CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Tr1boy on January 21, 2018, 03:13:28 PM
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
-
'Can't help but notice that the recent 'sub par' performances by Horford correspond to a stretch of games where Brad has seemed to lose faith in using Baynes much. This has forced Al to play far more minutes at the 5.
Horford is so much better when he's been at the 4 this season.
-
Trading Al Horford for Dedmon would be an insanely ridiculous move to make. He’s the second most important cog in our offence, and our defensive anchor - yet because he doesn’t always score you want to trade him. Very premature
-
'Can't help but notice that the recent 'sub par' performances by Horford correspond to a stretch of games where Brad has seemed to lose faith in using Baynes much. This has forced Al to play far more minutes at the 5.
Horford is so much better when he's been at the 4 this season.
Maybe .but if draymond can play the 5, so can Al
-
We are officially in the the sky is falling mode
-
He's been the best overall player all season long. Okay though.
-
Horford is a 4..can't be playing center..if they had a legit C, he would be great
-
Yes: we should be a wise as Atlanta and get rid of Horford for cheaper options. See how well it worked out for them.
-
Mediocre All-Star.
-
Overreaction season is finally here.
-
gettin old.. just needs some Kyrie plant based cooking...
-
Overreaction season is finally here.
7 pts tonight is ridiculous
he needs to "bring it" sometimes and not expect Kyrie to do all the heavy lifting on offense
celtics are basically paying 30 million for a guy that is a "sidekick" ....
I disliked Horford signing from day 1, especially length of deal
-
I've been on this train the moment Durant signed to GS. He is a complimentary player. He amplifies those around him, but is not someone who can be relied upon to carry the team (which is something you'd want in a max player).
Doesn't matter who is available or who's not, Horford plays the same way. Kyrie is out, 11 shot attempts, Kyrie comes back in, 11 shot attempts. He doesn't force any issues, always takes what the defense gives him. Doesn't take initiative, doesn't lead on the court.
Don't get wrong though, 10/10 times I sign him to this contract if it means we get a chance at a talent like Durant though (who reportedly wanted to play with Horford).
The market just super inflated his value. I don't hold it against Ainge, but Horford's the 3rd/4th best player on a championship team and if you can help it, you don't give those type of guys a max deal.
-
Best passing big men in the league and in convo for DPOY...
yeah lets get rid of him! ::)
-
I've been on this train the moment Durant signed to GS. He is a complimentary player. He amplifies those around him, but is not someone who can be relied upon to carry the team (which is something you'd want in a max player).
Doesn't matter who is available or who's not, Horford plays the same way. Kyrie is out, 11 shot attempts, Kyrie comes back in, 11 shot attempts. He doesn't force any issues, always takes what the defense gives him. Doesn't take initiative, doesn't lead on the court.
Don't get wrong though, 10/10 times I sign him to this contract if it means we get a chance at a talent like Durant though (who reportedly wanted to play with Horford).
The market just super inflated his value. I don't hold it against Ainge, but Horford's the 3rd/4th best player on a championship team and if you can help it, you don't give those type of guys a max deal.
since he amplifies those around him, will be nice what he can to help Hayward when he's back. Eager to see if that opens things up for horford as well
-
This is the Hell part of the season, just before the playoffs. Players are thinking of having a few days off away from basketball(except the All Stars of course) and they are tired and just want to get through the trade deadline.
After the All Star and trade deadline if Horford is still playing bad, then move him over the summer. It's a big contract to move in the middle of the season, not many options. Plus then you can add the LA pick if it lands with him for a AD type player.
-
If you want him traded, what reasonable trade is out there?
-
Al has been great for us defensively. Offensively, he's a facilitator, not a scorer and that's a role he performs well. The problem with Al is that he's more suited to be 3rd banana. Maybe if Gordon were healthy, Al's complete lack of scoring aggression wouldn't be a such a glaring issue, but this team badly needs a consistent 2nd option. As the healthy max guy on the roster, the onus is on him to pick up the slack.
-
Most writers think al will make all star game this year
-
I think it's fair to be critical of Al's lack of of assertiveness on offense. I get that he is not a shot creator, but sometimes we need an easy bucket to stop a run, and you would think your highly skilled big man would be able to help out with that at times. His defense is incredibly solid and he is obviously a great passer, but sometimes we need more.
I am not sure if he will eventually be moved (it would certainly not be during this season), but I am eagerly awaiting Hayward's return and Tatum's continued offensive growth.
-
This over reaction of getting rid of a main cog on this team simply because he isn't a #1A scoring option, when you signed him to be a #3 or #4 scoring option is pretty ridiculous. Horford has played a whole 5 minutes with the Kyrie-Hayward 1-2 punch. He is here to be the ball moving focal point of the offense, the defensive communicator of the defense and give you 11 shots a game with 7 rebounds and 6 assists while playing great defense.
I think he has played amazing this year. You just don't trade him because he isn't Hayward offensively. You accept what happens this year and let the team be what they will be next year with everyone healthy and playing their role.
-
I think it's fair to criticize horford, he's been pretty horrible since his last "rest" game.
with that said, I think this team is banged up more than they're letting on. plus the whole flu thing going around...
I think this team will struggle till after the all star break unfortunately.
-
We are officially in the the sky is falling mode
+1, just silly stuff
-
Thanks for the good laugh, I needed that.
TP!
-
Thanks for the good laugh, I needed that.
TP!
This. With a TP to KGK.
-
'Can't help but notice that the recent 'sub par' performances by Horford correspond to a stretch of games where Brad has seemed to lose faith in using Baynes much. This has forced Al to play far more minutes at the 5.
Horford is so much better when he's been at the 4 this season.
This is becoming such an excuse. He has been starting with Baynes and Horford and the team as a whole keep on getting off to slow starts. At some point we have to accept that Al has mediocre stretches in every season and stop blaming it on who he is on the floor with.
-
He wasn't mediocre in last year's playoffs.
-
And if you're wondering, shooting 44% from 3 while averaging 8 rebounds a game where Al Horford is currently hovering?
It's only been done once in @NBA history (Troy Murphy, 2009), and never on a winning team
Put Hayward next to Horford and Kyrie, and watch him lead in the league in assists as a center...
Oh wait...
He does!
-
And if you're wondering, shooting 44% from 3 while averaging 8 rebounds a game where Al Horford is currently hovering?
It's only been done once in @NBA history (Troy Murphy, 2009), and never on a winning team
Put Hayward next to Horford and Kyrie, and watch him lead in the league in assists as a center...
Oh wait...
He does!
Without checking I can confidently say that Al Horford does NOT lead the league in assists. If you are saying he leads centers in assists then I would believe it.
-
And if you're wondering, shooting 44% from 3 while averaging 8 rebounds a game where Al Horford is currently hovering?
It's only been done once in @NBA history (Troy Murphy, 2009), and never on a winning team
Put Hayward next to Horford and Kyrie, and watch him lead in the league in assists as a center...
Oh wait...
He does!
Without checking I can confidently say that Al Horford does NOT lead the league in assists. If you are saying he leads centers in assists then I would believe it.
It's funny that you're so confident that my comment was wrong when it clearly says center.
-
And if you're wondering, shooting 44% from 3 while averaging 8 rebounds a game where Al Horford is currently hovering?
It's only been done once in @NBA history (Troy Murphy, 2009), and never on a winning team
Put Hayward next to Horford and Kyrie, and watch him lead in the league in assists as a center...
Oh wait...
He does!
Without checking I can confidently say that Al Horford does NOT lead the league in assists. If you are saying he leads centers in assists then I would believe it.
It's funny that you're so confident that my comment was wrong when it clearly says center.
You said he leads the league in assists as a center which is different than leads centers in assists. So I guess that is funny.
-
And if you're wondering, shooting 44% from 3 while averaging 8 rebounds a game where Al Horford is currently hovering?
It's only been done once in @NBA history (Troy Murphy, 2009), and never on a winning team
Put Hayward next to Horford and Kyrie, and watch him lead in the league in assists as a center...
Oh wait...
He does!
Without checking I can confidently say that Al Horford does NOT lead the league in assists. If you are saying he leads centers in assists then I would believe it.
It's funny that you're so confident that my comment was wrong when it clearly says center.
You said he leads the league in assists as a center which is different than leads centers in assists. So I guess that is funny.
Love to make people laugh.
-
And if you're wondering, shooting 44% from 3 while averaging 8 rebounds a game where Al Horford is currently hovering?
It's only been done once in @NBA history (Troy Murphy, 2009), and never on a winning team
Put Hayward next to Horford and Kyrie, and watch him lead in the league in assists as a center...
Oh wait...
He does!
Without checking I can confidently say that Al Horford does NOT lead the league in assists. If you are saying he leads centers in assists then I would believe it.
It's funny that you're so confident that my comment was wrong when it clearly says center.
you didn't actually say he is the leading among centers for assists. You said he was leading the league in assists and then stated his position as a center. It was clear what you meant, but you didn't actually say that.
The thing is, Horford still plays an awful lot at PF, and that is where he starts. ESPN doesn't even have him listed as a center, but rather a PF. Either way Draymond Green averages more assists than Horford, and Green plays a lot at center (less than Horford, but still a not so insignificant amount of time).
-
And if you're wondering, shooting 44% from 3 while averaging 8 rebounds a game where Al Horford is currently hovering?
It's only been done once in @NBA history (Troy Murphy, 2009), and never on a winning team
Put Hayward next to Horford and Kyrie, and watch him lead in the league in assists as a center...
Oh wait...
He does!
Without checking I can confidently say that Al Horford does NOT lead the league in assists. If you are saying he leads centers in assists then I would believe it.
It's funny that you're so confident that my comment was wrong when it clearly says center.
you didn't actually say he is the leading among centers for assists. You said he was leading the league in assists and then stated his position as a center. It was clear what you meant, but you didn't actually say that.
The thing is, Horford still plays an awful lot at PF, and that is where he starts. ESPN doesn't even have him listed as a center, but rather a PF. Either way Draymond Green averages more assists than Horford, and Green plays a lot at center (less than Horford, but still a not so insignificant amount of time).
Yeah I mistyped it.
I apologize to hodgy for being snippy.
Horford will eventually evolve to become a great playmaking 5 though. Another year and he will no longer be able to switch on faster 4s. I also think Green gets inflated assists due to great shooters. Switch Horford with Green and I think he would have similar, if not more than Green personally.
-
And if you're wondering, shooting 44% from 3 while averaging 8 rebounds a game where Al Horford is currently hovering?
It's only been done once in @NBA history (Troy Murphy, 2009), and never on a winning team
Put Hayward next to Horford and Kyrie, and watch him lead in the league in assists as a center...
Oh wait...
He does!
Without checking I can confidently say that Al Horford does NOT lead the league in assists. If you are saying he leads centers in assists then I would believe it.
It's funny that you're so confident that my comment was wrong when it clearly says center.
you didn't actually say he is the leading among centers for assists. You said he was leading the league in assists and then stated his position as a center. It was clear what you meant, but you didn't actually say that.
The thing is, Horford still plays an awful lot at PF, and that is where he starts. ESPN doesn't even have him listed as a center, but rather a PF. Either way Draymond Green averages more assists than Horford, and Green plays a lot at center (less than Horford, but still a not so insignificant amount of time).
Yeah I mistyped it.
I apologize to hodgy for being snippy.
Horford will eventually evolve to become a great playmaking 5 though. Another year and he will no longer be able to switch on faster 4s. I also think Green gets inflated assists due to great shooters. Switch Horford with Green and I think he would have similar, if not more than Green personally.
Agree with the bolded statement above. No problem on snippiness.
-
This over reaction of getting rid of a main cog on this team simply because he isn't a #1A scoring option, when you signed him to be a #3 or #4 scoring option is pretty ridiculous. Horford has played a whole 5 minutes with the Kyrie-Hayward 1-2 punch. He is here to be the ball moving focal point of the offense, the defensive communicator of the defense and give you 11 shots a game with 7 rebounds and 6 assists while playing great defense.
I think he has played amazing this year. You just don't trade him because he isn't Hayward offensively. You accept what happens this year and let the team be what they will be next year with everyone healthy and playing their role.
Such is the NBA2K generational affect
-
Al brings a lot of intangibles to the team and leadership that are not measured in stats.
-
Al’s been great this year and even his bad games have been good enough. If there’s anything to blame it’s poor team defense and a bunch of careless turnovers. Morris looked bad being in the starting lineup. I hope Baynes gets healthy because he does a lot of things right.
Also, our bench has been atrocious. You just know that the bench is going to give any lead up or let a deficit balloon. It seems like it’s been the rarer case that the bench holds the fort.
-
Early leader for "Hot Take of 2018" on the blog.
-
Maybe (maybe) it would be worth it to trade him for another star big such as LaMarcus Aldridge or Marc Gasol. If not getting another star back in return, why trade him?
-
Horford is going to shine when Hayward returns. Horford is a 3rd banana, not a 2nd
-
Horford is going to shine when Hayward returns. Horford is a 3rd banana, not a 2nd
He also makes all the other banana's more ripe ;D
-
without Horford C's are toast. Great player....great playoffs last year.
-
Sadly it’s really the inconsistency of our young wings that is responsible for this losing streak
-
Sadly it’s really the inconsistency of our young wings that is responsible for this losing streak
JB seems to play down to the competition very often, and Tatum has hit a wall. Definitely big factors
-
Horford is going to shine when Hayward returns. Horford is a 3rd banana, not a 2nd
True, but even a 3rd banana should be able to consistently make uncontested 3-footers.
-
Horford is going to shine when Hayward returns. Horford is a 3rd banana, not a 2nd
Exactly. Think of the Heat teams with Bosh or Cavs with Love (when Kyrie was there). Now replace Bosh or Love with Horford. Horford would out perform either of those two in that role. same thing will happen here when Hayward gets back. Horford will truly shine then.
-
Horford is having a very good season. Scoring is far from being the only facet of his game.
-
This is the way I look at it
In a game in which Al Horford and LeBron both get max money and are paid the same, he's overpaid.
But Al Horford is a top 30 player, so in a 30 team league, he deserves max money.
Blame the NBA contract situation, but Al Horford deserves the money in the current scheme.
-
Horford is a 4..can't be playing center..if they had a legit C, he would be great
Correct, and overall their best lineups feature Baynes. I get frustrated that he doesn't play more minutes but I think Brad knows they are at their best with Baynes on the floor, and he wants to make sure the big guy is their in April/May/June.
-
'Can't help but notice that the recent 'sub par' performances by Horford correspond to a stretch of games where Brad has seemed to lose faith in using Baynes much. This has forced Al to play far more minutes at the 5.
Horford is so much better when he's been at the 4 this season.
Maybe .but if draymond can play the 5, so can Al
And then you say this - if Draymond was making $30M in Boston you would be positing the same thread.
-
Horford is having a very good season. Scoring is far from being the only facet of his game.
Right...he is shooting 44% from 3! It is not his fault that he only takes 1 or 2 a game, most players who shoot that well would take 5.
-
1. Horford is one of the most efficient players in the NBA this season period and is putting higher or similar statistics to his career average, and Ainge knew what type of player he was.
2. Horford was only coming here at that max price, would you rather not have him? We also gave up nothing to get him and the only other options in free agency were Howard and perhaps Whiteside.
3. Someone has already eluded to this but he is a similar player to Draymond Green, would you complaining about Green getting a max deal?
4. There is a domino effect of players, without Horford we don't even get a meeting with Durant nor do we get Hayward.
5. He is our sudo KG as he is our teams leader and the culture guy, who doesn't let any rubbish like what is going on in Cleveland happen in our locker room.
I'd say he's worth the max
-
This is the way I look at it
In a game in which Al Horford and LeBron both get max money and are paid the same, he's overpaid.
But Al Horford is a top 30 player, so in a 30 team league, he deserves max money.
Blame the NBA contract situation, but Al Horford deserves the money in the current scheme.
That doesn't mean Horford is overpaid, it means that Lebron is criminally underpaid. Lebron would be a bargain at twice his salary, but they can't pay him that due to NBA rules.
May as well start saying that Jimmy Butler ($19.3 million) is overpaid because he makes more than Kawhi Leonard ($18.9 million)
-
Horford is going to shine when Hayward returns. Horford is a 3rd banana, not a 2nd
Exactly. Think of the Heat teams with Bosh or Cavs with Love (when Kyrie was there). Now replace Bosh or Love with Horford. Horford would out perform either of those two in that role. same thing will happen here when Hayward gets back. Horford will truly shine then.
I think you might be underrating Bosh, but I agree with the overall point.
-
I wish he could be a better shot around th basket 10 ft and in . He misses so many dinks . But then on th other hand , his 3 s are pretty amazing for a big who has only been shooting them a few years at all. Overall im very satisfied this year. Seems to be some of his best basketball ever.
-
I agree if you look at horfords baseline stats, he looks to be over-paid, but what he does for the team is so important to the offense that brad wants to run.
is it any coincidence that the Celtics went to the ECF last year and improved so much from adding horfords 13ppg? its the screens, defense, spacing the floor, creating offense that makes the team better.
I think people will see it more next year when Hayward is back and is #2 to Kyries #1 and Brown/Tatum have another year under their belts.
Hayward was brought in to be the #2 guy
-
I think people will see it more next year when Hayward is back and is #2 to Kyries #1 and Brown/Tatum have another year under their belts.
If they can't see it now, after watching him do his thing for two years, they are hopeless. It won't change, there will always be Lou Merloni type dummies.
-
Horford is going to shine when Hayward returns. Horford is a 3rd banana, not a 2nd
True, but even a 3rd banana should be able to consistently make uncontested 3-footers.
Good thing you used "should" man cause he has definitely never made one. ::)
-
This is the way I look at it
In a game in which Al Horford and LeBron both get max money and are paid the same, he's overpaid.
But Al Horford is a top 30 player, so in a 30 team league, he deserves max money.
Blame the NBA contract situation, but Al Horford deserves the money in the current scheme.
That doesn't mean Horford is overpaid, it means that Lebron is criminally underpaid. Lebron would be a bargain at twice his salary, but they can't pay him that due to NBA rules.
May as well start saying that Jimmy Butler ($19.3 million) is overpaid because he makes more than Kawhi Leonard ($18.9 million)
If you're going to argue semantics with me for God knows what reason, at least get it right. Someone cannot be underpaid if they make the maximum. The team has paid that person the maximum that they are allowed to. In a fair system, the best player makes the maximum and everyone else is paid less to a varying degree. If your point is that LeBron deserves more than 30 million dollars a year, your argument is even worse. Most teams make about 30 mil in profit a year. He equals that number. That's a massive overpay if I've ever seen one from business perspective.
-
This is the way I look at it
In a game in which Al Horford and LeBron both get max money and are paid the same, he's overpaid.
But Al Horford is a top 30 player, so in a 30 team league, he deserves max money.
Blame the NBA contract situation, but Al Horford deserves the money in the current scheme.
That doesn't mean Horford is overpaid, it means that Lebron is criminally underpaid. Lebron would be a bargain at twice his salary, but they can't pay him that due to NBA rules.
May as well start saying that Jimmy Butler ($19.3 million) is overpaid because he makes more than Kawhi Leonard ($18.9 million)
If you're going to argue semantics with me for God knows what reason, at least get it right. Someone cannot be underpaid if they make the maximum. The team has paid that person the maximum that they are allowed to. In a fair system, the best player makes the maximum and everyone else is paid less to a varying degree. If your point is that LeBron deserves more than 30 million dollars a year, your argument is even worse. Most teams make about 30 mil in profit a year. He equals that number. That's a massive overpay if I've ever seen one from business perspective.
