teague - 2.4 million

Jordan Crawford - 1.2 million

62.3 million total - 5 million over the current cap.

That's your team guys. You sign JJ for the max and you are looking at Teague, JJ, Josh, Marvin and Horfod and absolutely no bench in 3 years. You are over the cap with 5 slots to fill. for everyone saying pay JJ the max, you are not thinking this through. This will handcuff us for years to come.

It's going to be a mess, IMO. My thinking right now is that the Hawks ownership do not realize what they have in Al Horford. If there is anyone on this team they should be making a focal point, it is Al Horford. If it were me, I'd let Joe walk and put that money towards getting Al signed to a long term extension.

[mrhonline]

What's fascinating is to compare Joe's potential salary with Larry Drew's salary.

Whodya' will be making the big decisions?

[rusty]

Oh. So trades will no longer be allowed in the NBA?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but c'mon, let's be realistic here. Why do you assume that would be our roster in 3 years time?

who the hell would trade for him in 3 years when the real big money kicks in & he is 3 years older

[Joker]

It's going to be a mess, IMO. My thinking right now is that the Hawks ownership do not realize what they have in Al Horford. If there is anyone on this team they should be making a focal point, it is Al Horford. If it were me, I'd let Joe walk and put that money towards getting Al signed to a long term extension.

We can go over the Luxury tax, just that we need to sell out Phillips for ANY signing to happen.

[rusty]

What's fascinating is to compare Joe's potential salary with Larry Drew's salary.

Whodya' will be making the big decisions?

i guess they think he is worth 120 drews

[KB21]

We can go over the Luxury tax, just that we need to sell out Phillips for ANY signing to happen.

We can only do that to sign our own though.

Spending money wisely is something I touched on in my most recent blog entry over at Soaring Down South. Allocating a large percentage of your salary cap to 2 or 3 players is not spending your money wisely in the long term. It's difficult to field a team around those 2-3 players if you have committed that much money into those three players.

[Guest]

We can only do that to sign our own though.

I believe you are confusing the salary cap and luxury tax here. We can sign outside free agents with the MLE or LLE that puts us over the luxury tax. Of course this also implies we are over the cap and the signing will push us farther from the cap.

[KB21]

I believe you are confusing the salary cap and luxury tax here. We can sign outside free agents with the MLE or LLE that puts us over the luxury tax. Of course this also implies we are over the cap and the signing will push us farther from the cap.

Yep. I did confuse salary cap vs luxury tax.

[MaceCase]

But because you are over the cap, you can only get value for value when trading. So I stand by the statement that giving a non max type player 33-40% of your available cap is lunacy.

How big was the assload of players Minnesota got for KG to match his salary? How did Washington get out of 4 of their 5 bad contracts? How did the Knicks for god's sake get space for two maxes? Yea no duh when you are over the cap you can only trade for equal salaries unless it's to a team under the cap but how important has free agency been to this team outside of Joe? How many teams have won championships due to players they signed through free agency? For all you know we could trade Josh for another allstar and Jamal for multiple role players pushing us to a championship or we can have a firesale drastically slashing payroll. The team could even be sold to an ownership that doesn't mind paying lux tax. My mind is completely blown, first people complain that the team doesn't spend enough now they are bitching we are spending too much....Really? Yea I get the anxiety because of the current ownership group but I see multiple teams with multiple maxes on their teams and even more fishing for more maxes. I don't hear them talking about how having two players taking up 80% of their cap is lunacy it's simply standard business practice in the NBA.

[Guest]

My mind is completely blown, first people complain that the team doesn't spend enough now they are bitching we are spending too much....Really?

I think you are oversimplifying the arguments. People aren't angry that the ASG is spending for Joe, its that they are making poor decisions. With the draft it was purely a monetary issue, with Joe its an issue of looking down the line and seeing how this ties the team to Joe's performance...and contract. People aren't optimistic that Joe can produce, so they think its foolish spending.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Here's a question for you Camp:

If that team in 2013 has gotten to ( not won ), but played in the NBA Finals in 2012, are we even talking about how much these guys are making?

Because the fact is . . . you have to "pay the cost to be the boss".

It's so funny how on one hand, people constantly called the ASG "cheap" ( I've even questioned whether they'd go all out to pay people or bring in a winner ). But when the ASG actually does something significant, people cry about it and talk about how it will "handicap" the team.

Let's be real. Most of the people who have a huge problem with JJ getting a MAX deal, would rather see JJ gone altogether. It wouldn't matter if he were making 10 mill a year, they'd still want him gone.

That's the REAL ISSUE HERE.

The fact is that you can replace JJ's name with Lebron, or Wade, or Bosh, or Amare, or whomever. Under your scenario . . we'd still have the same issue with payroll if any of those guys were here, instead of JJ.

So let's run it back and see what you and the others are saying. Instead of . . .

a) re-signing JJ to a MAX deal . . and keeping a team together coming off the 5th best regular season in Atlanta history, and see if they can expand on what they can do as a group under a new coach . . . but take a risk of having a sky high payroll in 3 years

you'd rather . . .

b) let JJ walk ( or sign and trade him for a role player ), and see if the team can do better with Horford and Smith as the go-to guys, even if it means taking a few steps back in the short term, . . . while keeping payroll reasonable enough to add role players to supplement Smith and Horford.

That's about it . . . right?

[MaceCase]

I think you are oversimplifying the arguments. People aren't angry that the ASG is spending for Joe, its that they are making poor decisions. With the draft it was purely a monetary issue, with Joe its an issue of looking down the line and seeing how this ties the team to Joe's performance...and contract. People aren't optimistic that Joe can produce, so they think its foolish spending.

I get that completely but that's not his argument. His argument is centered around paying a player up to 40% of the cap and how crippling that is unless their name is Kobe, Wade or Lebron. I can name at least 15 teams paying players that percentage of their cap. There is no mention of the ASG's spending habits but rather this is an overarching rule for all teams to follow. The simple mention that we will have no bench in 3 years and be locked in to the same 7 players for 6 years was the most comical part. We all understand that offering Joe the max is less than optimal but to say there is zero roster flexibility for the next half decade...That is oversimplification to me, the fact people are saying there is a set 50 million dollars to be spent for the next decade and paying Joe 20 million leaves no more money for anyone else.

[bleachkit]

ASG is in a tight spot, JJ isnt worth the max, but they have no choice in order to keep him. Years 4, 5 and 6 of that contract are gonna suck thats for sure.