Yes, Joe Johnson's six-year, $119 million deal was excessive, but where would the Hawks be without him? All the progress Atlanta had made over the last five seasons would have been flushed had a player of Johnson's caliber left.Joe Johnson's contract actually costs $123.7 million.
It's not the most coherent report card. Larry Drew is complimented for his:
...plans to run a more balanced offense that will emphasize the low-post play of undersized center Al Horford and forward Josh Smith.How that sentiment (with which I agree) reconciles with the necessity of retaining Joe Johnson regardless of cost is unclear to me and is likely the result of assigned, rigidly formatted work due on deadline.
Those are the two things Mannix likes about the Hawks' off-season. (Which may explain the C+ grade he gives them.) As for the two things Mannix didn't like, the first laments the lack of a "true center" and the second the lack of a point guard in whom the Hawks (and their fans) can be reasonably confident. The latter is a thoroughly fair and too often overlooked point. The latter, as I've previously expressed, is both too familiar and unconvincing dependent, as it is, on ignoring Zaza Pachulia.