For someone who claims to be as business savvy as you think you are, I would have thought you'd understand what franchise value is, and how much simply having LeBron on your team boosts that value.
The real money for NBA owners is not made in year to year profits, but by increasing franchise value.
-
This is the way I look at it
In a game in which Al Horford and LeBron both get max money and are paid the same, he's overpaid.
But Al Horford is a top 30 player, so in a 30 team league, he deserves max money.
Blame the NBA contract situation, but Al Horford deserves the money in the current scheme.
That doesn't mean Horford is overpaid, it means that Lebron is criminally underpaid. Lebron would be a bargain at twice his salary, but they can't pay him that due to NBA rules.
May as well start saying that Jimmy Butler ($19.3 million) is overpaid because he makes more than Kawhi Leonard ($18.9 million)
If you're going to argue semantics with me for God knows what reason, at least get it right. Someone cannot be underpaid if they make the maximum. The team has paid that person the maximum that they are allowed to. In a fair system, the best player makes the maximum and everyone else is paid less to a varying degree. If your point is that LeBron deserves more than 30 million dollars a year, your argument is even worse. Most teams make about 30 mil in profit a year. He equals that number. That's a massive overpay if I've ever seen one from business perspective.
LeBron is underpaid.
-
This is the way I look at it
In a game in which Al Horford and LeBron both get max money and are paid the same, he's overpaid.
But Al Horford is a top 30 player, so in a 30 team league, he deserves max money.
Blame the NBA contract situation, but Al Horford deserves the money in the current scheme.
That doesn't mean Horford is overpaid, it means that Lebron is criminally underpaid. Lebron would be a bargain at twice his salary, but they can't pay him that due to NBA rules.
May as well start saying that Jimmy Butler ($19.3 million) is overpaid because he makes more than Kawhi Leonard ($18.9 million)
If you're going to argue semantics with me for God knows what reason, at least get it right. Someone cannot be underpaid if they make the maximum. The team has paid that person the maximum that they are allowed to. In a fair system, the best player makes the maximum and everyone else is paid less to a varying degree. If your point is that LeBron deserves more than 30 million dollars a year, your argument is even worse. Most teams make about 30 mil in profit a year. He equals that number. That's a massive overpay if I've ever seen one from business perspective.
It's not semantics, and Jim is entirely correct. It is exactly because Lebron makes the maximum that he is underpaid.
When people say "underpaid" (or "underpriced" generally) they mean relative to a market price. It's both well-known and basic economics that Lebron James would, in an open market, fetch much much more than what he's paid.
Lebron is underpaid in the exact same way a rent-controlled apartment is underpriced: there's a regulated maximum that keeps the market from setting the price.
The argument that teams would have negative profits if they signed him for his fair market value is flat wrong, as others have mentioned. He adds value to the asset (the team) that isn't immediately reflected in cash flow. And of course the team owners are smart enough to know what they could afford without losing money.
-
This is the way I look at it
In a game in which Al Horford and LeBron both get max money and are paid the same, he's overpaid.
But Al Horford is a top 30 player, so in a 30 team league, he deserves max money.
Blame the NBA contract situation, but Al Horford deserves the money in the current scheme.
That doesn't mean Horford is overpaid, it means that Lebron is criminally underpaid. Lebron would be a bargain at twice his salary, but they can't pay him that due to NBA rules.
May as well start saying that Jimmy Butler ($19.3 million) is overpaid because he makes more than Kawhi Leonard ($18.9 million)
If you're going to argue semantics with me for God knows what reason, at least get it right. Someone cannot be underpaid if they make the maximum. The team has paid that person the maximum that they are allowed to. In a fair system, the best player makes the maximum and everyone else is paid less to a varying degree. If your point is that LeBron deserves more than 30 million dollars a year, your argument is even worse. Most teams make about 30 mil in profit a year. He equals that number. That's a massive overpay if I've ever seen one from business perspective.
LeBron is underpaid.
Yup. Almost by definition a max salary is going to make some guys underpaid, because there'd be no need for a max unless some players would make more without it.
-
What on earth are you guys talking about??
1) Franchise or company values are directly related to profits or expected profits. There are companies that have value with low or negative profit, but it's because they're expected to turn a profit in the future. If they don't, as they reach closer to bankruptcy, the value will begin to crash.
2) The correlation between profitability of a franchise has more to do with their respective markets (big city) and less to do with who plays there. If they paid LeBron James 60 million as you claim he's worth, the team would now be 70 mil in deficit next year instead of 40 mil they lost this year.
3) A big reason that there is a Salary cap is because they want to control costs. The teams cannot afford to pay LeBron James 60 million. They've come to a number that an average team that stays out of luxury can be profitable. If there's a team that gives LeBron the 60 mil you guys seem to think that he's worth and a bunch of scrubs and they never make the playoffs, that's not fun for people to watch and others will want to get paid that Much as well. Remove the full salary cap and Teams will go bankrupt to keep up with the billionaire owner who doesn't give a crap how much profit his team makes. That makes the sport figuratively unwatchable.
The salary maximum is the maximum that a team can pay a player, yield a reasonable team, and the team can turn a profit. If a company cannot afford to pay someone something, how can they possibly be underpaid in a both semantics sense and a realistic sense? The actuality is that LeBron is paid fairly and everyone else is some varying degree of overpaid. Or the team is not thinking in terms of running a successful business and more about pride of winning games. In that case one could say that LeBron is worth 1 billion if we don't factor in running a successful business
-
JVG and Mark Jackson actually praised Horford for much of the game, and said his impact on this C's team is what made him an All-Star selection.
Yes, it was frustrating seeing him miss that bunny late, but if you're blaming the loss on Horford, then you're wrong. He still came away with 15 points, 13 rebounds.
Curry simply went OFF and you can't do much when he's sizzling. And for some stretches, when the bench was out there and Kyrie sat, they had a ton of trouble generating any sort of offense. Tatum and Morris combined to go 7-24 with Tatum also missing quite a few wide open shots late, and frankly Morris took some dumb contested shots late, but can't blame him entirely since he's our primary scorer off the bench.
But I'm honestly not upset at the loss, it was a fantastic game and that was a Warriors team we played on the road with Curry playing like that. Still only lost by 4, and were actually down just 1 point to them with 7 seconds left, so it was super close until the end.
-
The salary maximum is the maximum that a team can pay a player, yield a reasonable team, and the team can turn a profit. If a company cannot afford to pay someone something, how can they possibly be underpaid in a both semantics sense and a realistic sense? The actuality is that LeBron is paid fairly and everyone else is some varying degree of overpaid. Or the team is not thinking in terms of running a successful business and more about pride of winning games. In that case one could say that LeBron is worth 1 billion if we don't factor in running a successful business
You clearly do not understand the reasoning behind max contracts. It has nothing to do with the ability to turn a profit and much more to do with distributing salaries across varying talent levels. The salary cap existed well before max salaries were instituted, and teams were free to pay individual players as much as they chose to. Teams still turned profits under this model.
If max salaries didn't exist players like Lebron, Durant, ect. would make far more than they currently do. Teams wouldn't be spending any more on player salaries than they currently do, they would simply have less money available to spend on other players, and would likely have a harder time fielding a truly competitive team.
-
This is the way I look at it
In a game in which Al Horford and LeBron both get max money and are paid the same, he's overpaid.
But Al Horford is a top 30 player, so in a 30 team league, he deserves max money.
Blame the NBA contract situation, but Al Horford deserves the money in the current scheme.
That doesn't mean Horford is overpaid, it means that Lebron is criminally underpaid. Lebron would be a bargain at twice his salary, but they can't pay him that due to NBA rules.
May as well start saying that Jimmy Butler ($19.3 million) is overpaid because he makes more than Kawhi Leonard ($18.9 million)
If you're going to argue semantics with me for God knows what reason, at least get it right. Someone cannot be underpaid if they make the maximum. The team has paid that person the maximum that they are allowed to. In a fair system, the best player makes the maximum and everyone else is paid less to a varying degree. If your point is that LeBron deserves more than 30 million dollars a year, your argument is even worse. Most teams make about 30 mil in profit a year. He equals that number. That's a massive overpay if I've ever seen one from business perspective.
Actually the idea that the very best of the best players in the NBA who are on a max contract are underpaid is a very valid opinion and has been discussed as such for years. A simple google search will show that. Simply because they work within a system that limits their earnings doesn't mean they don't actually deserve more given everything they do for their team and because of the resale value they add to the team because they are on it.
I think its pretty fair to say that Lebron at the max is underpaid and that Horford at the max is fair.
-
The salary maximum is the maximum that a team can pay a player, yield a reasonable team, and the team can turn a profit. If a company cannot afford to pay someone something, how can they possibly be underpaid in a both semantics sense and a realistic sense? The actuality is that LeBron is paid fairly and everyone else is some varying degree of overpaid. Or the team is not thinking in terms of running a successful business and more about pride of winning games. In that case one could say that LeBron is worth 1 billion if we don't factor in running a successful business
You clearly do not understand the reasoning behind max contracts. It has nothing to do with the ability to turn a profit and much more to do with distributing salaries across varying talent levels. The salary cap existed well before max salaries were instituted, and teams were free to pay individual players as much as they chose to. Teams still turned profits under this model.
If max salaries didn't exist players like Lebron, Durant, ect. would make far more than they currently do. Teams wouldn't be spending any more on player salaries than they currently do, they would simply have less money available to spend on other players, and would likely have a harder time fielding a truly competitive team.
Please reread point 3 before accusing me of not understanding why there are caps.
The team cap is most definitely due to controlling costs. They even admit it. They have to keep teams profitable. They even give money to smaller market teams that can't remain profitable. Again, it has nothing to do with who is playing there. The Lakers and knicks make league record profits and their teams are trash. They cannot afford to have teams pay stars 60 million and yield competitive teams. And even if they did, wouldn't that make them still underpaid in your mind because the fifth best player is still making the same as the best? And if they remove the max team cap, LeBron is worth whatever someone is willing to write a check for. It doesn't mean that's his fair market value. If I pay $300 for a piece of bread it doesn't mean that's the going rate for it.
This is the way I look at it
In a game in which Al Horford and LeBron both get max money and are paid the same, he's overpaid.
But Al Horford is a top 30 player, so in a 30 team league, he deserves max money.
Blame the NBA contract situation, but Al Horford deserves the money in the current scheme.
That doesn't mean Horford is overpaid, it means that Lebron is criminally underpaid. Lebron would be a bargain at twice his salary, but they can't pay him that due to NBA rules.
May as well start saying that Jimmy Butler ($19.3 million) is overpaid because he makes more than Kawhi Leonard ($18.9 million)
If you're going to argue semantics with me for God knows what reason, at least get it right. Someone cannot be underpaid if they make the maximum. The team has paid that person the maximum that they are allowed to. In a fair system, the best player makes the maximum and everyone else is paid less to a varying degree. If your point is that LeBron deserves more than 30 million dollars a year, your argument is even worse. Most teams make about 30 mil in profit a year. He equals that number. That's a massive overpay if I've ever seen one from business perspective.
Actually the idea that the very best of the best players in the NBA who are on a max contract are underpaid is a very valid opinion and has been discussed as such for years. A simple google search will show that. Simply because they work within a system that limits their earnings doesn't mean they don't actually deserve more given everything they do for their team and because of the resale value they add to the team because they are on it.
I think its pretty fair to say that Lebron at the max is underpaid and that Horford at the max is fair.
Ok I have a question for you guys. What is the fair market value for LeBron James? Remember that the Cavs are currently running a 40 mil deficit.
-
I think its pretty fair to say that Lebron at the max is underpaid and that Horford at the max is fair.
This.
-
Players that drive ticket and jersey sales can be worth max on that alone.
The ability to draw other players on exception deals (over other teams with MLE) could indicate a player's max value.
Of course, being a first or second best player on a playoff team usually does it.
But the first to commit usually gets the sweetest deal. Al was the first big name talent to sign here on our roster. That itself assured he would get a premium, the max.
The thing to me is he doesn't have a take-over gear like you'd hope your big guns would have.
4 out of those 5 though. I'd rather have Durant, but Horford is a max guy.
-
And if they remove the max team cap, LeBron is worth whatever someone is willing to write a check for. It doesn't mean that's his fair market value. If I pay $300 for a piece of bread it doesn't mean that's the going rate for it.
A lot going on here but this is literally what fair market value is.
-
And if they remove the max team cap, LeBron is worth whatever someone is willing to write a check for. It doesn't mean that's his fair market value. If I pay $300 for a piece of bread it doesn't mean that's the going rate for it.
A lot going on here but this is literally what fair market value is.
A component of fair market value implies the individual is doing what's in his best interest. Me buying bread for that price isn't in my best interest. You cannot even begin to discuss "best interest" in terms of an investment until you look at the balance sheet (profits). Writing a blank check is not conducive to a good investment. Now, I've shown you an owner who is 40 mil in the hole each year. You want to double the deficit? Sure, go ahead. The valuation *will* drop. Not even close to the definition of best interest, especially for the league. All of these caps are perfectly calculated to extract the most amount of money for the players that the teams can afford and for all sides to live in harmony. Therefore, LeBron is making exactly the best money that he can make. It's the other guys who are overpaid.
-
Having a player like Lebron drives ticket sales higher, It allows for ticket price increases. He is a major factor for jerseys, clothing, and other paraphrenalia sales increasing. He about guarantees a trip to the Finals and given a team makes about an extra $5-10 million per playoff home game, he is responsible for that extra sales revenue.
His contract is also the best player commodity a franchise can own. Having him under contract could drive up franchise value by hundreds of millions of dollars.
None of this is true for a max player like Horford. Therefore, Lebron is underpaid compared to another max player like Horford because of the extra revenue he creates and extra asset value he provides to the franchise.
-
He is worth as much as Mike Conley. There are only a few players worth more than the Max. 5 maybe. Horford makes winning plays and is in the right place. He could be forced more in the offense.
He is worth a Max salary. His signing has led to where we are now. There is no KI or Hayward if Al is not on this team. He played Great last night. Threads like this make me not want to come here.
-
And if they remove the max team cap, LeBron is worth whatever someone is willing to write a check for. It doesn't mean that's his fair market value. If I pay $300 for a piece of bread it doesn't mean that's the going rate for it.
A lot going on here but this is literally what fair market value is.
A component of fair market value implies the individual is doing what's in his best interest. Me buying bread for that price isn't in my best interest. You cannot even begin to discuss "best interest" in terms of an investment until you look at the balance sheet (profits). Writing a blank check is not conducive to a good investment. Now, I've shown you an owner who is 40 mil in the hole each year. You want to double the deficit? Sure, go ahead. The valuation *will* drop. Not even close to the definition of best interest, especially for the league. All of these caps are perfectly calculated to extract the most amount of money for the players that the teams can afford and for all sides to live in harmony. Therefore, LeBron is making exactly the best money that he can make. It's the other guys who are overpaid.
And yet nevertheless, if someone was willing to pay LeBron far more than the max and he was willing to take it, that's by definition the fair market value for his services.
The idea that fair market value involves forbidding parties from deciding what their own best interests are, and that the cap is some perfect harmonization of maximum mutual value is so bizarre that I don't even know where to begin with it, but overall I think you may be conflating the idea of fair market value with a strong bias toward ownership.
-
Having a player like Lebron drives ticket sales higher, It allows for ticket price increases. He is a major factor for jerseys, clothing, and other paraphrenalia sales increasing. He about guarantees a trip to the Finals and given a team makes about an extra $5-10 million per playoff home game, he is responsible for that extra sales revenue.
His contract is also the best player commodity a franchise can own. Having him under contract could drive up franchise value by hundreds of millions of dollars.
None of this is true for a max player like Horford. Therefore, Lebron is underpaid compared to another max player like Horford because of the extra revenue he creates and extra asset value he provides to the franchise.
I agree with everything that you just said, although is should be worth noting that all of those things that you claim he boosts are already factored into a 40 million dollar deficit for the basketball team.
The part we disagree on is whether or not it's because Horford is paid too much or because LeBron is paid too little.
Another point that I glossed over earlier, the Knicks are #1 profitable team -- with Carmelo and without. The Lakers are #2 -- with Kobe and after he retired. There is only so much a star player can do. While LeBron drives up the Cavaliers franchise, it is much smaller than you realize. The market is the single most driving force for profit, and it is largely unchanged regardless of what kind of roster a team has. For example, in 2016, the Cavs were the 12th most profitable team, behind dumpsters like New York, LA and Chicago (1,2, and 3, respectively).
A player like LeBron can transcend a market by attracting "bandwagon fans" to buy memorabilia, increase ticket sale prices, making him more valuable to own than Horford. He is also not married to the team. He has a contract. No one buying the franchise is going to consider his relatively little worth to a team to be anything more than the contract that he's signed under.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/baileybrautigan/2016/03/21/where-all-that-money-comes-from-nba-team-valuations-visualized/#49b76bf444fd
This chart visualizes it much better than I can say.
Some of you also mentioned that the franchises are at an all time high profitability. This is, again, not due to the athletes, but more to do with the expanded TV deals and how these franchises have been able to profit off the internet.
And if they remove the max team cap, LeBron is worth whatever someone is willing to write a check for. It doesn't mean that's his fair market value. If I pay $300 for a piece of bread it doesn't mean that's the going rate for it.
A lot going on here but this is literally what fair market value is.
A component of fair market value implies the individual is doing what's in his best interest. Me buying bread for that price isn't in my best interest. You cannot even begin to discuss "best interest" in terms of an investment until you look at the balance sheet (profits). Writing a blank check is not conducive to a good investment. Now, I've shown you an owner who is 40 mil in the hole each year. You want to double the deficit? Sure, go ahead. The valuation *will* drop. Not even close to the definition of best interest, especially for the league. All of these caps are perfectly calculated to extract the most amount of money for the players that the teams can afford and for all sides to live in harmony. Therefore, LeBron is making exactly the best money that he can make. It's the other guys who are overpaid.
And yet nevertheless, if someone's willing to pay LeBron $100 million per year and he's willing to take it, that's by definition fair market value.
The idea that fair market value involves forbidding parties from deciding what their own best interests are, and that the cap is some perfect harmonization of maximum mutual value is so bizarre that I don't even know where to begin with it, but overall I think you may be conflating the idea of fair market value with a strong bias toward ownership.
I think you're the one confusing a very basic principle.
If I have an item to sell thats worth $50 and one person out of 100 offers me $100 for it and the rest offered me $50, it has a fair market value of $50, even though I made $100.
Just because you rip someone off doesn't mean thats the fair market value.
"To establish FMV, it must be assumed that prospective buyers and sellers are reasonably knowledgeable about the asset, that they are behaving in their own best interests, that they are free of undue pressure to trade and that a reasonable time period is given for completing the transaction.
If we remove large/small cap teams from the discussion and focus strictly on the Cavs, if someone wants to pay LeBron James $100 million to play basketball, the team will be losing $100 million dollars a year. It's a bad investment in which only someone that has no incentive to make a good investment will do... someone with a hobby or infinite amount of cash. It doesn't indicate fair market value because it's not what a completely rational person would pay for the item.
On a large market team, an owner can afford a $100 million salary for LeBron James. A smaller market owner, like Cleveland, cannot. That's a big reason why the league has to establish a salary cap so that the average franchise can be profitable and competitive.
