Johnson?

[Basghetti80]

Word in Atlanta is that team could be in for a summer shakeup after the lackluster effort given in the Cleveland series. Now it is doubtful they could move Josh Smith and with Marvin Williams a FA along with Bibby the only attractable guys to other teams are Johnson and Horford. With Horford on a rookie deal I can't imagine Atlanta moving him but would they move Johnson fearing that they might lose him in summer of 2010? What might we be able to put together to pry Johnson away this summer? Perhaps Hinrich, Salmons and #16?

 

[dougthonus]

Basghetti80 wrote:

Word in Atlanta is that team could be in for a summer shakeup after the lackluster effort given in the Cleveland series. Now it is doubtful they could move Josh Smith and with Marvin Williams a FA along with Bibby the only attractable guys to other teams are Johnson and Horford. With Horford on a rookie deal I can't imagine Atlanta moving him but would they move Johnson fearing that they might lose him in summer of 2010? What might we be able to put together to pry Johnson away this summer? Perhaps Hinrich, Salmons and #16?

It's an interesting idea. I think you're right that Johnson might be available. After reading some of p03's thoughts on Johnson vs Gordon, it makes me think that we're so much better off keeping Gordon around 9 million than likely having to offer Johnson 12-14 million a year in an extension. Especially when he'll be an FA in a year with a lot of money available.

 

[Ralphb07]

Thanks Doug I knew I should of waited bit before I wrote anything..... lol

I don't want him and would much rather keep Gordon. Johnson needs the ball way too much and would take away from Rose. With BG people forget that he can be used as a catch and shoot guy and still be very productive. Gordon needs to go one on one sometimes and you don't wanna take that completely away from him but if BG returns we need to use BG 80% of the time off screens. We need to use him like a Alan Houston, Reggie Miller

 

[charity stripe]

If they are going to shake up things, they need to start by getting a better coach. Then they need to move Horford to PF by getting rid of Smith, and get a C in the draft. The way I saw it, their main problem was coaching and guys playing out of position. They have pretty good depth and their backcourt is good, although they could look into upgrading PG.

 

[Basghetti80]

This will spark a debate but I want Johnson above Gordon even at 12-14 as opposed to 9-10 for Gordon. I like Johnson more as a player. He is 6'8 can give you more versatility offensively and defensively, handles the ball better and helps us more matching up against Cleveland the team we are going to have to beat in the East for the next several years. A Johnson/Deng duo allows us to do more things defensively.

 

[RPK]

Basghetti80 wrote:

This will spark a debate but I want Johnson above Gordon even at 12-14 as opposed to 9-10 for Gordon. I like Johnson more as a player. He is 6'8 can give you more versatility offensively and defensively, handles the ball better and helps us more matching up against Cleveland the team we are going to have to beat in the East for the next several years. A Johnson/Deng duo allows us to do more things defensively.

Plus you can trade Hinrich so instead of paying for Gordon and Hinrich you're only paying for Johnson.

 

[dougthonus]

I haven't watched Johnson a ton defensively to know what his commitment is like, but given his height and physical gifts he's an absolutely atrocious rebounder. That could be part of the scheme since he does so much ball handling maybe his responsibility is to start a break rather than board, but I don't know.

He doesn't score more efficiently than Gordon.

He doesn't score in greater volume than Gordon.

He does generate more assists than Gordon, but then isn't that what you have Rose for? I mean if Rose is going to dominate the ball who's a better player off the ball, Johnson or Gordon?

You'd have to think Gordon. Maybe Johnson makes up for it with much better defense, but as I said, I haven't really watched his particular defense enough to tell. I really need to focus a lot of effort on a guy to judge his defensive abilities, so outside of guys I scout in college or guys on the Bulls my opinions on defensive ability of players is usually not very strong.

 

[clonetrooper264]

I'd take Gordon over him for various reasons: money, scoring efficiency, and the fact that Gordon can move off the ball and doesn't need to be handling the ball at all times to be effective. But that's just me.

 

[TheStig]

charity stripe wrote:

If they are going to shake up things, they need to start by getting a better coach. Then they need to move Horford to PF by getting rid of Smith, and get a C in the draft. The way I saw it, their main problem was coaching and guys playing out of position. They have pretty good depth and their backcourt is good, although they could look into upgrading PG.

Why is that the coach's fault, he played the roster that he was given. He wasn't given a real C and they aren't easy to come by. But I do see your point that they need another big but that is true for most of the league. He did what he had to play his best players, it just had to be out of position.

 

[step]

I mean if Rose is going to dominate the ball who's a better player off the ball, Johnson or Gordon?

Without a doubt Gordon.

From what I've seen, Johnson is pretty lazy on the defensive end. He just has the physical gifts to be so disruptive but he just isn't. He's almost in the category of a Michael Redd, people just adore the height measurements and think it will solve everything.

I doubt we'll offer the same $9M/yr for Gordon, so if we somehow manage to get him for less, he's a steal.

 

[Manic Devourer]

Gordon is a really good scorer, but Johnson is an All-star player.

Yes, Gordon is the better scorer, but Johnson is the better basketball without question.

With Johnson, we would have a legit star that can defer attention away from Rose, and vice versa.

