[llperez]

With the believed amnesty options for teams, could the hawks concievably cut joe johnson and his remaining 5 years worth around 105 million dollars? What would you do?

[The8thDeadlySinParticipant]

 I would be happy for JJ. He is expected to be a number 1 with Atlanta.  It is pretty clear that he isn’t.  Now he would get a chance to sign with a team where he can be a number two.  Maybe Orlando can cut Arenas and get rid of Hedo and pick up JJ….

[llperez]

it would be a tough pill to swallow for the hawks to still have to pay him his 100 mill for nothing other then to be able to rebuild and avoid taxes.

[FellyBaby905Participant]

ya the money comes off the "cap" but theyd still have to fork over $100 million for nothing

[r377Participant]

yes i always thought his contract was too big.  Sure he might be worth $20 mill for maybe 2 or 3 seasons but after that he will stop producing and be on the decline (if not sooner)

[llperez]

in hindsite, the more i think about it, i doubt they do it. But if they did, imagine how lucky jj would be if he signs another deal for 10-15 mill per on top of the 20 mill per he would still get from the hawks. DUde would be getting PAID higher then anyone in the league.

[JNixonParticipant]

 The Hawks aren’t cutting Joe Johnson.

[Toronto16Participant]

 ^ Agreed.  He is a fan favourite in Atlanta

[OhCanada-Participant]

I understand the purpose of cutting Joe Johnson…rebuild the team with the money his contract will consume, initiate the rebuilding process before failing to win, yada yada. Fact is Atlanta has been a horrible market for this sport. Joe Johnson in New York, LA, or Boston would be a full fledged superstar. He is this teams marketing plan. Joe sells the tickets in Atlanta. There is no way Atlanta will just CUT their number one moneymaker.

Really if you look at it in a marketing perspective the Hawks arent losing at all. They make the Playoffs every year, they are bound to advance every year, and a very good team. Things can change…they dont have to lose in the playoffs lol. If they change a couple things around, improve their games (they are still very young), make a couple trades there is no reason why they cant be legit contenders. No need to change right now by cutting JJ.

[M-DYMESParticipant]

Anytime your team is a perennial playoff team, particularly in the East, there is no reason to blow it up by getting rid of your top player, even if he is overpaid.  Anything can happen in the playoffs, esp. in the East.  LBJ or Wade go down, BAM…the East completely opens up.  Add in Teague’s improvement and any additions they make…this team is a contender. 

They play both sides of the ball and when healthy, this team is very competitive against any team in the league. 

 

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

Do you want the long list of teams to get to the second round of the playoffs for the past three years? Lakers, Celtics, and Hawks. No, Atlanta isn’t cutting their best player and paying him $107 million not to play for them.

[Bmore_DCParticipant]

 why would you cut (arguably) your best player???

what kinda message does that send to your fanbase? joe johnson is not rashard lewis dude…

[The Scare Crow ReturnsParticipant]

If they CUT HIM…makes No sense to me…to pay for players that don’t Play for your team anymore…someone wanna explain how this Amnsety clause is supposed to work…Because I was of the assumption that if you in fact CUT a player you shed his salary for good…If your cutting players to clear cap space Why are you still factoring in the Hawks in this case to continue paying Joe Johnson…

[llperez]

yes, i realized almost immediately after making this thread that it makes little sense.

[fastdanParticipant]

The contract they signed with him still exists. They can release him from the team but are legally binded to pay the amount owed him. It’s essentially buying out, but it get’s taken off their team’s salary, thus creating cap space and avoiding tax penalties. I havn’t read the agreed CBA but the last one stated they could pay the player over 2 times the years of the contract plus one to pay him out, in order not to bankrupt the team. So if JJ was bought  out he’s owed around 20mil over 5 years, so they would pay him that money over 11 years (5 x 2 + 1). Not too bad if he did get released, making almost 9 figures when he’s years removed from playing a game.

[omphalosParticipant]

I think the amnesty means you double to amount of time you pay the contract; so it’d be 120 mil over 12 years instead of six and it comes off the cap. That’s the last system I heard. Will be interesting to see how many teams do this. I also heard it’s possible they’ll have an amnesty for the duration of the CBA.

[JaeEvolutionParticipant]

Why would we cut a guy who still produces at a very high level…? Sure you guys don’t agree with his contract but he’s still a GOOD SG in the league, come on guys.

[llperez]

while i admit cutting doesnt make much sense seeing as how they would eat 100 mill, the argument that he is good so it makes no sense doesnt really mean much. If you feel you arent going anywhere with a certain player and he is grossly overpaid, its hard to develop as a team with him and thus cutting could be a way to take a step backwards in order to improve long term and better the teams ability to go forward. Just being a top 5-10 sg doesnt mean you cant spend 20 mill in better ways.

[gmforhireParticipant]

 I’m sure the other 29 teams would be estatic about J.J getting cut but the hawks would never do that. he is a underacheiving star but he is a great trading chip. The hawks need to send him to G.S. for Ellis.. Ellis is always in attack mode and J.J would be a great 2nd option next to Curry.

[TyroberParticipant]

 Why would you cut your best player? And its not just cutting him. Your would be paying him 100 MILLION DOLLARS to go away. The Hawks have to pay him anyway so why on earth would you not pay him to play?

[The Scare Crow ReturnsParticipant]

Basicaly your paying MAX dollars either way you look at it,,…If you cut a Big Contract youre still paying it off over time, add in the cost of your roster and Free Agent signings and a team would be spending twice as much as they were before the Amnesty…Only makes sense if the players only got a year or two left and Big FA is on the Market(thus helping you seal more tickets/make the playoffs and help with cost of paying Said player)

[aamir543Participant]

 You don’t cut a guy one year after signing him, and paying him a hundred million dollars to go play solid ball for ANOTEHR TEAM. With that being said, they should definatly amnesty him if they have the chance, because my understanding is that he still gets his money, but it doesn’t count against the cap.

[The Scare Crow ReturnsParticipant]

everybody says he’s on the decline and he’s one of the highest paid players in the League, realisticly they could amnesty Kobe to sign Howard and still retain Kobe(he’ll be a Laker for life)

[HitsterParticipant]

From a financial sense it might make sense but the team cannot lose its star player and still pay him that huge amount as minus Joe they could lose play off spots and revenue as well as ticket/merchandising sales as he is their most popular player. Perhaps they cut Marvin Williams instead.

[iguapops420Participant]

 @Crow, give it up bud lol, LAL would NEVER amnesty Kobe. He is an ICON for LAL. He brings in WORLDS more money for the team than Joe does for ATL. Not to mention there is no guarantee that Dwight would sign with LAL and then they will be out Kobe. If someone gets amnesty cut from the big 4, it’d be Pau IMO, team option on Bynum at the end of the season and Odom is only on for 2.4 million guaranteed next yearl That’d be some decent spending power. 

[Author]

Posts