-
These threads are nonsense.
- He anchors the best defense in the league
- He posts 13/8/5/1 per game averages
- He was picked by the coaches to be an all star this year
- His coaches, both current and old, rave about him
The stats don't look crazy until you look at what company he's keeping. Only two other players are averaging at least 13P, 8R, 5A, 1B: Cousins and James. For all of those guys scoring more points, Al shoots 44% from 3 and averages less than half of their turnovers. Those guys eat usage while Al is more efficient as a complimentary player.
I bring up the coaches because, well, they are paid a lot of money to be better at this than we are.
Say he's not flashy, or not an alpha 1 or 1A, or that he had an off night. That's all fair game. But Horford is, by the metrics and by the eye test, a great player.
That said, I'm pretty tired of him backing shorter guys down just to spin and fade for a 12-15 footer. It's a shot he can hit, it's just one of his worst selections for any player.
-
Having a player like Lebron drives ticket sales higher, It allows for ticket price increases. He is a major factor for jerseys, clothing, and other paraphrenalia sales increasing. He about guarantees a trip to the Finals and given a team makes about an extra $5-10 million per playoff home game, he is responsible for that extra sales revenue.
His contract is also the best player commodity a franchise can own. Having him under contract could drive up franchise value by hundreds of millions of dollars.
None of this is true for a max player like Horford. Therefore, Lebron is underpaid compared to another max player like Horford because of the extra revenue he creates and extra asset value he provides to the franchise.
I agree with everything that you just said, although is should be worth noting that all of those things that you claim he boosts are already factored into a 40 million dollar deficit for the basketball team.
The part we disagree on is whether or not it's because Horford is paid too much or because LeBron is paid too little.
Another point that I glossed over earlier, the Knicks are #1 profitable team -- with Carmelo and without. The Lakers are #2 -- with Kobe and after he retired. There is only so much a star player can do. While LeBron drives up the Cavaliers franchise, it is much smaller than you realize. The market is the single most driving force for profit, and it is largely unchanged regardless of what kind of roster a team has. For example, in 2016, the Cavs were the 12th most profitable team, behind dumpsters like New York, LA and Chicago (1,2, and 3, respectively).
A player like LeBron can transcend a market by attracting "bandwagon fans" to buy memorabilia, increase ticket sale prices, making him more valuable to own than Horford. He is also not married to the team. He has a contract. No one buying the franchise is going to consider his relatively little worth to a team to be anything more than the contract that he's signed under.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/baileybrautigan/2016/03/21/where-all-that-money-comes-from-nba-team-valuations-visualized/#49b76bf444fd
This chart visualizes it much better than I can say.
Some of you also mentioned that the franchises are at an all time high profitability. This is, again, not due to the athletes, but more to do with the expanded TV deals and how these franchises have been able to profit off the internet.
And if they remove the max team cap, LeBron is worth whatever someone is willing to write a check for. It doesn't mean that's his fair market value. If I pay $300 for a piece of bread it doesn't mean that's the going rate for it.
A lot going on here but this is literally what fair market value is.
A component of fair market value implies the individual is doing what's in his best interest. Me buying bread for that price isn't in my best interest. You cannot even begin to discuss "best interest" in terms of an investment until you look at the balance sheet (profits). Writing a blank check is not conducive to a good investment. Now, I've shown you an owner who is 40 mil in the hole each year. You want to double the deficit? Sure, go ahead. The valuation *will* drop. Not even close to the definition of best interest, especially for the league. All of these caps are perfectly calculated to extract the most amount of money for the players that the teams can afford and for all sides to live in harmony. Therefore, LeBron is making exactly the best money that he can make. It's the other guys who are overpaid.
And yet nevertheless, if someone's willing to pay LeBron $100 million per year and he's willing to take it, that's by definition fair market value.
The idea that fair market value involves forbidding parties from deciding what their own best interests are, and that the cap is some perfect harmonization of maximum mutual value is so bizarre that I don't even know where to begin with it, but overall I think you may be conflating the idea of fair market value with a strong bias toward ownership.
I think you're the one confusing a very basic principle.
If I have an item to sell thats worth $50 and one person out of 100 offers me $100 for it and the rest offered me $50, it has a fair market value of $50, even though I made $100.
Just because you rip someone off doesn't mean thats the fair market value.
"To establish FMV, it must be assumed that prospective buyers and sellers are reasonably knowledgeable about the asset, that they are behaving in their own best interests, that they are free of undue pressure to trade and that a reasonable time period is given for completing the transaction.
If we remove large/small cap teams from the discussion and focus strictly on the Cavs, if someone wants to pay LeBron James $100 million to play basketball, the team will be losing $100 million dollars a year. It's a bad investment in which only someone that has no incentive to make a good investment will do... someone with a hobby or infinite amount of cash. It doesn't indicate fair market value because it's not what a completely rational person would pay for the item.
On a large market team, an owner can afford a $100 million salary for LeBron James. A smaller market owner, like Cleveland, cannot. That's a big reason why the league has to establish a salary cap so that the average franchise can be profitable and competitive.
Profitability and franchise value are different things though. In 2009/2010, the Cavs were worth around 475 million. Then James left and in 2011, the value fell to 355 million and then below 330 million the following season. The new TV deals started to kick in and the team went up to 435 and 515 in 2013 and 2014. James came back and the team valuation spiked all the way to 915 million, then 1.1 billion, and last year was worth 1.2 billion. I suspect the team is probably worth a bit less this year, but if James leaves this summer it probably falls back into the 700 to 800 million range (about what the Wolves were valued at last year).
You see a player like James, may not lead to a profitable season (especially with the luxury tax), but he absolutely leads to significant value for the owner and the franchise. James is obviously the extreme example of this, but star players lead to victories and victories lead to increased franchise value.
-
Profitability and franchise value are different things though. In 2009/2010, the Cavs were worth around 475 million. Then James left and in 2011, the value fell to 355 million and then below 330 million the following season. The new TV deals started to kick in and the team went up to 435 and 515 in 2013 and 2014. James came back and the team valuation spiked all the way to 915 million, then 1.1 billion, and last year was worth 1.2 billion. I suspect the team is probably worth a bit less this year, but if James leaves this summer it probably falls back into the 700 to 800 million range (about what the Wolves were valued at last year).
You see a player like James, may not lead to a profitable season (especially with the luxury tax), but he absolutely leads to significant value for the owner and the franchise. James is obviously the extreme example of this, but star players lead to victories and victories lead to increased franchise value.
I fully understand that a player like LeBron James can alter perceived franchise value temporarily. But remember that franchise value means nothing until you sell. And just as you've admitted, the moment he's gone, the perceived value drops. It's not exactly a sound investment when you're losing money every single year and one of the reasons the company has been valued so high could leave at the end of the contract. An owner would have to be nuts to overpay that much for an asset that provides no guaranteed future revenue for the team. That's one of the reasons why a CBA has to be put into place otherwise who the hell would want to buy an NBA team other than ridiculously rich people that don't care about losing money? Build a winning team just to sell and collect profits?
A company like Google doesn't have that problem. The valuation is based on profits on current IP and expected profits of future IP. They can pay someone a boatload of money to develop new products and build IP. When that person leaves, Google keeps the IP. When LeBron James leaves, all you're left with is debt and a tanked value. That's a reason why Gilbert is shopping the Cavs before LeBron leaves. Imagine if LeBron leaves and he's been losing money every single year and then the valuation just drops to back to before. Now imagine if he was getting paid an extra 60 mil a year like the guy was mentioning as a fair value for LeBron.
Yes, I am 100% on the side of the team owners in this debate because it's a no-brainer. There is no way in the world that you can convince me that the athletes are underpaid when I can see the balance sheet. Where is all this money that LeBron James has made for Dan Gilbert? He won't see any of it unless he sells while LeBron is under contract. And anyone buying the Cavs now will know that the value is based on the assumption that LeBron is probably gone. So in reality, he hasn't made him jack.
-
Profitability and franchise value are different things though. In 2009/2010, the Cavs were worth around 475 million. Then James left and in 2011, the value fell to 355 million and then below 330 million the following season. The new TV deals started to kick in and the team went up to 435 and 515 in 2013 and 2014. James came back and the team valuation spiked all the way to 915 million, then 1.1 billion, and last year was worth 1.2 billion. I suspect the team is probably worth a bit less this year, but if James leaves this summer it probably falls back into the 700 to 800 million range (about what the Wolves were valued at last year).
You see a player like James, may not lead to a profitable season (especially with the luxury tax), but he absolutely leads to significant value for the owner and the franchise. James is obviously the extreme example of this, but star players lead to victories and victories lead to increased franchise value.
I fully understand that a player like LeBron James can alter perceived franchise value temporarily. But remember that franchise value means nothing until you sell. And just as you've admitted, the moment he's gone, the perceived value drops. It's not exactly a sound investment when you're losing money every single year and one of the reasons the company has been valued so high could leave at the end of the contract. An owner would have to be nuts to overpay that much for an asset that provides no guaranteed future revenue for the team. That's one of the reasons why a CBA has to be put into place otherwise who the hell would want to buy an NBA team other than ridiculously rich people that don't care about losing money? Build a winning team just to sell and collect profits?
A company like Google doesn't have that problem. The valuation is based on profits on current IP and expected profits of future IP. They can pay someone a boatload of money to develop new products and build IP. When that person leaves, Google keeps the IP. When LeBron James leaves, all you're left with is debt and a tanked value. That's a reason why Gilbert is shopping the Cavs before LeBron leaves. Imagine if LeBron leaves and he's been losing money every single year and then the valuation just drops to back to before. Now imagine if he was getting paid an extra 60 mil a year like the guy was mentioning as a fair value for LeBron.
Yes, I am 100% on the side of the team owners in this debate because it's a no-brainer. There is no way in the world that you can convince me that the athletes are underpaid when I can see the balance sheet.
I'm guessing you also cannot be convinced that 1+1=2
-
Profitability and franchise value are different things though. In 2009/2010, the Cavs were worth around 475 million. Then James left and in 2011, the value fell to 355 million and then below 330 million the following season. The new TV deals started to kick in and the team went up to 435 and 515 in 2013 and 2014. James came back and the team valuation spiked all the way to 915 million, then 1.1 billion, and last year was worth 1.2 billion. I suspect the team is probably worth a bit less this year, but if James leaves this summer it probably falls back into the 700 to 800 million range (about what the Wolves were valued at last year).
You see a player like James, may not lead to a profitable season (especially with the luxury tax), but he absolutely leads to significant value for the owner and the franchise. James is obviously the extreme example of this, but star players lead to victories and victories lead to increased franchise value.
I fully understand that a player like LeBron James can alter perceived franchise value temporarily. But remember that franchise value means nothing until you sell. And just as you've admitted, the moment he's gone, the perceived value drops. It's not exactly a sound investment when you're losing money every single year and one of the reasons the company has been valued so high could leave at the end of the contract. An owner would have to be nuts to overpay that much for an asset that provides no guaranteed future revenue for the team. That's one of the reasons why a CBA has to be put into place otherwise who the hell would want to buy an NBA team other than ridiculously rich people that don't care about losing money? Build a winning team just to sell and collect profits?
A company like Google doesn't have that problem. The valuation is based on profits on current IP and expected profits of future IP. They can pay someone a boatload of money to develop new products and build IP. When that person leaves, Google keeps the IP. When LeBron James leaves, all you're left with is debt and a tanked value. That's a reason why Gilbert is shopping the Cavs before LeBron leaves. Imagine if LeBron leaves and he's been losing money every single year and then the valuation just drops to back to before. Now imagine if he was getting paid an extra 60 mil a year like the guy was mentioning as a fair value for LeBron.
Yes, I am 100% on the side of the team owners in this debate because it's a no-brainer. There is no way in the world that you can convince me that the athletes are underpaid when I can see the balance sheet.
I'm guessing you also cannot be convinced that 1+1=2
Your posting would be much more effective if you skipped the ad hominen with every post. Not sure what exactly your problem is, but this will be the last time I reference you. Good day.
-
I couldn't possibly disagree more.
Max is what you have to pay for a veteran multiple time All-Star in his physical prime with a track record of anchoring very good teams.
The Celts have gotten plenty of value out of him, as well. Last year he was a top 2 player for a team that won 53 games, got the #1 seed in the conference, and made the conference finals.
This year, he's playing even better, and he's still a top 2 player on the team with the best record in the conference.
How anybody can complain about paying max for that type of player is beyond me.
The mistake people always seem to make is they think that because there's this artificial maximum set on contracts, that therefore the value of the best player in the league is set at that maximum and everybody else's contract value has to be proportioned relative to that maximum.
Obviously that's not how artificial caps on market prices work. The whole point of setting that artificial maximum is to raise the average salary of all of the other players. In a league without maximums the very best players would be paid a huge portion of the cap and everybody else would make way, way less.
Al Horford is not a top 10 or top 15 player, but he's arguably top 20-30, which makes him extremely valuable and absolutely worth the price the Celtics pay.
-
Profitability and franchise value are different things though. In 2009/2010, the Cavs were worth around 475 million. Then James left and in 2011, the value fell to 355 million and then below 330 million the following season. The new TV deals started to kick in and the team went up to 435 and 515 in 2013 and 2014. James came back and the team valuation spiked all the way to 915 million, then 1.1 billion, and last year was worth 1.2 billion. I suspect the team is probably worth a bit less this year, but if James leaves this summer it probably falls back into the 700 to 800 million range (about what the Wolves were valued at last year).
You see a player like James, may not lead to a profitable season (especially with the luxury tax), but he absolutely leads to significant value for the owner and the franchise. James is obviously the extreme example of this, but star players lead to victories and victories lead to increased franchise value.
I fully understand that a player like LeBron James can alter perceived franchise value temporarily. But remember that franchise value means nothing until you sell. And just as you've admitted, the moment he's gone, the perceived value drops. It's not exactly a sound investment when you're losing money every single year and one of the reasons the company has been valued so high could leave at the end of the contract. An owner would have to be nuts to overpay that much for an asset that provides no guaranteed future revenue for the team. That's one of the reasons why a CBA has to be put into place otherwise who the hell would want to buy an NBA team other than ridiculously rich people that don't care about losing money? Build a winning team just to sell and collect profits?
A company like Google doesn't have that problem. The valuation is based on profits on current IP and expected profits of future IP. They can pay someone a boatload of money to develop new products and build IP. When that person leaves, Google keeps the IP. When LeBron James leaves, all you're left with is debt and a tanked value. That's a reason why Gilbert is shopping the Cavs before LeBron leaves. Imagine if LeBron leaves and he's been losing money every single year and then the valuation just drops to back to before. Now imagine if he was getting paid an extra 60 mil a year like the guy was mentioning as a fair value for LeBron.
Yes, I am 100% on the side of the team owners in this debate because it's a no-brainer. There is no way in the world that you can convince me that the athletes are underpaid when I can see the balance sheet.
I'm guessing you also cannot be convinced that 1+1=2
Your posting would be much more effective if you skipped the ad hominen with every post. Not sure what exactly your problem is, but this will be the last time I reference you. Good day.
I think the issue is this: you've claimed that Lebron James is overpaid. It's a consensus in the sports worlds, and basic economics as well, that a player making the max can only be underpaid, and that Lebron is one of the clearest examples of such a player, being the best player of his generation.
There was a bit of confusion above in terminology, to be fair. Most of us on this board are thinking of "market value" as the concept in economics - which is by definition the price. So by that definition Lebron can only be underpaid if he's making the max.
You, however, have asserted another standard: "fair market value." That's different because it assesses value using some (frankly, nebulous) standard of what is "reasonable" or "rational." In other words it allows for the possibility that markets can mis-price assets.
But here's the thing: you then go on to assert that YOU know that James is over-paid by that standard, when that goes against the collective wisdom of all the smart money. Lebron could receive a max offer from any team in the league, and would receive more than that if teams could bid above the cap. He's received multiple max offers, over and over in his career. (We call that a "market test.")
So, are you really claiming that owners and GMs, all of whom have a vested interest in making the best business decisions about their players and teams, are somehow mis-valuing not just any player, but the single greatest player of his generation? That you know more than all of them put together? I mean, what can they possibly be getting wrong about it?
It's just absurd.
Your fallback is this argument about cash flow. Other posters have pointed out that franchise values belie the claim that these teams are losing money. So you try to wave away those values as being wrong, or not being tied to decisions about players. (A more natural explanation is that simply looking at net income and trying to impute franchise value based on some discounted cash flow model is not right here, perhaps because accounting net income is a poor measure of true current or future expected "profits" in this industry.)
But again: it's an incredible thing to assert.
Sum it all up, and it comes across as if you think you just know more than the collective wisdom of all the talent evaluators and business minds in the sport.
I think that is what has led to the frustration people have expressed.
-
But here's the thing: you then go on to assert that YOU know that James is over-paid by that standard, when that goes against the collective wisdom of all the smart money. Lebron could receive a max offer from any team in the league, and would receive more than that if teams could bid above the cap. He's received multiple max offers, over and over in his career. (We call that a "market test.")
1) I never said LeBron is overpaid. I said that he is fairly paid and the rest are overpaid.
2) The problem is that while there may be an owner in a big market team or significantly wealthy to the point where losing 100 mil a year means nothing to him for his team he loves (hobby, not investment) to win a lot of games, it's not fair to the league as a whole because there are teams that just cannot afford to pay that much. They can't even pay the current salaries (14 teams are in the red). So while he may have a market value of 100 mil for some people, a sane person looking at it in terms of an overall investment in a small market team would never make that deal. Now imagine what happens when Russell Westbrook and company find out LeBron is making 100 mil. It will be total chaos and the league will go bankrupt. It's not the kind of thing where the more you pay someone the more revenue it will bring. You'd essentially be ensuring that all teams are in the red for the foreseeable future.
So, are you really claiming that owners and GMs, all of whom have a vested interest in making the best business decisions about their players and teams, are somehow mis-valuing not just any player, but the single greatest player of his generation? That you know more than all of them put together? I mean, what can they possibly be getting wrong about it?
It's just absurd.
Not at all. I am in agreement with the owners when they negotiated the fair salary max for a player. We both agree that the best player should not make more than X amount of dollars for the reasons that I have stated throughout this thread. You guys are the ones who think that you know better than the GMs. You want to side with the players, who want an unrealistic amount of money, because about half of the teams in the NBA are running in the red. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (and the GMs) to raise salaries to compound that problem.
In an ideal economical situation, the 2nd best player will not get a max contract. He should be paid at least $1 less than the #1 player. The problem is that there aren't enough "stars" to go around and it's a star-driven league (competitively) so "Tier 2" players will be able to get the max on bad teams and contending teams willing to go financially broke to attempt a championship. Thus, they are *overpaid*.
Your fallback is this argument about cash flow. Other posters have pointed out that franchise values belie the claim that these teams are losing money. So you try to wave away those values as being wrong, or not being tied to decisions about players. (A more natural explanation is that simply looking at net income and trying to impute franchise value based on some discounted cash flow model is not right here, perhaps because accounting net income is a poor measure of true current or future expected "profits" in this industry.)
But again: it's an incredible thing to assert.
Sum it all up, and it comes across as if you think you just know more than the collective wisdom of all the talent evaluators and business minds in the sport.
