I know Wade is obviously a much better player than Joe Johnson, but why would signing wade be a no brainer, but many feel signing johnson is a dumb move? Wade is the same age as johnson, i think about 6 months younger, and is an injury risk, as he only gives you 60-70 games per season. Also, Wade is more reliant on his athletic abilities, and his game suggests that he may decline at a quicker rate. I would rather have wade of course, but i don't understand the major divide. I would be very happy if we end up with Johnson as a fallback.

Because one player is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the other player.

Wade is a superstar on both ends of the floor... he is the type of player u want to build a franchise around.

The only reason signing Wade would be bad is because of the beating his body takes. Other than that, if you sign Wade instead of LeBron, it's fine, as long as he can remain healthy. That might be asking a lot out of Wade though.

Choosing JJ over Wade is worthy of being fired and not having another NBA job.

No one would pick johnson over wade, but taking all things into account, the difference is much less then most people think. Although playing alongside more talent, johnson is leading a better team, plus wade has yet to really prove a lot without Shaq who will still somewhat in his prime. If you replace johnson with wade on the hawks, they are a better team, but are they better than the cavs, magic, and celtics. I don't think it puts them over the top. I think johnson is a top 15 player and he is always healthy, whereas wade will miss 20 games per year.

Joe Johnson is not on the same planet as Dwyane Wade.