D. Williams 1 yr, 5 million with immediate out clause

[Moranis]

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/news/story?id=6753259

If Besiktas is willing to pay Deron 5 million with no guarantee how long he will be there, I wonder what they would pay a star that they would have the whole season.  Williams sure seems to think they would pay them a lot more then that.

Williams says he has talked to a lot of other players who are considering leaving as well.  Could be very interesting if this thing goes awhile.

[get_banners]

This is the real risk for owners...if there is another viable market for NBA players. Yeah, there are some problems with player salaries that probably need to be fixed (probably with a reasonable hard upper and lower cap), but the owners are also manipulating their books a little to "lose money". Plus...there's just something wrong with them telling players they need to lower their salaries to prevent owners from making stupid FA decisions. Sorry, Joe Johnson's contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault, it's the moronic owner that agreed to it.

[PosImpos]

This is the real risk for owners...if there is another viable market for NBA players. Yeah, there are some problems with player salaries that probably need to be fixed (probably with a reasonable hard upper and lower cap), but the owners are also manipulating their books a little to "lose money". Plus...there's just something wrong with them telling players they need to lower their salaries to prevent owners from making stupid FA decisions. Sorry, Joe Johnson's contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault, it's the moronic owner that agreed to it.

It's the moronic marketplace, not specific owners, that cause that sort of dumb contract.  If Atlanta didn't pay Joe Johnson, some other team with cap space would have.  So the only way for Atlanta to escape your ridicule would have been to let their best player go in free agency last summer and effectively begin rebuilding.  Does that sound like a decision that GM / owner would be praised for?

[LooseCannon]

The Hawks would have been better off if they could have done a sign-and-trade for a traded player exception and some weak draft picks.  Joe Johnson is massively overpaid and worth probably only half his contract, if that.

Signing Johnson basically put the Hawks on the track to have several years of being a low playoff seed that usually exits in the first round, with little chance of being much better than that.

[Moranis]

The Hawks would have been better off if they could have done a sign-and-trade for a traded player exception and some weak draft picks.  Joe Johnson is massively overpaid and worth probably only half his contract, if that.

Signing Johnson basically put the Hawks on the track to have several years of being a low playoff seed that usually exits in the first round, with little chance of being much better than that.

They made the second round this year and I don't see them getting worse next year.  I mean their entire core finished last year in their 20's.  JJ was 29, Smith 25, Horford 24, Williams 24, Pachulia 26, Teague 20.  Crawford, Hinrich, and Collins are in their early 30's.  They should be the 3rd or 4th best team in the East (at worst) during the life of JJ's contract.

[cman88]

This is the real risk for owners...if there is another viable market for NBA players. Yeah, there are some problems with player salaries that probably need to be fixed (probably with a reasonable hard upper and lower cap), but the owners are also manipulating their books a little to "lose money". Plus...there's just something wrong with them telling players they need to lower their salaries to prevent owners from making stupid FA decisions. Sorry, Joe Johnson's contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault, it's the moronic owner that agreed to it.

It's the moronic marketplace, not specific owners, that cause that sort of dumb contract.  If Atlanta didn't pay Joe Johnson, some other team with cap space would have.  So the only way for Atlanta to escape your ridicule would have been to let their best player go in free agency last summer and effectively begin rebuilding.  Does that sound like a decision that GM / owner would be praised for?

this is exactly what i've been trying to say, and why the system as a whole needs to be changed. the players hold all the cards and can demand whatever salary they want...the GM has to overpay if they want to remain competitive, or risk losing them for nothing and having to "rebuild"...of course the players dont want to change the current system..I think they will eventually cave as I see the GM's holding out until they get what they want.

Danny's one of the few GM's who has let players walk because he wouldnt overpay...and I dont think fans really look well over him letting go of Tony allen, Perkins etc. but he'd handi-capp the team had he signed them long-term to win "now"

its a double edged sword for GM's..

[LooseCannon]

They should be the 3rd or 4th best team in the East (at worst) during the life of JJ's contract.

I see the Hawks being the 3rd or 4th best team in the East, at best, during that time period.  The Hawks gave a huge contract to their third-best player who is, arguably, about as good as Jeff Green.  That's the kind of thing that kills a team's ability to be a serious title contender.

[Moranis]

They should be the 3rd or 4th best team in the East (at worst) during the life of JJ's contract.

I see the Hawks being the 3rd or 4th best team in the East, at best, during that time period.  The Hawks gave a huge contract to their third-best player who is, arguably, about as good as Jeff Green.  That's the kind of thing that kills a team's ability to be a serious title contender.

Joe Johnson is significantly better then Jeff Green.  It isn't close.