I wasn't sure that the "fallback argument" was mine. I don't really need a fallback argument because I'm quite content with the first one. It's unfortunately the place that we had to go to to clarify a few things about just how much these athletes are earning for their teams. As I stated, franchise value means zero until you make the sale. It's all about cash flow. A normal business cannot sustain being in the red year after year. Fortunately these wealthy owners boot strap the operation. Gilbert uses his Quicken cash to pay for LeBron's championships. The problem is if the value tanks due to the star that was propping it up leaves, you never really gain anything other than inflation and external growth of business (better TV deals, enhanced market, etc).
On a side note (I'm sure this where we'll end up debating next), if there's anyone to be thankful here it's LeBron. He's been given his choice in players, Gilbert has gone deep into luxury for years, and he's been getting paid max money while building his brand as a "winner," all at the expense of Gilbert. Although I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, I'm really not sure how LeBron is a victim here financially. I hear on ESPN things like "LeBron is p---ed that Gilbert has made a ton of money off him and now he's going to sell the team." Well, that's bull. Gilbert can only make money off this shindig once he sells the team (because he's operating at a net loss).
I think that is what has led to the frustration people have expressed.
There shouldn't really be any frustration. If you get angry because someone has an opinion, I really don't know what to tell you. Maybe learn how to walk away from certain discussions? I generally can't stomach more than a few posts in "Off topic // current events" because the overwhelming majority of posters are uncompromising liberals. I don't go about insulting their intelligence, though.
I am reasonably fair person. It may take a few posts for me to see the other side of the fence, but I would acknowledge it. So far, I haven't see 1 argument come close to make me change my mind. Show me how the money works and we can talk about raising salaries. You guys seem to be fixated on an individual player's contribution to franchise value, and while it's nice, it's tied to a 4 year contract for a relatively illiquid long term investment. It's like me being excited that the tax bill has increased my 401k value. Well, I won't see the money for 25 years from now, so I really didn't gain anything yet because Armageddon could come next year..
-
I never understood why so many fans get mad at what the Celtics do with their money. You see this over and over again. People complaining about the Celtics paying the tax, or giving this player this amount of money.
Some fans act is if they're the ones having to pay the salaries.
-
Holy pedanticism. Off the soapboxes, please.
-
I never understood why so many fans get mad at what the Celtics do with their money. You see this over and over again. People complaining about the Celtics paying the tax, or giving this player this amount of money.
Some fans act is if they're the ones having to pay the salaries.
Money is an asset used to acquire players just like a draft pick.
Not sure how you don't realize that
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2017/02/15/forbes-releases-19th-annual-nba-team-valuations/#4e85ab807f03
"Three NBA teams, Cleveland Cavaliers, Los Angeles Clippers and Oklahoma City Thunder, lost money last season and all three were the result of excessive payrolls that triggered the luxury tax."
Three teams lost money, not 14.
Edit - considering that they just signed a 24 billion dollar TV deal, and that their agreement with the NBAPA guarantees the owners they never have to spend even half of that on salaries, I'm not certain that there should be too much concern over owners potentially going bankrupt. Unnless they're fiscally foolish. In which case they probably shouldn't be running multi-million dollar businesses.
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2017/02/15/forbes-releases-19th-annual-nba-team-valuations/#4e85ab807f03
"Three NBA teams, Cleveland Cavaliers, Los Angeles Clippers and Oklahoma City Thunder, lost money last season and all three were the result of excessive payrolls that triggered the luxury tax."
Three teams lost money, not 14.
Edit - considering that they just signed a 24 billion dollar TV deal, and that their agreement with the NBAPA guarantees the owners they never have to spend even half of that on salaries, I'm not certain that there should be too much concern over owners potentially going bankrupt. Unnless they're fiscally foolish. In which case they probably shouldn't be running multi-million dollar businesses.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20747413/a-confidential-report-shows-nearly-half-nba-lost-money-last-season-now-what
Not sure which story is correct.
My favorite quote:
"Teams in small markets are told we need to run our businesses better so we can make money," one ownership source told ESPN.com. "But teams in the largest markets can run their businesses poorly and still make money."
Just to be clear, my argument is for the current deal. If more money comes in, obviously the players can be paid more, with the best player making the most amount of money :)
-
The NFL has a hard cap. The NFL does not have player maximum contracts. The NFL seems to work just fine.
-
I'm fine with Horford making what he makes. The NBA salary structure doesn't always make sense for a thousand reasons. Otto Porter makes more than Paul George or Jimmy Butler and twice as much money as Khris Middleton or Kemba Walker. There are too many variables to make sense out of these kinds of comparisons.
-
Horford is overpaid.Sometimes you have to over pay to get what you want
-
I never understood why so many fans get mad at what the Celtics do with their money. You see this over and over again. People complaining about the Celtics paying the tax, or giving this player this amount of money.
Some fans act is if they're the ones having to pay the salaries.
Money is an asset used to acquire players just like a draft pick.
Not sure how you don't realize that
So you think we could match everything Al does for this team with 2 maybe 3 different players in 35 million? It was money we needed to spend when we had it. There was no getting Al for less, and there was no duplicating Al for less.
-
To the OP is your goal to hurt his trade value or point out his flaws or perhaps both?
-
To the OP is your goal to hurt his trade value or point out his flaws or perhaps both?
Nothing posted on this site is going to hurt his trade value.
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
The Celtics are 1st in the East and Al is over the 30 y/o mark - maybe, just maybe he is saving it for the playoffs? Talk to me about how horrible Al is in June - I guarantee you will be singing a different tune!
-
I don't know if this has been brought up but,
Isaiah Thomas(last year) and Kyrie Irving don't get to
what they do unless Big Al is on the floor. He is incredibly valuable.
-
Still incredible how some of you guys watch the top defensive team in the NBA and don't care about defense to even bring it up in talking about players value and if they live up to a contract. I get it with a crowd that I know are casual fans but you would think people going out their way to post on this forum, some with thousands of posts, would look at defense.
Just keep staring at that point column while the Celtics keep stacking wins behind Al's defense.
-
I think Al Horford is absolutely worth his contract. He is never gonna be a guy who average 20 points per game or who takes over the game on a regular basis, if he's your best scorer you aren't going t be a very good team. But on the Celtics where he has Irving and eventually Hayward ahead of him, he's a perfect fit. He a top 5 candidate for DPOY, one of the bets passing big man, shoots over 40% from 3 on good volume. What's not to like? Its easy to get caught up on his lack of scoring when our offense struggles but next year with Hayward back and Jaylen/Jayson progressing it wont be as much of a problem.
-
Horford made Lowe's '10 Things' again yesterday:
8. Al Horford's second contests
There is a certain segment of basketball fandom that laughs at the notion that Al Horford -- 13 points, eight rebounds per game Al Horford -- might be a great player. There is something to that skepticism. Horford is not going to get buckets when the defense has you in a vice grip at the end of the shot clock, and at its most visceral moments, the sport is about guys who can manufacture those buckets. Most of the little Horford things we romanticize don't matter when you're down by one with 15 seconds left, and out of options.
But there are long stretches between those hothouse moments when all those little things count -- fractions of a point here and there that add up to something larger. Pile up enough value on the margins, and maybe there won't be any of those hothouse moments in crunch time.
Horford is a master at those little things. One of my favorites is his habit of sliding in at the last second to provide a second set of arms contesting an enemy jump shot:
...
Horford rarely reveals his intentions too early. By the time the shooter registers Horford in his airspace, it's too late to change course and kick it to Horford's guy -- who might be semi-open nearby.
Is Horford the front-runner for Defensive Player of the Year? Is all the attention on Kevin Durant's swats blotting out another year of sneering, long-armed brilliance from Draymond Green? What about Giannis Antetokounmpo? With injuries to Kawhi Leonard and Rudy Gobert, the race feels more open than usual.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22292465/zach-lowe-10-things-like-including-kevin-durant-steph-curry-pick-rolls-nba
You can follow the link to see the video. The fact that Horford is one of the two most important offensive players on the team and is (for Lowe, at least) in the conversation for DPOY makes him worth his contract, I'd say.
-
Just going to leave this here post Blazers game lol...
-
Yep definitely doesn’t deserve his salary ::)
-
/end thread
-
/end thread
Double Stamp it, no Backsies, no Erasies. ;D
-
Poor Triboy is getting pummeled into submission.
-
He sure as hell earned that game check.
-
dont know why anyone would hate on Horford.
-
Delete thread? ;D
-
Certainly not true today...
-
dont know why anyone would hate on Horford.
his stats aren't gaudy enough lol
-
dont know why anyone would hate on Horford.
There's no shame in not being worth a max contract. You can still be a great player.
-
dont know why anyone would hate on Horford.
There's no shame in not being worth a max contract. You can still be a great player.
He’s far from the worst max contract out there today. It’s what players get paid now.
The truth is a player like LeBron is worth $50M+ but can’t get that. So the teams that can’t get the LeBrons and Durants and Leonards have to get the next level players, even if that means giving the most money they possibly can.
This is the new NBA. And it’s not going anywhere.
-
Mediocre all star helping us to the best record in east. Should this thread get locked? I don't want it to turn into people bashing each other
-
He didn't have any steals tonight 8)
-
Supreme mediocre 8)
-
sweet bump! :D :D :D
-
Who bumped this thread
Automatic TP
-
Lost in all this is the debate about whether LeBron is overpaid in addition to Horford lol
Props to Al for today’s buzzer beater!!! :)
-
Al Horford might very well be underpaid! :P
-
Al Horford might very well be underpaid! :P
TP
-
dont know why anyone would hate on Horford.
There's no shame in not being worth a max contract. You can still be a great player.
He’s far from the worst max contract out there today. It’s what players get paid now.
The truth is a player like LeBron is worth $50M+ but can’t get that. So the teams that can’t get the LeBrons and Durants and Leonards have to get the next level players, even if that means giving the most money they possibly can.
This is the new NBA. And it’s not going anywhere.
I never understood this take. "Players like Lebron are REALLY worth 50M so Horford's contract really isn't that bad".
You can just say players like Lebron are REALLY worth the max, while players like Horford aren't.
-
50 million might be an exaggeration, but the point is that without a max salary limitation, Lebron would likely make much more than he currently does. The max salary in effect subsidizes teams that have the elite players because they can pay them less than they would have if there was no max. The idea that are players are worth less than the max because that's what Lebron makes is flawed, there are only a few elite players. Less than elite players will be able to get the max because there are 20 or more teams that will be competing for those second rank players, any team that refuses to pay max for those guys will end up with third rank players at best. In the end players are worth what teams are willing to pay for them. Fans often have opinions about what players are worth based on how good they think they are, but that's a misguided way to look at it. There is a market, sometimes you can get a player for less than you feared, and sometimes it costs more than you hoped. Al is a max player, there is no doubt about that. You might wish that we didn't need to give him that much, but that is the market. You can't pass on players like that, without Al I don't think you get Kyrie and Gordon.
-
dont know why anyone would hate on Horford.
There's no shame in not being worth a max contract. You can still be a great player.
He’s far from the worst max contract out there today. It’s what players get paid now.
The truth is a player like LeBron is worth $50M+ but can’t get that. So the teams that can’t get the LeBrons and Durants and Leonards have to get the next level players, even if that means giving the most money they possibly can.
This is the new NBA. And it’s not going anywhere.
I never understood this take. "Players like Lebron are REALLY worth 50M so Horford's contract really isn't that bad".
You can just say players like Lebron are REALLY worth the max, while players like Horford aren't.
I think they're just making a valid point about how arbitrary it is. LeBron is actually worth those values ultimately for business reasons and things too (the fact that he is so good he is getting you to the Finals basically every year adds a lot of value or the fact that he is almost never hurt and hardly misses games). It's complicated but it just goes to show the argument is basically about some arbitrary rules.
-
Big Al was all over the place today...bringing the ball up the court, dunking, passing, blocking.....channeling his inner Ray Allen on the clutch J at the end.
Great game by our All-Star.
-
Care to retract your statement after Horford's gamewinner against the Blazers?
BTW Horford is among the top passing big men in the lead and oh yeah among the top in defensive rating as well. Oh and he's shooting 43% from 3...
-
dont know why anyone would hate on Horford.
There's no shame in not being worth a max contract. You can still be a great player.
He’s far from the worst max contract out there today. It’s what players get paid now.
The truth is a player like LeBron is worth $50M+ but can’t get that. So the teams that can’t get the LeBrons and Durants and Leonards have to get the next level players, even if that means giving the most money they possibly can.
This is the new NBA. And it’s not going anywhere.
I never understood this take. "Players like Lebron are REALLY worth 50M so Horford's contract really isn't that bad".
You can just say players like Lebron are REALLY worth the max, while players like Horford aren't.
I mean it’s pretty simple.
The NBA has specific salary structure unlike most (if any) leagues. Players can only get paid a maximum depending on their tenure and status (such as accolades and team rights).
If this was, say, MLB, and Mike Trout becomes a free agent, let the bidding begin. Red Sox can offer a $750M/15yr deal. Yankees can go to a billion if they really want him.
Do you really think if LeBron’s salary wasn’t capped, he couldn’t easily get $50M a year? It’s not even debatable. So yes, LeBron is worth the max... and a whole lot more. Look at what stiffs like Asik get paid.
And that’s why there are players who make as much as LeBron, despite not being nearly as good. It’s not because they aren’t “worth” it, but because LeBron (and some others) are not being paid in a free market.
-
Horford is so [dang] steady. So important for this team
-
This is one of those threads that will never die. Every time Horford plays a bad game, someone comes here to say "I told you so," and every time he has a good game, someone comes here to say, "You were wrong."
-
This is one of those threads that will never die. Every time Horford plays a bad game, someone comes here to say "I told you so," and every time he has a good game, someone comes here to say, "You were wrong."
Exactly why it needs to be shut down.
It's just a stupid way to have a discussion. Does Al sometimes have underwhelming nights which indicate he is not a max guy? Yes. Does he have nights where his 27 million seems like bargain? Yes.
Great.
-
I find this thread laughable.
Al Horford career averages: 14.3 ppg / 8.6 rbg / 3.1 apg / PER 19.0
Al Horford 2017-2018 avg: 13.6 ppg / 7.9 rpg / 5.3 apg / PER 19.0
Oh, and he's averaging the highest WS/48 and TS% of his career. And is an All-Star.
Seems we're getting exactly what we paid for.
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
I assumed that this thread was started in November 2016 or something when I clicked on it.
I don’t agree. I’ll just leave it at that.
-
Frankly, I think Horford doesn't deserve this thread smh... >:(
-
Al Horfords signing helpes entice others to sign (Hayward & possibly Monroe). Helped our ball movement tremendously. Veteran leadership. We didnt pay for his stats. It was clearly for the doors his presence opens. Plus, his contract should end around the time our core players are all in their primes. Being competitive now is literally a bonus. An ideal signing imo. This is why we are bloggers and Ainge is Ainge. Thank Jesus!
-
Frankly, I think Horford doesn't deserve this thread smh... >:(
TP
-
He showed up today just like last year's playoffs! Horford backing down Giannis was amazing. ;D
-
At this point the "Horford doesn't deserve his salary" people are just a source of amusement to me.
Like people who say there's no evidence for global warming.
You're just notifying the people around you of how much they should consider your opinions in general.
-
All this gentleman does his show up and play....no drama Al is da man.
-
Like people who say there's no evidence for global warming.
To be fair, half this thread was about whether Lebron is overpaid. :)
All this gentleman does his show up and play....no drama Al is da man.
:) All star!
-
Al Horford was the number 2 free agent, after Durant, for a reason. His selection of Boston was massive even if it was an overpay. I always liked Al but he's never felt like a max guy.
I really don't care what he makes now. Dude's a stud and a role model. What a big performance.
-
Al Horford was the number 2 free agent, after Durant, for a reason. His selection of Boston was massive even if it was an overpay. I always liked Al but he's never felt like a max guy.
I really don't care what he makes now. Dude's a stud and a role model. What a big performance.
TP! Thought it was fair at the time too compared to what others were signing for.
-
Al "Max Money" Horford just doing what he does in the playoffs.
Nobody should be surprised.
-
If he played like yesterday all the time this thread wouldn't exist, but he doesn't so it does.
-
If he played like yesterday all the time this thread wouldn't exist, but he doesn't so it does.
I'd rather have Horford pace himself during the season (he is 31), make sure he stays healthy, and then bring it in the playoffs than the opposite. Especially with our boatload of injuries this year.
-
I still get a laugh out of everyone who p*sses & moans about Horford & his contract.
-
I still get a laugh out of everyone who p*sses & moans about Horford & his contract.
I am grateful when they do. They just identify themselves as someone whose opinion about anything in basketball can be easily dismissed.
I've said it before in this thread. We're getting exactly what we should have expected from production, professionalism and leadership standpoints. If anyone had different expectations then that's their problem.
-
If he played like yesterday all the time this thread wouldn't exist, but he doesn't so it does.
The only thing different than usual about yesterday was the minutes and the frequency of going inside, neither of which would be sustainable over 80 games.
I worry it won't be sustainable over a seven game series.
What he brings every night is well worth the max.
-
If he played like yesterday all the time this thread wouldn't exist, but he doesn't so it does.
The only thing different than usual about yesterday was the minutes and the frequency of going inside, neither of which would be sustainable over 80 games..
Which is just another way of saying that he isn't able to sustain being a max player over 80 games. It's ok, though. He's still valuable.
-
All Horford series Team MVP if C’s win the series!!!
-
All Horford series Team MVP if C’s win the series!!!
I think Jaylen Brown might have something to say about that before all is said and done
-
All Horford series Team MVP if C’s win the series!!!
I think Jaylen Brown might have something to say about that before all is said and done
That would be swell too.
-
I think the problem people have is that Horford is paid about what he's worth, while some superstars in the league are vastly underpaid as MAX players. Without a MAX on players salary, someone like Lebron or Durant would be making $80-90 Million a year. These type of max players skew the fan perspective of what a MAX player really is.
-
This post is not aging well.
-
I think the problem people have is that Horford is paid about what he's worth, while some superstars in the league are vastly underpaid as MAX players. Without a MAX on players salary, someone like Lebron or Durant would be making $80-90 Million a year. These type of max players skew the fan perspective of what a MAX player really is.
Horford has the 12th highest salary in the league. He isn't the 12th best player and isn't all that close to that.
-
I think the problem people have is that Horford is paid about what he's worth, while some superstars in the league are vastly underpaid as MAX players. Without a MAX on players salary, someone like Lebron or Durant would be making $80-90 Million a year. These type of max players skew the fan perspective of what a MAX player really is.
Horford has the 12th highest salary in the league. He isn't the 12th best player and isn't all that close to that.
Its close once you ignore the players on rookie deals. Counting stats isnt everything, and Horford is such a rarity. You need guys who will enable other players to do what they do best, Horford is that guy. You cannot put 5 guys who all need the ball in their hands at the same time.
Between defending Cavs, Sixers and continued downplaying of Celtics players and staff, I have serious doubts you are a legit Celtics fan.
-
Between defending Cavs, Sixers and continued downplaying of Celtics players and staff, I have serious doubts you are a legit Celtics fan.
He has been here forever, so I think he is, but it is clear that he does like other teams. Celtics are my only NBA team that I root for, but each of us is different, free country and all that stuff...
A lot of what Al does is not measured in the stat lines. One thing he does is make every one else better.
-
I still get a laugh out of everyone who p*sses & moans about Horford & his contract.
I am grateful when they do. They just identify themselves as someone whose opinion about anything in basketball can be easily dismissed.