If we were to get Johnson though, we'd probably have to trade Deng for a small forward who is capable of shooting the 3, so maybe we can trade to the Wolves for Miller. Johnson will definitely command attention from the opposing teams defense, but he is an inconsistent 3 point shooter, or shooter in general (then again so is Gordon, but he is more efficient - well at least this season), so we'd need another player in our starting line up to spread the court.

If we have a chance to get a veteran star player like Johnson, you just have to go for it. It's a must. I'm sick and tired of people constantly over-rating our players, and once a star player is available they become gun-shy and they are regretting after the first week of the next season.

Gordon will always been a good scorer, but he'll never be the player that Johnson is, a fantastic all round shooting guard. And even if we were to resign him next year, he'd only be 28, and he'd have a solid 4-5 years of peak play left in him.

 

[dougthonus]

What does Joe Johnson do better than Ben Gordon? It's not score. It's not rebound. It doesn't seem like it's defend (based on reputation). It's not perform in the clutch.

Seems like he requires a crapload more ball usage than Gordon to get more out of his game than Gordon.

Why do you think Gordon doesn't defer attention away from Rose? The Celts sent an automatic double every time Gordon touched the ball to the point that they started doubling him when he was 8 feet behind the three point line at times. How much more attention do you think someone can draw from Rose?

I think it'd be tough to find a guard who does a better job of taking attention away from Rose than Gordon. You could probably find someone who helps Rose defend better, but it doesn't seem like Johnson's going to do a whole lot of that.

 

[Manic Devourer]

There is just way too much blinding love for Gordon it's becoming ridiculous. The Fred infection is spreading rapidly.

I bet if you go around asking all the players, GM, and personnel around the league who they would prefer, more than 90% of them would choose Johnson over Gordon without hesitation, and the other remaining 10% would still be hesitate but would most likely choose Johnson as well.

WIth that being said, being that we have Rose, our main attention should be acquiring a star big man over a star swing player. You do what you can do get Amar'e, Bosh, Millsap, or whomever first, and then you move on to swing men if all those options have been tried.

 

[Dpauley23]

I think Gordon is better scorer, but how do we know that for sure? He asked to play pg on offense and Bibby plays the two. Johnson demands a double team too so don't discount that either. Also where are you getting this he's not good defender crap? He's pretty darn good one and the only reason he got minutes for Suns back in the day was because of his defense. In first round he shut down Wade pretty darn good where he only scored over his average twice

 

[Bullsman24]

well joe johnson is an all star only by reputation. if ben gordon had his perfect world, he would have been drafted onto a lackluster team and been the main focus still he's hurt by the fact that he came up with hinrich and deng because they made the team seem like it was good because it was balanced (which it sort of was) if gordon was put in a team's best player role, he could be a better kevin martin and he would be a serious all-star pick. just look at the numbers:

PPG 20.7
RPG 3.5
APG 3.4
SPG 0.9
BPG 0.3
FG% 0.455
FT% 0.864
3P% 0.410
MPG 36.6

PPG 21.4
RPG 4.4
APG 5.8
SPG 1.1
BPG 0.2
FG% 0.437
FT% 0.826
3P% 0.360
MPG 39.5

more minutes for johnson, and just a little bit more scoring. ok, rebounds and assists, but he has his hands on the ball all the time, it happens eventually, steals and blocks virtually the same, gordon has a fg% 2 points higher, ft% 3 points higher, 3p% 5 points higher. and again, in less minutes, so he would average 20.4 per 36 minutes compared to johnson's 19.8 per 36 minutes

furthermore, gordon is the best case scenario next to rose because he spreads the defense and takes pressure off rose

 

[Bullsman24]

btw, top stats are gordon bottom is johnson

 

[Dpauley23]

Are you saying that if Gordon was on Hawks he would be an allstar

 

[Manic Devourer]

bullsman24 wrote:

well joe johnson is an all star only by reputation. if ben gordon had his perfect world, he would have been drafted onto a lackluster team and been the main focus still he's hurt by the fact that he came up with hinrich and deng because they made the team seem like it was good because it was balanced (which it sort of was) if gordon was put in a team's best player role, he could be a better kevin martin and he would be a serious all-star pick. just look at the numbers:

I've always said that you put Gordon on a bad term, his numbers would be fantastic but his teams would never win because with the green light he would dominate the ball even more so then he does now.

And lets not praise Gordon for the success of the team prior to this season. All Hinrich, Deng and Gordon had superb seasons at the same time which is why all their seasons benefited from each others games. And that was with him being one of the worst defenders on our team at that particular time, with the rest of the team playing team defense to compensate for his bad defense.

But you're right, his numbers would be great, like Kevin Martins as you say in your example, but in the same regard his teams would be just as bad as the Kings are right now as well. He would likely be considered like Martin had been, but he wouldn't make it just as Martin didn't make the all-star team.

 

[Bullsman24]

if he was established because of the suns before he got traded to the hawks to be their #1 option, then he would have a reputation of being a great player instead of being the leading scorer on a balanced team.

 

[Shakes]

Would Johnson be happy here even if we got him? Didn't he want to go to the Hawks to be "the man" rather than be a good player on the Suns team? So how would he take playing with Rose who we're assuming is going to be the star of the team?

Disregarding salary and the Gordon/Johnson debate, I think Johnson's personality makes him a risk.