[RAG50K]

They should be the 3rd or 4th best team in the East (at worst) during the life of JJ's contract.

I see the Hawks being the 3rd or 4th best team in the East, at best, during that time period.  The Hawks gave a huge contract to their third-best player who is, arguably, about as good as Jeff Green.  That's the kind of thing that kills a team's ability to be a serious title contender.

Also,Joe Johnson>>Josh SMith. The only reason I would prefer Smith over Johnson is because of the contract.
And as of now, JJ>Horford. But Horford has more potential(obviously)

[bdm860]

This is the real risk for owners...if there is another viable market for NBA players. Yeah, there are some problems with player salaries that probably need to be fixed (probably with a reasonable hard upper and lower cap), but the owners are also manipulating their books a little to "lose money". Plus...there's just something wrong with them telling players they need to lower their salaries to prevent owners from making stupid FA decisions. Sorry, Joe Johnson's contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault, it's the moronic owner that agreed to it.

It's the moronic marketplace, not specific owners, that cause that sort of dumb contract.  If Atlanta didn't pay Joe Johnson, some other team with cap space would have.  So the only way for Atlanta to escape your ridicule would have been to let their best player go in free agency last summer and effectively begin rebuilding.  Does that sound like a decision that GM / owner would be praised for?

While I can see blaming some things on the market, there is no way I can see blaming Joe Johnson’s contract on the market.  That was purely management’s fault. 

The market was not offering Joe Johnson $119 million.  Now I’m not 100% sure about this, but I’m pretty sure that was more than anybody else got last summer.  More than LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Stoudemire, Boozer, Gay, Dirk, and Pierce.  The market definitely didn’t value Joe Johnson above those guys.  I would imagine that the actual market for Joe Johnson was more like $90m, maybe less.  Granted, he does not even appear to be worth anywhere close to that right now, but the Hawks were only bidding against themselves.  I imagine they could have easily gotten him for $20m less with no negotiation, maybe even $30-40m less if the Hawks played hardball.  What other team was willing to pay Joe Johnson more than that?

It was the same thing with Allan Houston’s $100m contract back in 2001.  The market wasn’t paying a player like Houston that much, and I remember reading how many experts said the Knicks were only bidding against themselves and nobody else was prepared to offer more than $60m for Houston (though memory is a little fuzzy on this, it may have been more).  Some things just aren’t the market’s fault.

If Joe Johnson signed for $90m last year, it would still be viewed as a terrible contract now, but you could blame that on the market.
Joe Johnson signing for $119m and getting the largest contract in the most active free agent market ever, that’s just terrible management.

[Moranis]

This is the real risk for owners...if there is another viable market for NBA players. Yeah, there are some problems with player salaries that probably need to be fixed (probably with a reasonable hard upper and lower cap), but the owners are also manipulating their books a little to "lose money". Plus...there's just something wrong with them telling players they need to lower their salaries to prevent owners from making stupid FA decisions. Sorry, Joe Johnson's contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault, it's the moronic owner that agreed to it.

It's the moronic marketplace, not specific owners, that cause that sort of dumb contract.  If Atlanta didn't pay Joe Johnson, some other team with cap space would have.  So the only way for Atlanta to escape your ridicule would have been to let their best player go in free agency last summer and effectively begin rebuilding.  Does that sound like a decision that GM / owner would be praised for?

While I can see blaming some things on the market, there is no way I can see blaming Joe Johnson’s contract on the market.  That was purely management’s fault.  

The market was not offering Joe Johnson $119 million.  Now I’m not 100% sure about this, but I’m pretty sure that was more than anybody else got last summer.  More than LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Stoudemire, Boozer, Gay, Dirk, and Pierce.  The market definitely didn’t value Joe Johnson above those guys.  I would imagine that the actual market for Joe Johnson was more like $90m, maybe less.  Granted, he does not even appear to be worth anywhere close to that right now, but the Hawks were only bidding against themselves.  I imagine they could have easily gotten him for $20m less with no negotiation, maybe even $30-40m less if the Hawks played hardball.  What other team was willing to pay Joe Johnson more than that?

It was the same thing with Allan Houston’s $100m contract back in 2001.  The market wasn’t paying a player like Houston that much, and I remember reading how many experts said the Knicks were only bidding against themselves and nobody else was prepared to offer more than $60m for Houston (though memory is a little fuzzy on this, it may have been more).  Some things just aren’t the market’s fault.

If Joe Johnson signed for $90m last year, it would still be viewed as a terrible contract now, but you could blame that on the market.
Joe Johnson signing for $119m and getting the largest contract in the most active free agent market ever, that’s just terrible management.