I've said it before in this thread. We're getting exactly what we should have expected from production, professionalism and leadership standpoints. If anyone had different expectations then that's their problem.
Well put. Horford is like an extension of Stevens when it comes to leadership on and off the court. He is a stabilizing presence for such a young group of players. Horford can anchor the defense, post up when needed, hit 3's consistently, guard perimeter players, and run the offense. What makes it more impressive is that he does all of these things simultaneously while making the right basketball play almost every time. There aren't many selfless players in the league that can accomplish all of these things. Simply put, Horford impacts winning at a VERY high level.
I don't care that Al is at a stage where he needs to scale back throughout the course of an 82 game season. It's clear that he can still deliver the goods come playoff time.
-
I think the problem people have is that Horford is paid about what he's worth, while some superstars in the league are vastly underpaid as MAX players. Without a MAX on players salary, someone like Lebron or Durant would be making $80-90 Million a year. These type of max players skew the fan perspective of what a MAX player really is.
Horford has the 12th highest salary in the league. He isn't the 12th best player and isn't all that close to that.
Its close once you ignore the players on rookie deals. Counting stats isnt everything, and Horford is such a rarity. You need guys who will enable other players to do what they do best, Horford is that guy. You cannot put 5 guys who all need the ball in their hands at the same time.
Between defending Cavs, Sixers and continued downplaying of Celtics players and staff, I have serious doubts you are a legit Celtics fan.
Now might be a good time to re-read the forum rules.
-
Al Horford is an all-star. He's is a 1st team Defensive type player. People have issues if he doesn't average 20 and 10 to justify his contract. Without Al this team is not as good as it is. The reason why they are still playing at such a high level is because of Horford. It doesn't show on the stats but he is vital to our defensive identity. I love Horford and will never complain about his production because like Marcus Smart there are things he does that do not show up on the stat sheet that are vital to a teams success. Go C's!
-
So if Horford is the 12th highest paid player and their are obviously a few people that are younger and will get paid higher when they are older and eligible for more, he is getting pretty close to where he should be. He was an allstar so really a top 25 player. Plus he is probably making all defensive second team. You got a guy that is a top 10 defensive player making the allstar game and performing in the playoffs. What is to complain about?
-
Every single season of Al Horford's career that he has played >60 games, he's been the best or second best player on his team, and his team has (a) made the playoffs and (b) either won a playoff series or been competitive against a quality first round opponent.
Best or second best player on a playoff team that wins one or more rounds in the playoffs, year after year.
Even if you're a traditionalist, how is that not max contract worthy? I think people lose their minds sometimes when they get caught up in salary numbers.
-
I think the problem people have is that Horford is paid about what he's worth, while some superstars in the league are vastly underpaid as MAX players. Without a MAX on players salary, someone like Lebron or Durant would be making $80-90 Million a year. These type of max players skew the fan perspective of what a MAX player really is.
Horford has the 12th highest salary in the league. He isn't the 12th best player and isn't all that close to that.
Its close once you ignore the players on rookie deals. Counting stats isnt everything, and Horford is such a rarity. You need guys who will enable other players to do what they do best, Horford is that guy. You cannot put 5 guys who all need the ball in their hands at the same time.
Between defending Cavs, Sixers and continued downplaying of Celtics players and staff, I have serious doubts you are a legit Celtics fan.
Now might be a good time to re-read the forum rules.
Yep.
And in any case it's not very nice to a) revive a thread to tell the world someone was wrong about something and b) doubt he is a true fan.
-
I think the problem people have is that Horford is paid about what he's worth, while some superstars in the league are vastly underpaid as MAX players. Without a MAX on players salary, someone like Lebron or Durant would be making $80-90 Million a year. These type of max players skew the fan perspective of what a MAX player really is.
Horford has the 12th highest salary in the league. He isn't the 12th best player and isn't all that close to that.
Its close once you ignore the players on rookie deals. Counting stats isnt everything, and Horford is such a rarity. You need guys who will enable other players to do what they do best, Horford is that guy. You cannot put 5 guys who all need the ball in their hands at the same time.
Between defending Cavs, Sixers and continued downplaying of Celtics players and staff, I have serious doubts you are a legit Celtics fan.
I don't really get what people want Horford to do to be better.
-
I think the problem people have is that Horford is paid about what he's worth, while some superstars in the league are vastly underpaid as MAX players. Without a MAX on players salary, someone like Lebron or Durant would be making $80-90 Million a year. These type of max players skew the fan perspective of what a MAX player really is.
Horford has the 12th highest salary in the league. He isn't the 12th best player and isn't all that close to that.
Its close once you ignore the players on rookie deals. Counting stats isnt everything, and Horford is such a rarity. You need guys who will enable other players to do what they do best, Horford is that guy. You cannot put 5 guys who all need the ball in their hands at the same time.
Between defending Cavs, Sixers and continued downplaying of Celtics players and staff, I have serious doubts you are a legit Celtics fan.
I don't really get what people want Horford to do to be better.
It's the raw counting numbers. That's all that matter to some people. If he was garbage and the Celtics were losing games but he was putting up big point and rebounding totals these same people would love him, is my guess.
-
I think the problem people have is that Horford is paid about what he's worth, while some superstars in the league are vastly underpaid as MAX players. Without a MAX on players salary, someone like Lebron or Durant would be making $80-90 Million a year. These type of max players skew the fan perspective of what a MAX player really is.
Horford has the 12th highest salary in the league. He isn't the 12th best player and isn't all that close to that.
Its close once you ignore the players on rookie deals. Counting stats isnt everything, and Horford is such a rarity. You need guys who will enable other players to do what they do best, Horford is that guy. You cannot put 5 guys who all need the ball in their hands at the same time.
Between defending Cavs, Sixers and continued downplaying of Celtics players and staff, I have serious doubts you are a legit Celtics fan.
I don't really get what people want Horford to do to be better.
His PPG would need to be 18-20 at least. After all, Drew Bledsoe averaged 17.7 PPG this year and 21.1 PPG last year.
-
I think the problem people have is that Horford is paid about what he's worth, while some superstars in the league are vastly underpaid as MAX players. Without a MAX on players salary, someone like Lebron or Durant would be making $80-90 Million a year. These type of max players skew the fan perspective of what a MAX player really is.
Horford has the 12th highest salary in the league. He isn't the 12th best player and isn't all that close to that.
Its close once you ignore the players on rookie deals. Counting stats isnt everything, and Horford is such a rarity. You need guys who will enable other players to do what they do best, Horford is that guy. You cannot put 5 guys who all need the ball in their hands at the same time.
Between defending Cavs, Sixers and continued downplaying of Celtics players and staff, I have serious doubts you are a legit Celtics fan.
I don't really get what people want Horford to do to be better.
no need to worry....just more low iq fans about flash , and not about substance. not what you do, but how you look doing it is the dumbed down America theme.
-
It's the raw counting numbers. That's all that matter to some people. If he was garbage and the Celtics were losing games but he was putting up big point and rebounding totals these same people would love him, is my guess.
What people want is for Horford to be able the carry the team on his back. I expect this from every player that signs at the dotted line for the maximum dollars available. Horford can't do that. He's a nice complementary piece that makes the team better and can dominate in short stretches. But he can't be the man all game, every game. Which is fine, and doesn't make him a bum. Just a guy I'd like to have at about 75% of the max salary slot.
Has nothing to do with the numbers -- although of course if you are able to carry the team on your back, that usually results in "raw counting numbers".
-
If Horford keeps up this play then I will voluntarily put my head under the guillotine.
-
Horford is an unbelievable player... the only issue is if his keeps his playing form when Hayward and irwing reach their prime... time ruthless for everyone...
-
The fact that Horford is the twelfth-highest paid player has much more to do with timing than player impact. He signed as a player with nine years of experience, enabling him to take 30% of the cap in a year with a significant cap increase.
A player's salary ranking is not a good reflection of his ranking as a player.
-
It's the raw counting numbers. That's all that matter to some people. If he was garbage and the Celtics were losing games but he was putting up big point and rebounding totals these same people would love him, is my guess.
What people want is for Horford to be able the carry the team on his back. I expect this from every player that signs at the dotted line for the maximum dollars available. Horford can't do that. He's a nice complementary piece that makes the team better and can dominate in short stretches. But he can't be the man all game, every game. Which is fine, and doesn't make him a bum. Just a guy I'd like to have at about 75% of the max salary slot.
Has nothing to do with the numbers -- although of course if you are able to carry the team on your back, that usually results in "raw counting numbers".
This is where I'm at on Horford. He is a very good player, but he isn't the 2nd best player on his team and you can't realistically pay 3 players max dollars (even if 1 of the others is still on a 25% max from a much lower cap).
-
The fact that Horford is the twelfth-highest paid player has much more to do with timing than player impact. He signed as a player with nine years of experience, enabling him to take 30% of the cap in a year with a significant cap increase.
A player's salary ranking is not a good reflection of his ranking as a player.
This really should be a two part debate. The first part is how good is he relative to the best players in the league and/or how important to the Celtics is he. The second part of the debate could be whether he was a good signing as a max player (is he worth the money).
I think the second part of the debate is pretty easy. In comparison to other max players, it is hard to say he is worth the money.
Now the question of how good is he is a very hard one to answer. No doubt he does things that don't show up in the box score and what does show up in the box score doesn't jump off the page. Is he a top 10 big? I think so. Would your rather have Horford or Cousins, Jordan, Gasol or Drummond? Throw out Cousins (hard to evaluate due to head case) and I don't think Jordan or Gasol or Drummond are any better. How about Gobert or Jokic or Whiteside? No thanks (at least in terms of current production, not future potential). Towns, Davis, or Embiid, sure, so is Horford a top 5 Center/Big? Top 5 bigs sign for big money. That is the market.
I would prefer that we had someone better than Horford for max money (cough cough Durant) but in reality, we didn't have all that many options.
-
This thread is absurd, especially a day after Horford lead us to blow out the Bucks.
Horford is worth EVERY PENNY, simply because it took every penny to get him here. Without Horford there is no Kyrie, no Hayward. Probably no Morris or Baynes too. Just by the chain reaction Horford set off by signing here, he's worth it, even if he played worse than Abdel Nader.
Then he's also a top defensive guy, a top offensive guy, and the ultimate pro around our team of young players who are learning to become pros. Out of everyone on the team, Al is by far the most important. He might not make the most counting stats, but he makes this team run. He makes Steven's vision possible. He might not be transcendent at one aspect of the game, but he is masterful at almost all of them. Hell. He even added a 3-point game and now shoots a better percentage than Curry.
This thread is rediculous.
-
This thread is absurd, especially a day after Horford lead us to blow out the Bucks.
Horford is worth EVERY PENNY, simply because it took every penny to get him here. Without Horford there is no Kyrie, no Hayward. Probably no Morris or Baynes too. Just by the chain reaction Horford set off by signing here, he's worth it, even if he played worse than Abdel Nader.
Then he's also a top defensive guy, a top offensive guy, and the ultimate pro around our team of young players who are learning to become pros. Out of everyone on the team, Al is by far the most important. He might not make the most counting stats, but he makes this team run. He makes Steven's vision possible. He might not be transcendent at one aspect of the game, but he is masterful at almost all of them. Hell. He even added a 3-point game and now shoots a better percentage than Curry.
This thread is rediculous.
TP.....it truely is SMH
-
It's the raw counting numbers. That's all that matter to some people. If he was garbage and the Celtics were losing games but he was putting up big point and rebounding totals these same people would love him, is my guess.
What people want is for Horford to be able the carry the team on his back. I expect this from every player that signs at the dotted line for the maximum dollars available. Horford can't do that. He's a nice complementary piece that makes the team better and can dominate in short stretches. But he can't be the man all game, every game. Which is fine, and doesn't make him a bum. Just a guy I'd like to have at about 75% of the max salary slot.
Has nothing to do with the numbers -- although of course if you are able to carry the team on your back, that usually results in "raw counting numbers".
This is where I'm at on Horford. He is a very good player, but he isn't the 2nd best player on his team and you can't realistically pay 3 players max dollars (even if 1 of the others is still on a 25% max from a much lower cap).
Its great to want him at a lower salary because you feel he isn't living up to his contract value, but when he was on the market, he was the 2nd best player available and if the Celtics weren't going to give him a max contract, someone else would have and he would not be here.
Since signing with Boston, the Celtics have won more than 50 games each year Horford has been here. He, Smart, Jaylen and Rozier are the only common denominators amongst those two very different teams. Horford provides much more than his box score. Without him, the Celtics most likeky don't win 50 games these past two seasons. The Celtics are simply a much better team with Horford.
So the Celtics are paying Horford about $8 million a year more than you think he is worth. Me, I am glad we are paying him that extra $8 million and he is here than trying to sign a few players that are paid at their level but cumulatively would have a much lesser effect on the win loss record of this team. Because that off season, that's all you would have gotten is much lesser impactful players.
-
Just a guy I'd like to have at about 75% of the max salary slot.
I think that we all wish this was possible. The problem is, it isn’t. So, you are left with the decision of paying him more than he is ideally worth, or missing out on him altogether.
Looking back at that free agent class, there are many, many worse outcomes than paying Horford what the market value was.
-
This thread is absurd, especially a day after Horford lead us to blow out the Bucks.
To be fair, this thread was started several months ago. I disagreed with it at the time, and strongly cell, but the context was from a bad stretch of regular reason games.
Honestly, it kind of cracks me up any time the Rozier / Horford / Morris sucks threads pop up. It’s kind of fun to see a player completely prove his critics wrong.
-
It's the raw counting numbers. That's all that matter to some people. If he was garbage and the Celtics were losing games but he was putting up big point and rebounding totals these same people would love him, is my guess.
What people want is for Horford to be able the carry the team on his back. I expect this from every player that signs at the dotted line for the maximum dollars available. Horford can't do that. He's a nice complementary piece that makes the team better and can dominate in short stretches. But he can't be the man all game, every game. Which is fine, and doesn't make him a bum. Just a guy I'd like to have at about 75% of the max salary slot.
Has nothing to do with the numbers -- although of course if you are able to carry the team on your back, that usually results in "raw counting numbers".
Have you watched the Celts recently?
-
This thread is absurd, especially a day after Horford lead us to blow out the Bucks.
To be fair, this thread was started several months ago. I disagreed with it at the time, and strongly cell, but the context was from a bad stretch of regular reason games.
Honestly, it kind of cracks me up any time the Rozier / Horford / Morris sucks threads pop up. It’s kind of fun to see a player completely prove his critics wrong.
Oh, I know. I'm a Smart-stan. I'm used to this kind of thread. Still hard to believe there's one on Horford though :D SMH
-
Just a guy I'd like to have at about 75% of the max salary slot.
I think that we all wish this was possible. The problem is, it isn’t. So, you are left with the decision of paying him more than he is ideally worth, or missing out on him altogether.
Looking back at that free agent class, there are many, many worse outcomes than paying Horford what the market value was.
Sure, but there could have been better outcomes as well. For example, without Horford's salary, Ainge might have pulled the trigger on a Jimmy Butler, Paul George or Demarcus Cousins trade because he still would have had the cap room to acquire Hayward. C's still might have been able to acquire Irving as well and might have still had Bradley. So say, the C's acquired George (for Crowder, Smart, and the Boston 2018 1st - with the cap room they could fit George in for that - I didn't run the numbers maybe even KO could have kept in that scenario though that is probably unlikey) and then still made the Cleveland trade but using Bradley instead of Crowder, so Thomas, Bradley, BKN 1st (and maybe Zizic, maybe not) for Irving. So Boston then strolls out Irving, Brown, Hayward, George, and Baynes (or whatever free agent is added at center) and still would have Tatum, Rozier, etc. on the bench.
Of course maybe none of that happens without Horford. No real way to know what might have been, but I believe overpaying for a free agent is never the right way to go because there are always consequences to those things down the line.
-
In comparison to other max players, it is hard to say he is worth the money.
Again we have a problem with the terms we're using here.
What other "max players"? Do you mean players making $25-30 million a year? Or do you mean players beyond their rookie contract being paid at the maximum annual value allowed for their level of experience?
There are a lot of players in the league making over $20 million per year who received the highest possible annual value at the time they signed their contract, or close to it. In other words, they're making max based on what the CBA allowed. Horford is more valuable than a lot of those guys.
Horford is not as valuable as LeBron or Curry, sure. He's not better than Dame Lillard, or Chris Paul, or James Harden, or Kevin Durant.
But those aren't the only guys making $25-30 million.
Is he more valuable than Paul Millsap? ($30.8 million) ... Yes.
Is he more valuable than Blake Griffin? ($29.5 million) ... Yes.
Is he more valuable than Mike Conley? ($28.5 million) ... Yes, I say, even w/out injuries.
Is he more valuable than Carmelo Anthony? ($27.5 million) ... Yes.
Is he more valuable than Andrew Wiggins? ($25.3 million) ... Yes.
Is he more valuable than Jrue Holiday? ($24.9 million) ... Arguable, but I say yes.
Is he more valuable than Otto Porter? ($24.8 million) ... Yes.
Is he more valuable than C.J. McCollum? ($24 million) ... Yes.
Is he more valuable than Hassan Whiteside? ($23.8 million) ... Yes.
Is he more valuable than Bradley Beal? ($23.8 million) ... Arguable, but I think I'd say yes.
Is he more valuable than Andre Drummond? ($23.8 million) ... I think I'd rather have Horford.
Is he more valuable than Dwight Howard? ($23.5 million) ... Yes.
Is he more valuable than Chandler Parsons? ($23 million) ... Yes.
Is he more valuable than Harrison Barnes? ($23 million) ... Yes.
Now, about many of the above players you could say, "Well those are bad contracts." That's true. You could also argue "Many of those players are paid based upon age and potential." That's true as well.
But that's also just how the free agent market works in the NBA. Age, years of experience, how much a player is allowed to be paid under the CBA, what other players are available in that free agent period, etc are all taken into account.
Horford is worth as much or more than many other players who make a similar annual salary in the NBA. You may not feel that most of the above players should have gotten close to max money, but the reality of the league is that any above average free agent is going to get a big deal, and if you're a team with cap space that wants to sign a good player, you're probably going to have to offer the maximum annual value allowed under the CBA.
If your argument is opportunity cost, i.e. the Celts could have signed somebody else who is more valuable, or they could have signed multiple guys for the same total amount of money, I just fundamentally disagree with you.
But the bottom line is that somebody was going to offer Al Horford a max deal and his performance over the course of his deal so far is absolutely commensurate with that salary, i.e. he is a top player on a quality team, provides a lot of leadership and intangibles on and off the court, and has helped to attract other good players to join the team.
-
If Horford plays this good in the the 2nd round....I will say
Why arent you playing like this more often? And earning all of 30 million per season
There is nothing to admit of error for posting this thread...he was pure mediocre for a good chunk of the season. Especially when Kyrie was out (I mean even with Kyrie at times...its like when are you going to try, hit some big shots vs relying on others to score)
-
The regular season is for scrubs....Al is earning his money on the big stage.
-
If Horford plays this good in the the 2nd round....I will say
Why arent you playing like this more often? And earning all of 30 million per season
There is nothing to admit of error for posting this thread...he was pure mediocre for a good chunk of the season. Especially when Kyrie was out (I mean even with Kyrie at times...its like when are you going to try, hit some big shots vs relying on others to score)
I would say you need to expand your definition of what it means to play well, because Al was very good for the vast majority of the regular season, as well. It's not all about points and taking shots.