He signed for a maximum deal.  The 90 million you cite is essentially the maximum any other team could sign him (without a sign and trade).  The Knicks and Bulls both offered him contracts, and it was rumored that both were for maximum contracts 5 years, 93 million.  Which means Johnson's value was the max and that is what he signed for.  Atlanta's max was just bigger then any other team could offer, but the max is the max.   

[greenpride32]

It's the moronic marketplace, not specific owners, that cause that sort of dumb contract.  If Atlanta didn't pay Joe Johnson, some other team with cap space would have. 

This. 

The high cap plus exceptions that existed in the previous CBA allows for a huge disparity in spending.  If you're ATL and you just continually let all your best players go, you have no hope of competing, and no hope of keeping a fanbase.  How would you feel if your team had to say we can't afford to keep any big stars once their contract is up? 

The only way to prevent larger market teams from stacking their rosters is to implement a hard cap.  Owners would not be allowed to offer excessive contracts in this scenario.  When you have a team that is willing and able to spend $60m more on players than other teams just works to drive up salary/bidding.

These comments are all under the mindset that you want competitive balance. 

[bdm860]

This is the real risk for owners...if there is another viable market for NBA players. Yeah, there are some problems with player salaries that probably need to be fixed (probably with a reasonable hard upper and lower cap), but the owners are also manipulating their books a little to "lose money". Plus...there's just something wrong with them telling players they need to lower their salaries to prevent owners from making stupid FA decisions. Sorry, Joe Johnson's contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault, it's the moronic owner that agreed to it.

It's the moronic marketplace, not specific owners, that cause that sort of dumb contract.  If Atlanta didn't pay Joe Johnson, some other team with cap space would have.  So the only way for Atlanta to escape your ridicule would have been to let their best player go in free agency last summer and effectively begin rebuilding.  Does that sound like a decision that GM / owner would be praised for?

While I can see blaming some things on the market, there is no way I can see blaming Joe Johnson’s contract on the market.  That was purely management’s fault.  

The market was not offering Joe Johnson $119 million.  Now I’m not 100% sure about this, but I’m pretty sure that was more than anybody else got last summer.  More than LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Stoudemire, Boozer, Gay, Dirk, and Pierce.  The market definitely didn’t value Joe Johnson above those guys.  I would imagine that the actual market for Joe Johnson was more like $90m, maybe less.  Granted, he does not even appear to be worth anywhere close to that right now, but the Hawks were only bidding against themselves.  I imagine they could have easily gotten him for $20m less with no negotiation, maybe even $30-40m less if the Hawks played hardball.  What other team was willing to pay Joe Johnson more than that?

It was the same thing with Allan Houston’s $100m contract back in 2001.  The market wasn’t paying a player like Houston that much, and I remember reading how many experts said the Knicks were only bidding against themselves and nobody else was prepared to offer more than $60m for Houston (though memory is a little fuzzy on this, it may have been more).  Some things just aren’t the market’s fault.

If Joe Johnson signed for $90m last year, it would still be viewed as a terrible contract now, but you could blame that on the market.
Joe Johnson signing for $119m and getting the largest contract in the most active free agent market ever, that’s just terrible management.

He signed for a maximum deal.  The 90 million you cite is essentially the maximum any other team could sign him (without a sign and trade).  The Knicks and Bulls both offered him contracts, and it was rumored that both were for maximum contracts 5 years, 93 million.  Which means Johnson's value was the max and that is what he signed for.  Atlanta's max was just bigger then any other team could offer, but the max is the max.   

So you think it was the market’s fault, and Atlanta had no choice but to give Joe Johnson $119m.  More than LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Boozer, Stoudemire, Gay, Dirk, and Pierce got?

From Kelly Dwyer:

It's never a good sign when, a full week before a player is set to put pen to paper to ink his most recent contract, that a good portion of the NBA community regards that contract as the worst it has ever seen.

Is this really that much of an exaggeration? “a good portion of the NBA community regards that contract as the worst it has ever seen.” 

So if the Knicks and Bulls are offering $93m, the Hawks have no choice but to trump that bid by $26m?  The Bulls and Knicks both could have offered sign-and-trades (since they were under the cap, right?  Unless Atlanta refused to do such deals which I have never heard), but didn’t, that should help tell you where the value is.  I bet those teams offered LeBron sign-and-trade deals though.

If the Hawks only offered Joe Johnson $109m, Joe wouldn’t sign it, would walk away from an additional $16m, because it wasn’t the max, and another team offered a “max” deal even if that other deal is 15% less?

Again the market did not value Joe Johnson at $119m.  Hawks fault, plain and simple.

[Moranis]

This is the real risk for owners...if there is another viable market for NBA players. Yeah, there are some problems with player salaries that probably need to be fixed (probably with a reasonable hard upper and lower cap), but the owners are also manipulating their books a little to "lose money". Plus...there's just something wrong with them telling players they need to lower their salaries to prevent owners from making stupid FA decisions. Sorry, Joe Johnson's contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault, it's the moronic owner that agreed to it.

It's the moronic marketplace, not specific owners, that cause that sort of dumb contract.  If Atlanta didn't pay Joe Johnson, some other team with cap space would have.  So the only way for Atlanta to escape your ridicule would have been to let their best player go in free agency last summer and effectively begin rebuilding.  Does that sound like a decision that GM / owner would be praised for?

While I can see blaming some things on the market, there is no way I can see blaming Joe Johnson’s contract on the market.  That was purely management’s fault.  

The market was not offering Joe Johnson $119 million.  Now I’m not 100% sure about this, but I’m pretty sure that was more than anybody else got last summer.  More than LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Stoudemire, Boozer, Gay, Dirk, and Pierce.  The market definitely didn’t value Joe Johnson above those guys.  I would imagine that the actual market for Joe Johnson was more like $90m, maybe less.  Granted, he does not even appear to be worth anywhere close to that right now, but the Hawks were only bidding against themselves.  I imagine they could have easily gotten him for $20m less with no negotiation, maybe even $30-40m less if the Hawks played hardball.  What other team was willing to pay Joe Johnson more than that?

It was the same thing with Allan Houston’s $100m contract back in 2001.  The market wasn’t paying a player like Houston that much, and I remember reading how many experts said the Knicks were only bidding against themselves and nobody else was prepared to offer more than $60m for Houston (though memory is a little fuzzy on this, it may have been more).  Some things just aren’t the market’s fault.

If Joe Johnson signed for $90m last year, it would still be viewed as a terrible contract now, but you could blame that on the market.
Joe Johnson signing for $119m and getting the largest contract in the most active free agent market ever, that’s just terrible management.

He signed for a maximum deal.  The 90 million you cite is essentially the maximum any other team could sign him (without a sign and trade).  The Knicks and Bulls both offered him contracts, and it was rumored that both were for maximum contracts 5 years, 93 million.  Which means Johnson's value was the max and that is what he signed for.  Atlanta's max was just bigger then any other team could offer, but the max is the max.   

So you think it was the market’s fault, and Atlanta had no choice but to give Joe Johnson $119m.  More than LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Boozer, Stoudemire, Gay, Dirk, and Pierce got?

From Kelly Dwyer:

It's never a good sign when, a full week before a player is set to put pen to paper to ink his most recent contract, that a good portion of the NBA community regards that contract as the worst it has ever seen.

Is this really that much of an exaggeration? “a good portion of the NBA community regards that contract as the worst it has ever seen.” 

So if the Knicks and Bulls are offering $93m, the Hawks have no choice but to trump that bid by $26m?  The Bulls and Knicks both could have offered sign-and-trades (since they were under the cap, right?  Unless Atlanta refused to do such deals which I have never heard), but didn’t, that should help tell you where the value is.  I bet those teams offered LeBron sign-and-trade deals though.

If the Hawks only offered Joe Johnson $109m, Joe wouldn’t sign it, would walk away from an additional $16m, because it wasn’t the max, and another team offered a “max” deal even if that other deal is 15% less?

Again the market did not value Joe Johnson at $119m.  Hawks fault, plain and simple.

The Hawks signed Johnson at 1.23 million more per season then the offers he received (19.83 v. 18.6).  Not exactly much above market value, which is what happens when you sign your own free agents under the C.B.A.  Your suggested offer of 109 is actually less per year then the offer of the Bulls/Knicks.  Sure it is a year longer, but it is less per year.  Given Chicago and New York have far more marketing options, Johnson easily would have gone to those cities for one less year, but way more money per year (with increased marketing). 

[17wasEZ]

This is the real risk for owners...if there is another viable market for NBA players. Yeah, there are some problems with player salaries that probably need to be fixed (probably with a reasonable hard upper and lower cap), but the owners are also manipulating their books a little to "lose money". Plus...there's just something wrong with them telling players they need to lower their salaries to prevent owners from making stupid FA decisions. Sorry, Joe Johnson's contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault, it's the moronic owner that agreed to it.

It's the moronic marketplace, not specific owners, that cause that sort of dumb contract.  If Atlanta didn't pay Joe Johnson, some other team with cap space would have.  So the only way for Atlanta to escape your ridicule would have been to let their best player go in free agency last summer and effectively begin rebuilding.  Does that sound like a decision that GM / owner would be praised for?

Wow! TP!