-
If Horford plays this good in the the 2nd round....I will say
Why arent you playing like this more often? And earning all of 30 million per season
There is nothing to admit of error for posting this thread...he was pure mediocre for a good chunk of the season. Especially when Kyrie was out (I mean even with Kyrie at times...its like when are you going to try, hit some big shots vs relying on others to score)
I would say you need to expand your definition of what it means to play well, because Al was very good for the vast majority of the regular season, as well. It's not all about points and taking shots.
For a 30 million dollar player...yes it is about scoring and or carrying team to wins. And if the other max guy is struggling or focused on, to be the next guy to score and seal wins
You dont pay Draymond Green 30 million to be the jack of all trades (and a real good one he is)
You dont pay Dennis Rodman 30 million a year for the things he did
-
If Horford plays this good in the the 2nd round....I will say
Why arent you playing like this more often? And earning all of 30 million per season
There is nothing to admit of error for posting this thread...he was pure mediocre for a good chunk of the season. Especially when Kyrie was out (I mean even with Kyrie at times...its like when are you going to try, hit some big shots vs relying on others to score)
I would say you need to expand your definition of what it means to play well, because Al was very good for the vast majority of the regular season, as well. It's not all about points and taking shots.
Right. Horford was a top-10 defender all season, and an excellent floor-spacer passer. He’s integral on both ends.
-
If Horford plays this good in the the 2nd round....I will say
Why arent you playing like this more often? And earning all of 30 million per season
There is nothing to admit of error for posting this thread...he was pure mediocre for a good chunk of the season. Especially when Kyrie was out (I mean even with Kyrie at times...its like when are you going to try, hit some big shots vs relying on others to score)
I would say you need to expand your definition of what it means to play well, because Al was very good for the vast majority of the regular season, as well. It's not all about points and taking shots.
For a 30 million dollar player...yes it is about scoring and or carrying team to wins. And if the other max guy is struggling or focused on, to be the next guy to score and seal wins
You dont pay Draymond Green 30 million to be the jack of all trades (and a real good one he is)
You dont pay Dennis Rodman 30 million a year for the things he did
Just out of curiosity, who would've you spent the money on in the summer of '16 rather than Horford?
-
If Horford plays this good in the the 2nd round....I will say
Why arent you playing like this more often? And earning all of 30 million per season
There is nothing to admit of error for posting this thread...he was pure mediocre for a good chunk of the season. Especially when Kyrie was out (I mean even with Kyrie at times...its like when are you going to try, hit some big shots vs relying on others to score)
I would say you need to expand your definition of what it means to play well, because Al was very good for the vast majority of the regular season, as well. It's not all about points and taking shots.
For a 30 million dollar player...yes it is about scoring and or carrying team to wins. And if the other max guy is struggling or focused on, to be the next guy to score and seal wins
You dont pay Draymond Green 30 million to be the jack of all trades (and a real good one he is)
You dont pay Dennis Rodman 30 million a year for the things he did
Draymond Green did get a max contract, but it was all he was able to get at the end of the rookie deal. He will get a max again after this contract and it will be higher.
-
If Horford plays this good in the the 2nd round....I will say
Why arent you playing like this more often? And earning all of 30 million per season
There is nothing to admit of error for posting this thread...he was pure mediocre for a good chunk of the season. Especially when Kyrie was out (I mean even with Kyrie at times...its like when are you going to try, hit some big shots vs relying on others to score)
I would say you need to expand your definition of what it means to play well, because Al was very good for the vast majority of the regular season, as well. It's not all about points and taking shots.
For a 30 million dollar player...yes it is about scoring and or carrying team to wins. And if the other max guy is struggling or focused on, to be the next guy to score and seal wins
You dont pay Draymond Green 30 million to be the jack of all trades (and a real good one he is)
You dont pay Dennis Rodman 30 million a year for the things he did
Draymond Green did get a max contract, but it was all he was able to get at the end of the rookie deal. He will get a max again after this contract and it will be higher.
Wasnt ge upset or held out that he didnt receive more?
You really think he will be able to obtain 30 million per season out in the market?
-
If Horford plays this good in the the 2nd round....I will say
Why arent you playing like this more often? And earning all of 30 million per season
There is nothing to admit of error for posting this thread...he was pure mediocre for a good chunk of the season. Especially when Kyrie was out (I mean even with Kyrie at times...its like when are you going to try, hit some big shots vs relying on others to score)
I would say you need to expand your definition of what it means to play well, because Al was very good for the vast majority of the regular season, as well. It's not all about points and taking shots.
Right. Horford was a top-10 defender all season, and an excellent floor-spacer passer. He’s integral on both ends.
Are these things worth 30 million a season ?
Right now he is playing like a max guy
I guess I have been too spoiled by KGs excellence in the regular season, playoffs ...didnt matter
I know AL could have done more...we are seeing it right before our eyes.
-
In comparison to other max players, it is hard to say he is worth the money.
Now, about many of the above players you could say, "Well those are bad contracts." That's true. You could also argue "Many of those players are paid based upon age and potential." That's true as well.
I guess you didn't read my whole post. I compared Horford to other bigs purely on ability, not relative to contract. My point is that in the NBA, you have to be very careful who you dole out max contracts to or you will be stuck at mediocre. Horford in my opinion is not a great max contract (thus my point of not worth the money). Your point that there are many other not great max or near max contracts is correct and your reasoning that it is just the landscape of the NBA is also correct but that does not mitigate the opportunity cost of giving a max contract to one of these types.
I think Danny made a calculated risk. He probably would have preferred to give the max contract to someone better than Horford (such as Durant) but he signed him knowing that he would then have to work around that contact in the future. The Horford contract has not been a killer like some really bad contracts can be but it is an impact nonetheless. Horford has been an effective albeit expensive bridge while our young players develop and we have acquired more talent but if you had a team of say 3 players like Horford on max contracts (add Conley and Milsap for example), you would not be that good, certainly not contending for a title. And you would not have the salary flexibility to do much to get better.
-
In comparison to other max players, it is hard to say he is worth the money.
Now, about many of the above players you could say, "Well those are bad contracts." That's true. You could also argue "Many of those players are paid based upon age and potential." That's true as well.
I guess you didn't read my whole post. I compared Horford to other bigs purely on ability, not relative to contract. My point is that in the NBA, you have to be very careful who you dole out max contracts to or you will be stuck at mediocre. Horford in my opinion is not a great max contract (thus my point of not worth the money). Your point that there are many other not great max or near max contracts is correct and your reasoning that it is just the landscape of the NBA is also correct but that does not mitigate the opportunity cost of giving a max contract to one of these types.
I think Danny made a calculated risk. He probably would have preferred to give the max contract to someone better than Horford (such as Durant) but he signed him knowing that he would then have to work around that contact in the future. The Horford contract has not been a killer like some really bad contracts can be but it is an impact nonetheless. Horford has been an effective albeit expensive bridge while our young players develop and we have acquired more talent but if you had a team of say 3 players like Horford on max contracts (add Conley and Milsap for example), you would not be that good, certainly not contending for a title. And you would not have the salary flexibility to do much to get better.
Exactly
-
So Triboy - As was asked above, and you never answered: Who would you have given that money to in 2016? We all wanted Durant, we lost out on him. Who else was better than Al to spend the money on?
-
I think its fair to say broadly that hes worth 30 million, the problem is he isnt a huge surplus value. Guys like Lebron, Curry, Davis are worth 50 million+. It becomes hard to reach the absolute highest level when one of your max slows isnt a sur plus value guy. Lucky I dont think its a huge problem for us since our young guys provide a lot of sur plus value, and by the time we resign them Horford contract will expire.
-
but if you had a team of say 3 players like Horford on max contracts (add Conley and Milsap for example), you would not be that good, certainly not contending for a title.
And yet not a single person has suggested that the team should do anything like that, so I don't see your point at all.
Everybody quibbling with Horford's contract value keeps moving the goalposts.
So now it's not enough for a guy to clearly be a good value to the team, he has to be good enough that if you gave that kind of money to 3 guys like him, the team would contend for a title?
I don't follow at all.
-
I think its fair to say broadly that hes worth 30 million, the problem is he isnt a huge surplus value. Guys like Lebron, Curry, Davis are worth 50 million+. It becomes hard to reach the absolute highest level when one of your max slows isnt a sur plus value guy. Lucky I dont think its a huge problem for us since our young guys provide a lot of sur plus value, and by the time we resign them Horford contract will expire.
Exactly, and that was without a doubt a huge part of the reason Ainge went after Horford. You can afford to pay big $$ to a 30ish free agent when a huge chunk of your roster is made up of rookie deals.
-
If Horford plays this good in the the 2nd round....I will say
Why arent you playing like this more often? And earning all of 30 million per season
There is nothing to admit of error for posting this thread...he was pure mediocre for a good chunk of the season. Especially when Kyrie was out (I mean even with Kyrie at times...its like when are you going to try, hit some big shots vs relying on others to score)
I would say you need to expand your definition of what it means to play well, because Al was very good for the vast majority of the regular season, as well. It's not all about points and taking shots.
Right. Horford was a top-10 defender all season, and an excellent floor-spacer passer. He’s integral on both ends.
Are these things worth 30 million a season ?
Right now he is playing like a max guy
I guess I have been too spoiled by KGs excellence in the regular season, playoffs ...didnt matter
I know AL could have done more...we are seeing it right before our eyes.
Let me make this simple as possible for you.
Al Horford as one of the top 2-3 players on your team is going to lead your team on both ends on the court and will be a leader off the court as well, and your team is going to win 45+ games and be competitive in the playoffs.
That's worth $25-30 million to me. If you need a guy to be a go-to scorer to be worth allocating over a quarter of the cap, then we disagree. I completely disagree with you about NBA roster construction.
For a 30 million dollar player...yes it is about scoring and or carrying team to wins. And if the other max guy is struggling or focused on, to be the next guy to score and seal wins
You dont pay Draymond Green 30 million to be the jack of all trades (and a real good one he is)
If the team is mostly young guys and players on bargain contracts, and adding Draymond will help the team make a leap to the top half of the conference plus give the team legitimacy in seeking to add other stars to the roster, then a good GM would absolutely pay Draymond that kind of money.
-
So Triboy - As was asked above, and you never answered: Who would you have given that money to in 2016? We all wanted Durant, we lost out on him. Who else was better than Al to spend the money on?
I wouldn't have spent it and would have carried it over to 2017 and then used that extra space in 2017 to acquire Paul George or Jimmy Butler and still have the room to sign Hayward in free agency.
-
So Triboy - As was asked above, and you never answered: Who would you have given that money to in 2016? We all wanted Durant, we lost out on him. Who else was better than Al to spend the money on?
I wouldn't have spent it and would have carried it over to 2017 and then used that extra space in 2017 to acquire Paul George or Jimmy Butler and still have the room to sign Hayward in free agency.
And your team would be decidedly worse than the current team as you'd have no two-way big who can do any of the things that Horford does that are vital to team success. You'd be overloaded on wings with the only hope of getting a top flight big being DeMarcus Cousins or Blake Griffin (no other big has since come available). Cousins is a head case and now injured, and Griffin is clearly an inferior player to Horford.
-
I will say, though, this thread has become kind of silly. I don't think one single person has changed their stance, and doesn't appear likely to. It's just the same people re-iterating the same points over and over (on both sides).
-
So Triboy - As was asked above, and you never answered: Who would you have given that money to in 2016? We all wanted Durant, we lost out on him. Who else was better than Al to spend the money on?
I wouldn't have spent it and would have carried it over to 2017 and then used that extra space in 2017 to acquire Paul George or Jimmy Butler and still have the room to sign Hayward in free agency.
I agree
-
I will say, though, this thread has become kind of silly. I don't think one single person has changed their stance, and doesn't appear likely to. It's just the same people re-iterating the same points over and over (on both sides).
You're not wrong.
-
So Triboy - As was asked above, and you never answered: Who would you have given that money to in 2016? We all wanted Durant, we lost out on him. Who else was better than Al to spend the money on?
do nothing except maybe sign Dedmon. Like Moranis stated above, his idea is also something I that would have considered a better option and also without strangling capspace (as we face starting this upcoming offseason)
-
Just a guy I'd like to have at about 75% of the max salary slot.
I think that we all wish this was possible. The problem is, it isn’t. So, you are left with the decision of paying him more than he is ideally worth, or missing out on him altogether.
Looking back at that free agent class, there are many, many worse outcomes than paying Horford what the market value was.
Sure, but I think his price tag stops some people from realizing that he's simply the best third banana type in the league.
-
Worth every penny.
-
Max contract!!
-
This is one of the greatest Celticsblog threads ever!
-
Mvpmvpmvp ;D
-
Al Horford is underpaid.
What a bargain contract.
-
This was Colossal Al tonight. When the game was on the line he gave us that 10 point cushion.
-
I will say, though, this thread has become kind of silly. I don't think one single person has changed their stance, and doesn't appear likely to. It's just the same people re-iterating the same points over and over (on both sides).
That's pretty surprising. Triboy is usually very open to changing his opinion when you give him a logical argument ;)
-
How is this still a thing?!
-
“Average Al”, my butt.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/29aqs8.jpg)
-
Let's shut this topic down because it is BS.
-
Say to say, AL was sacrificing his numbers for the good of the team to develop Tatum and Brown and also let Kyrie be the man.
-
Say to say, AL was sacrificing his numbers for the good of the team to develop Tatum and Brown and also let Kyrie be the man.
Partially. The other part is that he’s just not a primary scoring option at this stage.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/29aqs8.jpg)
This deserves many, many TPs.
26 points, 8 boards in game 7.
/thread
-
We signed Al as a max free agent because we had the cap space. He was the best available free agent not named Durant. He was getting a max contract. We don’t go to ECF last season without him. We don’t beat Bucks without him. Have to forget how much $$ he makes and appreciate the fact that he is a leader and a winner and a huge reason we are where we are today as a team.
-
I used to not think Al was a max contract guy. Maybe 6 years ago he wasn't an ideal PF, but in today's shooting NBA he is really good.
He's a max guy.
He's a huge part of a very good team. The only way you trade him is if the guy coming back has a name like Anthony Davis or something like that
-
Money well spent! Coming up BIG in the playoffs.
-
Al Horford, if you reading this, please send me your bank account details, so I can transfer you a couple of dollars, BECAUSE YOU DESERVE MORE THAN A MAX CONTRACT AND I WANT JUSTICE!!
-
I love the bumping of this thread every game. Bump the Rozier one, too. A lot of guys proving the Internet naysayers wrong, myself included.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/29aqs8.jpg)
Gold.
Al had some poor showings this season, but I never understood the argument that he was overpaid, especially how he played in the playoffs last season. I knew he would step up again this year when it mattered most.
-
Just another average game from Average Al, if this is Average I wanna be Average
-
He may be underpaid. Can we at least all agree he’s worth the money now?
-
Ship him and the SAC pick for Whiteside's gaudy rebounding and block stats. 8) :P /s
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
-
Horford's run in the playoffs so far this year is reminding me of KG circa 2012.
-
He may be underpaid. Can we at least all agree he’s worth the money now?
I agree! Although I never have said that he is overpaid... :laugh:
I like Al’s personality more than anything honestly. For our young guys to see Al as a role model is huge IMO.
-
Horford is having the best playoffs of his career this year.
He is exorcising the demons that question his ability to play in the playoffs.
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
Lets see Horford carry this team to a few road wins first
-
Horford is having the best playoffs of his career this year.
He is exorcising the demons that question his ability to play in the playoffs.
I believe he was awesome in last year's playoffs too. That's why I disagree with thread title. He is the starting center on what if healthy is the best team in the East and easy favorite to meet GS in the finals if not for injuries. And a stud in the playoffs. Isn't that enough? Get your mind off the money and the money off your mind... >:( ;)
-
Horford is having the best playoffs of his career this year.
He is exorcising the demons that question his ability to play in the playoffs.
Fair or not I think he'll still have a cloud over his playoff abilities in some people's minds until he has a good series against LeBron.
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
Lets see Horford carry this team to a few road wins first
Ah yes, another contrived hoop for Horford to jump thru conceived by triboy.
-
Horford is having the best playoffs of his career this year.
He is exorcising the demons that question his ability to play in the playoffs.
Fair or not I think he'll still have a cloud over his playoff abilities in some people's minds until he has a good series against LeBron.
There is a pretty reasonable chance he never plays lebron again in playoffs.
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
Embiid thinks he's the shiznizzle.
But his Achillies heel is a five who can shoot threes.
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
Embiid thinks he's the shiznizzle.
But his Achillies heel is a five who can shoot threes.
I'd say that'd be the case for just about any big man guarding a 5.
-
Horford is having the best playoffs of his career this year.
He is exorcising the demons that question his ability to play in the playoffs.
Fair or not I think he'll still have a cloud over his playoff abilities in some people's minds until he has a good series against LeBron.
I love Horford and he is once again proving what a stellar playoff performer he is, but I don’t think anybody has ever considered him a true rival to LeBron. He likely needs to make a finals (which he will next year for sure), but actually beating LeBron as the main guy probably isn’t a necessity.
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
Embiid thinks he's the shiznizzle.
But his Achillies heel is a five who can shoot threes.
I'd say that'd be the case for just about any big man guarding a 5.
Baynes looked like Larry Legend in the corner for 3. So true!!!
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
Lets see Horford carry this team to a few road wins first
Ah yes, another contrived hoop for Horford to jump thru conceived by triboy.
Thats what you think
He needs to carry the team to some road wins in the playoffs first
-
Horford is having the best playoffs of his career this year.
He is exorcising the demons that question his ability to play in the playoffs.
Fair or not I think he'll still have a cloud over his playoff abilities in some people's minds until he has a good series against LeBron.
I love Horford and he is once again proving what a stellar playoff performer he is, but I don’t think anybody has ever considered him a true rival to LeBron. He likely needs to make a finals (which he will next year for sure), but actually beating LeBron as the main guy probably isn’t a necessity.
I've heard it mentioned many times that none of Horford's teams have challenged LeBron at all and therefore all those Hawks teams, of which Horford was the best player, were paper tigers.
This is why I think many people have dismissed Horford's playoff accomplishments despite having won many playoff series and put up good numbers over multiple playoff runs.
I don't think that goes away until a team led by Horford takes a LeBron team to 6 or 7 games.
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
Lets see Horford carry this team to a few road wins first
Ah yes, another contrived hoop for Horford to jump thru conceived by triboy.
Thats what you think
He needs to carry the team to some road wins in the playoffs first
Al is the third best player on the Celtics roster when everyone is healthy.
Setting the bar as carrying your team to a road playoff win with your best two players out is ridiculous.
What other third banana would be able to win a series with a team's top two players out?
-
Horford is having the best playoffs of his career this year.
He is exorcising the demons that question his ability to play in the playoffs.
Fair or not I think he'll still have a cloud over his playoff abilities in some people's minds until he has a good series against LeBron.
I love Horford and he is once again proving what a stellar playoff performer he is, but I don’t think anybody has ever considered him a true rival to LeBron. He likely needs to make a finals (which he will next year for sure), but actually beating LeBron as the main guy probably isn’t a necessity.
I've heard it mentioned many times that none of Horford's teams have challenged LeBron at all and therefore all those Hawks teams, of which Horford was the best player, were paper tigers.
This is why I think many people have dismissed Horford's playoff accomplishments despite having won many playoff series and put up good numbers over multiple playoff runs.
I don't think that goes away until a team led by Horford takes a LeBron team to 6 or 7 games.
Well if that doesn't happen this year then it won't happen at all. With Kyrie and Hayward healthy, as well as Tatum and Brown developing Horford won't be leading the Celtics again.
I think the root of the problem is he's always been the 2nd or 3rd best player on his team, but because of his contract people want best player on his team production. If that's your criteria then you will be disappointed by Al. If you think of him as someone the Celtics signed without giving up any assets or as a guy who helped convince Hayward to sign here then you are more likely to appreciate him.
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
Lets see Horford carry this team to a few road wins first
Ah yes, another contrived hoop for Horford to jump thru conceived by triboy.
Thats what you think
He needs to carry the team to some road wins in the playoffs first
Al is the third best player on the Celtics roster when everyone is healthy.
Setting the bar as carrying your team to a road playoff win with your best two players out is ridiculous.
What other third banana would be able to win a series with a team's top two players out?
Thank you
Yet he is making "best" player money
Hence he is overpaid
-
Maximum FA contract with X years of service does not mean "best player money". There is no such thing as best player money.
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
Lets see Horford carry this team to a few road wins first
Ah yes, another contrived hoop for Horford to jump thru conceived by triboy.
Thats what you think
He needs to carry the team to some road wins in the playoffs first
Not really. You're just creating artificial bars to try & cover for some of your baffling logic on Horford that has been constantly blowing up in your face time after time.
Rather than accept defeat, you're choosing to double down with baffling nonsense.
-
I look forward to the resurrection of this thread in the coming seasons as his touches and natural decline occur to say "see I was right all along he's not even one of our all-stars now!"...
-
I think the root of the problem is he's always been the 2nd or 3rd best player on his team, but because of his contract people want best player on his team production.
I disagree with this.
To me he was always the best player on those Atlanta teams. That's why this "Horford isn't worth the max" stuff has always been silly to me.
Best player on a 45+ win team that is competitive in the 1st round of the playoffs and beyond is TOTALLY worth a significant chunk of the cap.
He can't be the ONLY above average player on your roster, but he can definitely be the best player on a competitive team, albeit not a contending team.
-
Overreaction season is finally here.
I disliked Horford signing from day 1, especially length of deal
Since you also liked the Mickey selection since day 1, would you kindly be able to let me know how you feel about Yabusele so I know how that's going to turn out.
Thanks.
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
Lets see Horford carry this team to a few road wins first
Ah yes, another contrived hoop for Horford to jump thru conceived by triboy.
Thats what you think
He needs to carry the team to some road wins in the playoffs first
Not really. You're just creating artificial bars to try & cover for some of your baffling logic on Horford that has been constantly blowing up in your face time after time.
Rather than accept defeat, you're choosing to double down with baffling nonsense.
What kind of nonsense are you spitting out
You are deviating from the original post
Did I say he stinks? I said he has been mediocre (at that point of the season) when this thread went up
This was valid imo and in others opinion. Especially for the max money he makes
He has played better at the playoffs specifically at home. But can he do it away and help seal some wins?
A max player by definition should be someone that can do that from time to time. Not play well at home but look overwhelmed away
He didnt really look good at any of the games the Celts played vs Bucks in Milwaukee
Im not setting the bar up high to impossible levels. But considering how much he makes (max) the bar should be set higher
-
He can't be the ONLY above average player on your roster, but he can definitely be the best player on a competitive team, albeit not a contending team.
Yup.
The idea that players are worth the max as veteran FAs if they are MVP types intead of all-stars is a really bad way to look at the league. Especially when you have other lottery talent on the rookie scale. The value of talented rookies is it lets you spend on high level players elsewhere with that surplus. Whether its the max FA, the trade target with space, or a couple of high level role players.
-
This thread still gives me a chuckle.
Sixers had no real answer for Horford last night. He was killing them multiple ways and its pretty apparent his importance as one the key cogs with the offensive sets.
Lets see Horford carry this team to a few road wins first
Ah yes, another contrived hoop for Horford to jump thru conceived by triboy.
Thats what you think
He needs to carry the team to some road wins in the playoffs first
Not really. You're just creating artificial bars to try & cover for some of your baffling logic on Horford that has been constantly blowing up in your face time after time.
Rather than accept defeat, you're choosing to double down with baffling nonsense.
What kind of nonsense are you spitting out
You are deviating from the original post
Did I say he stinks? I said he has been mediocre (at that point of the season) when this thread went up
This was valid imo and in others opinion. Especially for the max money he makes
He has played better at the playoffs specifically at home. But can he do it away and help seal some wins?
A max player by definition should be someone that can do that from time to time. Not play well at home but look overwhelmed away
He didnt really look good at any of the games the Celts played vs Bucks in Milwaukee
Im not setting the bar up high to impossible levels. But considering how much he makes (max) the bar should be set higher
You accusing me of deviating from the point might be the biggest pot calling the kettle black statement I've heard in quite some time given the source.
Thanks for the laugh.
-
He can't be the ONLY above average player on your roster, but he can definitely be the best player on a competitive team, albeit not a contending team.
Yup.
The idea that players are worth the max as veteran FAs if they are MVP types intead of all-stars is a really bad way to look at the league. Especially when you have other lottery talent on the rookie scale. The value of talented rookies is it lets you spend on high level players elsewhere with that surplus. Whether its the max FA, the trade target with space, or a couple of high level role players.
Why is there little to no standard when it comes to max money at the nba ...this is how teams go bankrupt(or could) and bums like Melo are laughing all the way to the bank
I dont care for or buy the " just the way it is"
-
(https://gifcept.com/LBsERU4.gif)
-
(https://gifcept.com/LBsERU4.gif)
-
Boston has max contracts right now given to Horford and Hayward with Kyrie due for his after next season, around the time that Horford will roll off (depending on how options go). Horford was signed as a bridge player. A bridge between a decent team that was trying to stay relevant while some really good draft picks were cashed in and developed. He has actually been better than I expected especially this season/playoffs. Certainly not what I consider mediocre. Mediocre for a max contract, maybe but not mediocre relative to the whole league.
Horford is the 11th highest paid player (Hayward is 4th). What are you going to do? It could be worse, we could have Milsap (3rd) and Conley (8th). Horford does seem overpaid relative to his production but by what, 10%? Would it be OK if he made $25M instead of $27.7M?
For what he has given us, I think this will go down as a decent signing. Certainly not a steal or anything but also not a disaster. We are better off for the signing than if we had not signed him, or so it seems to me. It is to be seen with Hayward but I am sure there will be plenty of opinions on him as well. He will be much like Horford I suspect. Very good but not great. A marginal max player (mediocre?) but contributing.
-
Boston has max contracts right now given to Horford and Hayward with Kyrie due for his after next season, around the time that Horford will roll off (depending on how options go). Horford was signed as a bridge player. A bridge between a decent team that was trying to stay relevant while some really good draft picks were cashed in and developed. He has actually been better than I expected especially this season/playoffs. Certainly not what I consider mediocre. Mediocre for a max contract, maybe but not mediocre relative to the whole league.
Horford is the 11th highest paid player (Hayward is 4th). What are you going to do? It could be worse, we could have Milsap (3rd) and Conley (8th). Horford does seem overpaid relative to his production but by what, 10%? Would it be OK if he made $25M instead of $27.7M?
For what he has given us, I think this will go down as a decent signing. Certainly not a steal or anything but also not a disaster. We are better off for the signing than if we had not signed him, or so it seems to me. It is to be seen with Hayward but I am sure there will be plenty of opinions on him as well. He will be much like Horford I suspect. Very good but not great. A marginal max player (mediocre?) but contributing.
He is a great signing because Hayward does not sign here if he is not here. Irving does not accept a trade to us if him and hayward are not here. How do people not understand this?
-
Boston has max contracts right now given to Horford and Hayward with Kyrie due for his after next season, around the time that Horford will roll off (depending on how options go). Horford was signed as a bridge player. A bridge between a decent team that was trying to stay relevant while some really good draft picks were cashed in and developed. He has actually been better than I expected especially this season/playoffs. Certainly not what I consider mediocre. Mediocre for a max contract, maybe but not mediocre relative to the whole league.
Horford is the 11th highest paid player (Hayward is 4th). What are you going to do? It could be worse, we could have Milsap (3rd) and Conley (8th). Horford does seem overpaid relative to his production but by what, 10%? Would it be OK if he made $25M instead of $27.7M?
For what he has given us, I think this will go down as a decent signing. Certainly not a steal or anything but also not a disaster. We are better off for the signing than if we had not signed him, or so it seems to me. It is to be seen with Hayward but I am sure there will be plenty of opinions on him as well. He will be much like Horford I suspect. Very good but not great. A marginal max player (mediocre?) but contributing.
I don’t believe Horford was a bridge player at all. He was the first domino in luring Kevin Durant here.
We all know how that turned out, but he wasn’t a plan B, he was part of the A. If we brought in KD, that’s a very formidable group last season and maybe challenges for the title of IT doesn’t break down in the playoffs.
It’s more than a decent signing, it was a great one. It was our first major free agent. In year 1, we reach the ECF. People credit Brad for making Isaiah an MVP candidate, but what about Al? We now look like a perennial contender with the pieces added AFTER Horford. Do you think Hayward comes without Horford? Or Kyrie lists the Celtics as a choice? He’s an integral part in what we are doing and doesn’t need the stats or the glory to do his job. And that’s whatever we need from him on a given night.
-
Boston has max contracts right now given to Horford and Hayward with Kyrie due for his after next season, around the time that Horford will roll off (depending on how options go). Horford was signed as a bridge player. A bridge between a decent team that was trying to stay relevant while some really good draft picks were cashed in and developed. He has actually been better than I expected especially this season/playoffs. Certainly not what I consider mediocre. Mediocre for a max contract, maybe but not mediocre relative to the whole league.
Horford is the 11th highest paid player (Hayward is 4th). What are you going to do? It could be worse, we could have Milsap (3rd) and Conley (8th). Horford does seem overpaid relative to his production but by what, 10%? Would it be OK if he made $25M instead of $27.7M?
For what he has given us, I think this will go down as a decent signing. Certainly not a steal or anything but also not a disaster. We are better off for the signing than if we had not signed him, or so it seems to me. It is to be seen with Hayward but I am sure there will be plenty of opinions on him as well. He will be much like Horford I suspect. Very good but not great. A marginal max player (mediocre?) but contributing.
I don’t believe Horford was a bridge player at all. He was the first domino in luring Kevin Durant here.
We all know how that turned out, but he wasn’t a plan B, he was part of the A. If we brought in KD, that’s a very formidable group last season and maybe challenges for the title of IT doesn’t break down in the playoffs.
It’s more than a decent signing, it was a great one. It was our first major free agent. In year 1, we reach the ECF. People credit Brad for making Isaiah an MVP candidate, but what about Al? We now look like a perennial contender with the pieces added AFTER Horford. Do you think Hayward comes without Horford? Or Kyrie lists the Celtics as a choice? He’s an integral part in what we are doing and doesn’t need the stats or the glory to do his job. And that’s whatever we need from him on a given night.
We wrote the same thing moments apart. TP
-
It’s more than a decent signing, it was a great one.
How do people not understand this?
So the theory is that it is a great signing because it allowed us to sign Hayward (at least in large part) and also why Kyrie accepted the trade here. Is this what we all don't understand? Of course this all speculation and we don't even know if Hayward will turn out to be a good signing.
Kevin Durant would have been a great signing. I can't think of any others I would classify as great. I don't consider Hayward a great signing. I categorize him as decent, certainly best available. I guess it is all semantics.
The potential downside of any max signing for other than truly elite players if the future opportunity cost due to the money that you have tied up. So far, we have not had any missed opportunity due to Horford's cap space but now with Hayward on the books too, things are starting to get tight. We may lose Rozier or Smart for example, or miss out on a FA that becomes available because we have no cap space. This is why I say decent, not great and why I think many have reservations about the money we have tied up in Horford (and Hayward).
-
Boston has max contracts right now given to Horford and Hayward with Kyrie due for his after next season, around the time that Horford will roll off (depending on how options go). Horford was signed as a bridge player. A bridge between a decent team that was trying to stay relevant while some really good draft picks were cashed in and developed. He has actually been better than I expected especially this season/playoffs. Certainly not what I consider mediocre. Mediocre for a max contract, maybe but not mediocre relative to the whole league.
Horford is the 11th highest paid player (Hayward is 4th). What are you going to do? It could be worse, we could have Milsap (3rd) and Conley (8th). Horford does seem overpaid relative to his production but by what, 10%? Would it be OK if he made $25M instead of $27.7M?
For what he has given us, I think this will go down as a decent signing. Certainly not a steal or anything but also not a disaster. We are better off for the signing than if we had not signed him, or so it seems to me. It is to be seen with Hayward but I am sure there will be plenty of opinions on him as well. He will be much like Horford I suspect. Very good but not great. A marginal max player (mediocre?) but contributing.
He is a great signing because Hayward does not sign here if he is not here. Irving does not accept a trade to us if him and hayward are not here. How do people not understand this?
People do not understand this because all they care about are numbers. Its like they don't even watch basketball. There are lots of things going on in the court that cannot be seen easily by raw numbers. Horford is HUGE for the development of the players. He is a guy who does not care about getting his, thus enabling our younger guys to have more opportunities. He also is a great lockerroom guy, someone other guys respect and look up to. There is a huge difference when you have a good functioning lockeroom versus one that is in disarray, anyone who has played team sport should know this!
-
It’s more than a decent signing, it was a great one.
How do people not understand this?
So the theory is that it is a great signing because it allowed us to sign Hayward (at least in large part) and also why Kyrie accepted the trade here. Is this what we all don't understand? Of course this all speculation and we don't even know if Hayward will turn out to be a good signing.
Kevin Durant would have been a great signing. I can't think of any others I would classify as great. I don't consider Hayward a great signing. I categorize him as decent, certainly best available. I guess it is all semantics.
The potential downside of any max signing for other than truly elite players if the future opportunity cost due to the money that you have tied up. So far, we have not had any missed opportunity due to Horford's cap space but now with Hayward on the books too, things are starting to get tight. We may lose Rozier or Smart for example, or miss out on a FA that becomes available because we have no cap space. This is why I say decent, not great and why I think many have reservations about the money we have tied up in Horford (and Hayward).
except no one really knows what the lost opportunity cost is. Maybe if Horford isn't on the books, Ainge pulls the trigger on a trade or uses the cap space differently last summer. I mean with space for 2 max contracts last summer, maybe Ainge pulls the trigger on the Crowder, Smart, and the 2018 1st for George trade (and since there is cap room no one else has to go out). Then he still has the room to sign Hayward and then Ainge uses Bradley, Thomas, and the BKN 1st to acquire Irving (Zizic is no longer needed for salary so maybe he is kept or maybe not) and then still adds players like Baynes in free agency. Maybe Olynyk is able to be kept in that scenario since he wouldn't have to be traded to make room for Hayward anymore. So Boston rolls out a unit of Irving, Brown, Hayward, George, and Baynes with Rozier, Tatum, Olynyk, Theis, Yabu, etc. on the bench. Hayward likely doesn't get hurt and maybe with Hayward and George bearing more of the load, Irving's knee surgery can hold off till the off season. How much different is this playoff seasons with that team rolling out on the floor?
Again who knows what happens, but this idea that Horford was and is the absolutely best way to spend the money isn't a given. It might very well have been, or it might not have been.
I believe Hayward signed in Boston whether Horford was on the team or not. Him coming here was about Stevens.
-
It’s more than a decent signing, it was a great one.
How do people not understand this?
So the theory is that it is a great signing because it allowed us to sign Hayward (at least in large part) and also why Kyrie accepted the trade here. Is this what we all don't understand? Of course this all speculation and we don't even know if Hayward will turn out to be a good signing.
Kevin Durant would have been a great signing. I can't think of any others I would classify as great. I don't consider Hayward a great signing. I categorize him as decent, certainly best available. I guess it is all semantics.
The potential downside of any max signing for other than truly elite players if the future opportunity cost due to the money that you have tied up. So far, we have not had any missed opportunity due to Horford's cap space but now with Hayward on the books too, things are starting to get tight. We may lose Rozier or Smart for example, or miss out on a FA that becomes available because we have no cap space. This is why I say decent, not great and why I think many have reservations about the money we have tied up in Horford (and Hayward).
except no one really knows what the lost opportunity cost is. Maybe if Horford isn't on the books, Ainge pulls the trigger on a trade or uses the cap space differently last summer. I mean with space for 2 max contracts last summer, maybe Ainge pulls the trigger on the Crowder, Smart, and the 2018 1st for George trade (and since there is cap room no one else has to go out). Then he still has the room to sign Hayward and then Ainge uses Bradley, Thomas, and the BKN 1st to acquire Irving (Zizic is no longer needed for salary so maybe he is kept or maybe not) and then still adds players like Baynes in free agency. Maybe Olynyk is able to be kept in that scenario since he wouldn't have to be traded to make room for Hayward anymore. So Boston rolls out a unit of Irving, Brown, Hayward, George, and Baynes with Rozier, Tatum, Olynyk, Theis, Yabu, etc. on the bench. Hayward likely doesn't get hurt and maybe with Hayward and George bearing more of the load, Irving's knee surgery can hold off till the off season. How much different is this playoff seasons with that team rolling out on the floor?
Again who knows what happens, but this idea that Horford was and is the absolutely best way to spend the money isn't a given. It might very well have been, or it might not have been.
I believe Hayward signed in Boston whether Horford was on the team or not. Him coming here was about Stevens.
I agree. I have been disagreeing with the "horrible signing", "Horford is mediocre" and all that. I stated this is a decent signing. I believe it was a calculated risk by Ainge understanding that Horford is what he is for max money against the risk of opportunity cost. Sure, who knows what might have been if we didn't sign Horford, maybe we would somehow have Paul George as someone speculated but we have Al and he has been a really good player. Not a transcendent player like some seem to expect from a max contract but really good (certainly not mediocre).
-
Some people still talk about this signing as though, in the summer of 2016, every player in the league was released from their contract and every team in the league was allowed to bid on their services and the Celtics overbid for Horford.
Obviously this is not how free agency works.
The salary number is contingent not just on skill but on a player's tenure and a number of market variables from the size of the cap, talent of the free agent pool at the time, needs and financial flexibility of other teams, etc. And that's without even getting into the debate about Horford's value as a leader, a defender, a playmaker, and a center who made over 40% of his 3's this season.
Understanding how NBA contracts are given, there's no question this was a good signing.
-
On a team with Hayward and Irving, I'd much rather have Horford than George, so I have no problem with how that turned out.
-
I dont care for or buy the " just the way it is"
Because there is a maximum salary, you cannot pay LBJ 60 million. This heavily distorts the economic market for players.
The new super-max addresses that somewhat but is so restricted its had some strange consequences. (ie its induced teams to trade players rather than give them such a huge deal)
Anyways if you think the Horford contract is comparable to the Melo albatross, I don't know what to tell you.
-
I don't buy it wasn't worth the opportunity cost to sign Horford. C's weren't in the same position then to be a premiere destination. Horford is such a versatile and good player, you don't turn that down in the C's situation.
We've seen how it is now in the NBA, to get the second "big time" player you have to somehow acquire the first piece for them to play with.
-
“Average Al”, my butt.
-
All Star!!!
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
Where is Dedmon when you need him ;D
Haha, nah, I know you've eaten so much crow in this thread triboy..
He is really showing up though. I wonder how much of the in-season frustration was simply Brad just running fewer plays during the season where Al was the primary (or secondary, or even tertiary) option?
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
Where is Dedmon when you need him ;D
Haha, nah, I know you've eaten so much crow in this thread triboy..
He is really showing up though. I wonder how much of the in-season frustration was simply Brad just running fewer plays during the season where Al was the primary (or secondary, or even tertiary) option?
Yeah, we need Dedmon to take care of things in the paint. Classic Triboy overreaction off of a few dog days of the regular season games.
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
Where is Dedmon when you need him ;D
Haha, nah, I know you've eaten so much crow in this thread triboy..
He is really showing up though. I wonder how much of the in-season frustration was simply Brad just running fewer plays during the season where Al was the primary (or secondary, or even tertiary) option?
Yeah, we need Dedmon to take care of things in the paint. Classic Triboy overreaction off of a few dog days of the regular season games.
I didn't see much of the game, but how did Embiid go 7-18 from 2-point land??
Was it Al, Baynes, poor mid-range shooting, or double teams, that stopped him?
-
I thought of this thread when he blew by Embiid to ice the game.
Love Al!
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
Where is Dedmon when you need him ;D
Haha, nah, I know you've eaten so much crow in this thread triboy..
He is really showing up though. I wonder how much of the in-season frustration was simply Brad just running fewer plays during the season where Al was the primary (or secondary, or even tertiary) option?
Yeah, we need Dedmon to take care of things in the paint. Classic Triboy overreaction off of a few dog days of the regular season games.
I didn't see much of the game, but how did Embiid go 7-18 from 2-point land??
Was it Al, Baynes, poor mid-range shooting, or double teams, that stopped him?
We didn't double him at all.
-
I thought of this thread when he blew by Embiid to ice the game.
Love Al!
That was a huge "F U" to all his critics on here (and other media sites/shows) :laugh:
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
Where is Dedmon when you need him ;D
Haha, nah, I know you've eaten so much crow in this thread triboy..
He is really showing up though. I wonder how much of the in-season frustration was simply Brad just running fewer plays during the season where Al was the primary (or secondary, or even tertiary) option?
Yeah, we need Dedmon to take care of things in the paint. Classic Triboy overreaction off of a few dog days of the regular season games.
I didn't see much of the game, but how did Embiid go 7-18 from 2-point land??
Was it Al, Baynes, poor mid-range shooting, or double teams, that stopped him?
We didn't double him at all.
No traditional doubles, but fantastic team defense. Always somebody nearby ready to chip or stunt at him if he started toward the basket. The Sixers ran a really weird offense too; a bunch of times they had something like a scrum at the top of the key. Simmons and Embiid and a third player would all just bunch up, making it really easy to defend him and take away driving lanes. The few times Embiid drove from a wing, there was really good one on one defense. The twos that he hit were really tough shots.
I also think it helped a lot that Simmons was completely stymied. He couldn’t drive and break the defense down, which meant there were no easy lobs for Embiid.
I have to say, I don’t think Embiid’s conditioning is very good. I know brown took him out of the game more than you might expect, but I think part of that was that he was winded.
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ih4DQJ7Hn4E/hqdefault.jpg)
-
My goodness.
-
Al was amazing tonight
he showed me!
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
-
Al should go to a Boston strip club, make it rain, and leave in like 3 seconds.
-
Al should go to a Boston strip club, make it rain, and leave in like 3 seconds.
lol
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
-
Al should go to a Boston strip club, make it rain, and leave in like 3 seconds.
Have you seen his wife? If I'm Al, I'm not going anywhere near a strip club, even if it's for comedy.
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
He almost always does. Such a reliable player
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
Not to knock Al after an incredible finish but a lot of that was Baynes.
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
Not to knock Al after an incredible finish but a lot of that was Baynes.
The two have been great on Embiid in the post. When Philly kicks it into him, I feel like it's a win for that possession. He gets his, but it's inefficient.
-
Al should go to a Boston strip club, make it rain, and leave in like 3 seconds.
Have you seen his wife? If I'm Al, I'm not going anywhere near a strip club, even if it's for comedy.
Bring her along
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/29aqs8.jpg)
-
Al should go to a Boston strip club, make it rain, and leave in like 3 seconds.
Have you seen his wife? If I'm Al, I'm not going anywhere near a strip club, even if it's for comedy.
Bring her along
TP
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
Not to knock Al after an incredible finish but a lot of that was Baynes.
Some of it, sure, but Baynes only played 23 minutes. Al did his job on Embiid. I have a hard time calling Al's game in any way sub-par, let alone terrible.
-
And he scored four big points at the end of OT and got the big steal. He was the definition of clutch tonight.
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
Not to knock Al after an incredible finish but a lot of that was Baynes.
Some of it, sure, but Baynes only played 23 minutes. Al did his job on Embiid. I have a hard time calling Al's game in any way sub-par, let alone terrible.
To add to that:
* 2 steals
* 3 blocks
* 4 "screen assists"
* 2 deflections
* 1 loose ball recovered
* 7 box outs
* 12 contested 2PT FGAs
* 5 contested 3PT FGAs
Horford's 17 contested shots were by far the best on the team; Baynes was second with 10. Horford also led in screen assists, blocks, steals and box outs.
-
I think it's time to change the name of this thread to "Whoops, I [Messed] Up" and close it.
Al stole the ball, stole the thread and stole what little credibility the OP ever had. ;D
-
I came here to post a hysterical laughter gif at the people who ever thought Horford wasn't hugely valuable, but I decided that at this point it's so obvious that they're wrong and always have been, it just seems mean and small to keep piling on.
8)
-
Horford has been HUGE...
He is holding his own against perhaps the best Center out there.
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
Not to knock Al after an incredible finish but a lot of that was Baynes.
Some of it, sure, but Baynes only played 23 minutes. Al did his job on Embiid. I have a hard time calling Al's game in any way sub-par, let alone terrible.
To add to that:
* 2 steals
* 3 blocks
* 4 "screen assists"
* 2 deflections
* 1 loose ball recovered
* 7 box outs
* 12 contested 2PT FGAs
* 5 contested 3PT FGAs
Horford's 17 contested shots were by far the best on the team; Baynes was second with 10. Horford also led in screen assists, blocks, steals and box outs.
Where do you get those stats?
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
Not to knock Al after an incredible finish but a lot of that was Baynes.
Some of it, sure, but Baynes only played 23 minutes. Al did his job on Embiid. I have a hard time calling Al's game in any way sub-par, let alone terrible.
To add to that:
* 2 steals
* 3 blocks
* 4 "screen assists"
* 2 deflections
* 1 loose ball recovered
* 7 box outs
* 12 contested 2PT FGAs
* 5 contested 3PT FGAs
Horford's 17 contested shots were by far the best on the team; Baynes was second with 10. Horford also led in screen assists, blocks, steals and box outs.
Where do you get those stats?
NBA.com box scores. There's an option for the "hustle" box score.
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
Not to knock Al after an incredible finish but a lot of that was Baynes.
Some of it, sure, but Baynes only played 23 minutes. Al did his job on Embiid. I have a hard time calling Al's game in any way sub-par, let alone terrible.
To add to that:
* 2 steals
* 3 blocks
* 4 "screen assists"
* 2 deflections
* 1 loose ball recovered
* 7 box outs
* 12 contested 2PT FGAs
* 5 contested 3PT FGAs
Horford's 17 contested shots were by far the best on the team; Baynes was second with 10. Horford also led in screen assists, blocks, steals and box outs.
Where do you get those stats?
NBA.com box scores. There's an option for the "hustle" box score.
Awesome. TP to you.
-
This thread has not aged well
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
Not to knock Al after an incredible finish but a lot of that was Baynes.
Some of it, sure, but Baynes only played 23 minutes. Al did his job on Embiid. I have a hard time calling Al's game in any way sub-par, let alone terrible.
To add to that:
* 2 steals
* 3 blocks
* 4 "screen assists"
* 2 deflections
* 1 loose ball recovered
* 7 box outs
* 12 contested 2PT FGAs
* 5 contested 3PT FGAs
Horford's 17 contested shots were by far the best on the team; Baynes was second with 10. Horford also led in screen assists, blocks, steals and box outs.
Where do you get those stats?
NBA.com box scores. There's an option for the "hustle" box score.
Awesome. TP to you.
No problem. I'm anxiously awaiting this one to be populated, so that we can see how the various defenders did:
https://stats.nba.com/game/0041700213/matchups/
We are in a golden age for being able to dig deeper into the game.
-
This thread has not aged well
Nah, this thread was just wrong from the beginning.
-
This thread has not aged well
Nah, this thread was just wrong from the beginning.
Absolutely. Al is not mediocre, he's average :P
-
I came here to post a hysterical laughter gif at the people who ever thought Horford wasn't hugely valuable, but I decided that at this point it's so obvious that they're wrong and always have been, it just seems mean and small to keep piling on.
8)
It's just a good opportunity to celebrate how great Horford's been for this crazy wonderful doomed run.
The people who dumped on him - we can just say "welcome onboard, better late than never" and we can all revel in it together as equal Cs fans.
-
Not a Gator fan but liked him from his Florida days...just seems like a class act. Hated when Cs played against him as a Hawk because again he was so good and so difficult to root against. Glad he is putting it on for the Celtics hope he wins a ring with the Cs.
-
This thread has not aged well
Nah, this thread was just wrong from the beginning.
Absolutely. Al is not mediocre, he's average :P
al only had 13 points, 5 rebounds, and 2 assists tonight, in one of the biggest games of the year for the celtics. why do they keep starting this bum?
simmons had 16 points, 8 rebounds, and 8 assists...almost a triple double. we can see who the star is here. ROY if there ever was one.
;D
-
This thread should be deleted, but I think it'll be fun to keep bumping it after every Horford highlights in the postseason 8)
Although I think the Horford naysayers will return if he has a bad game.
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
Not to knock Al after an incredible finish but a lot of that was Baynes.
Finally got some stats on this.
Embiid vs. Horford:
4-for-12, 8 points, 2 turnovers, blocked twice
Embiid vs. Baynes:
6-for-13, 14 points, 0 turnovers, not blocked
Those two account for 71 of Embiid’s 80 possessions.
https://stats.nba.com/game/0041700213/matchups/?OFF_PLAYER_ID=203954&DEF_PLAYER_ID=
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/29aqs8.jpg)
lol
HAs the OP come back yet?
-
Al was amazing tonight
he showed me!
nvermind this answered my question lol
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
The original post :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
The original post :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
lololol
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
Not to knock Al after an incredible finish but a lot of that was Baynes.
Finally got some stats on this.
Embiid vs. Horford:
4-for-12, 8 points, 2 turnovers, blocked twice
Embiid vs. Baynes:
6-for-13, 14 points, 0 turnovers, not blocked
Those two account for 71 of Embiid’s 80 possessions.
https://stats.nba.com/game/0041700213/matchups/?OFF_PLAYER_ID=203954&DEF_PLAYER_ID=
They've played with different line ups too though. I'm not saying your stats don't have merit (they obviously do) but Horford's *potentially* playing with a better defensive unit around him in this series too, making it somewhat easier to defend Embid.
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
The original post :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
In fairness, he's still expecting other people to do the heavy lifting on the offensive end. It's good for him that has worked out with Rozier, Brown, and Tatum. Heck, even Brad said we can't expect him to carry the team on his back offensively on a regular basis.
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
The original post :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
In fairness, he's still expecting other people to do the heavy lifting on the offensive end. It's good for him that has worked out with Rozier, Brown, and Tatum. Heck, even Brad said we can't expect him to carry the team on his back offensively on a regular basis.
That's not anything new with Al, though. We gave him the max (and other teams were prepared to as well) knowing full well that he wasn't a #1 option. Everything else about his game makes him worth it, especially when you have a team that has 4+ guys that can be top options offensively
-
We signed Al because we had the cap space to do it, he was the best available FA after KD, and he fit perfectly into our system. Asking whether a player is "worth" a max deal or not is an intersection of need and opportunity; it has nothing to do with how they rank on some statistical list.
Play station bloggers get confused by that.
-
We signed Al because we had the cap space to do it, he was the best available FA after KD, and he fit perfectly into our system. Asking whether a player is "worth" a max deal or not is an intersection of need and opportunity; it has nothing to do with how they rank on some statistical list.
Play station bloggers get confused by that.
Tp....good post about the relative “worth” of players and their contracts.
I am looking forward to the day when I see playoff Al with a big smile on his face hoisting Larry O’Brien......That would be really cool, he deserves it!
-
Even when he has a terrible game, he comes through when it matters (miss FT aside).
Keep in mind that Embiid was 10-for-26. Horford did his job.
Not to knock Al after an incredible finish but a lot of that was Baynes.
Finally got some stats on this.
Embiid vs. Horford:
4-for-12, 8 points, 2 turnovers, blocked twice
Embiid vs. Baynes:
6-for-13, 14 points, 0 turnovers, not blocked
Those two account for 71 of Embiid’s 80 possessions.
https://stats.nba.com/game/0041700213/matchups/?OFF_PLAYER_ID=203954&DEF_PLAYER_ID=
They've played with different line ups too though. I'm not saying your stats don't have merit (they obviously do) but Horford's *potentially* playing with a better defensive unit around him in this series too, making it somewhat easier to defend Embid.
I think a good way of summing it up is that we leaned on Baynes to wear down Embiid and keep him in check earlier in the game, and he did a good job. Then we relied basically exclusively on Al down the stretch, and he did a great job in addition to his work on offense.
It's a 1-2 punch - Horford did the better job on D but had more energy and a more fatigued Embiid because of Baynes' work earlier. Great work either way - as far as I'm concerned he can get all the points he wants at <1 per shot.
-
Horford at the 5 is also our best offensive lineup, and our best switching lineup to handle if Philly is playing their best 3 shooters with Embiid/Simmons.
So it makes sense to save that for when we're closing the half/game or need an offensive boost.
-
That's not anything new with Al, though. We gave him the max (and other teams were prepared to as well) knowing full well that he wasn't a #1 option. Everything else about his game makes him worth it, especially when you have a team that has 4+ guys that can be top options offensively
Well, it's a bit of a vicious circle though -- need to sign #1 options, but you don't have cap space because you paid the max to Al who is a worse player when you have fewer #1 options around him... We're in a bit of a luck that our picks all panned out and panned out quickly so we have a wealth of scoring at below market levels.
-
We signed Al because we had the cap space to do it, he was the best available FA after KD, and he fit perfectly into our system. Asking whether a player is "worth" a max deal or not is an intersection of need and opportunity; it has nothing to do with how they rank on some statistical list.
Yes, need and opportunity, that's how you end up giving $125 million to Jrue Holiday.
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
The original post :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
In fairness, he's still expecting other people to do the heavy lifting on the offensive end. It's good for him that has worked out with Rozier, Brown, and Tatum. Heck, even Brad said we can't expect him to carry the team on his back offensively on a regular basis.
KG couldn't carry the Celts on offense on a regular basis, either. He was worth a max deal, right?
Would you have given a max deal to Ben Wallace when he was in his prime?
Is Draymond Green worth a max deal?
I think a person's answers to questions like that say a lot about how they see the game of basketball.
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
The original post :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
In fairness, he's still expecting other people to do the heavy lifting on the offensive end. It's good for him that has worked out with Rozier, Brown, and Tatum. Heck, even Brad said we can't expect him to carry the team on his back offensively on a regular basis.
KG couldn't carry the Celts on offense on a regular basis, either. He was worth a max deal, right?
Would you have given a max deal to Ben Wallace when he was in his prime?
Is Draymond Green worth a max deal?
I think a person's answers to questions like that say a lot about how they see the game of basketball.
You're kidding, right? Let's just say you probably want to think about that again.
-
We signed Al because we had the cap space to do it, he was the best available FA after KD, and he fit perfectly into our system. Asking whether a player is "worth" a max deal or not is an intersection of need and opportunity; it has nothing to do with how they rank on some statistical list.
Yes, need and opportunity, that's how you end up giving $125 million to Jrue Holiday.
And $70 mil to ET.... that guy hit the lottery!
-
We signed Al because we had the cap space to do it, he was the best available FA after KD, and he fit perfectly into our system. Asking whether a player is "worth" a max deal or not is an intersection of need and opportunity; it has nothing to do with how they rank on some statistical list.
Yes, need and opportunity, that's how you end up giving $125 million to Jrue Holiday.
And $70 mil to ET.... that guy hit the lottery!
I'll give this to Brad, he has his way of making somewhat competent veterans look like allstars...
-
We signed Al because we had the cap space to do it, he was the best available FA after KD, and he fit perfectly into our system. Asking whether a player is "worth" a max deal or not is an intersection of need and opportunity; it has nothing to do with how they rank on some statistical list.
Yes, need and opportunity, that's how you end up giving $125 million to Jrue Holiday.
Incidentally, I don't think Jrue Holiday's contract is that bad. I'd much rather pay Holiday that money than, say, fork over the Supermax that Washington will be paying John Wall.
-
We signed Al because we had the cap space to do it, he was the best available FA after KD, and he fit perfectly into our system. Asking whether a player is "worth" a max deal or not is an intersection of need and opportunity; it has nothing to do with how they rank on some statistical list.
Yes, need and opportunity, that's how you end up giving $125 million to Jrue Holiday.
Incidentally, I don't think Jrue Holiday's contract is that bad. I'd much rather pay Holiday that money than, say, fork over the Supermax that Washington will be paying John Wall.
It all depends on whether you think his recent heroics are sustainable or just a flash in the pan.
-
We signed Al because we had the cap space to do it, he was the best available FA after KD, and he fit perfectly into our system. Asking whether a player is "worth" a max deal or not is an intersection of need and opportunity; it has nothing to do with how they rank on some statistical list.
Play station bloggers get confused by that.
Tp....good post about the relative “worth” of players and their contracts.
I am looking forward to the day when I see playoff Al with a big smile on his face hoisting Larry O’Brien......That would be really cool, he deserves it!
My smile will be just as big, 60's!!
-
We signed Al because we had the cap space to do it, he was the best available FA after KD, and he fit perfectly into our system. Asking whether a player is "worth" a max deal or not is an intersection of need and opportunity; it has nothing to do with how they rank on some statistical list.
Yes, need and opportunity, that's how you end up giving $125 million to Jrue Holiday.
Incidentally, I don't think Jrue Holiday's contract is that bad. I'd much rather pay Holiday that money than, say, fork over the Supermax that Washington will be paying John Wall.
It all depends on whether you think his recent heroics are sustainable or just a flash in the pan.
He did average 19/6/4.5 shooting nearly 50% from the field all the while playing All-team defence. I'd say he's been worth the deal
-
7 pts tonight. Previously 2 other duds. Overall just not cutting it
He is expecting Kyrie to do most of the heavy lifting on the offensive end. Plus has been plain average on defense
What to do with this guy? Maybe its time to consider trading him (and eat 50 cents on the dollar)
Trade for a cheaper option like Dedmon to take care of things around the paint
The original post :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
In fairness, he's still expecting other people to do the heavy lifting on the offensive end. It's good for him that has worked out with Rozier, Brown, and Tatum. Heck, even Brad said we can't expect him to carry the team on his back offensively on a regular basis.
KG couldn't carry the Celts on offense on a regular basis, either. He was worth a max deal, right?
Would you have given a max deal to Ben Wallace when he was in his prime?
Is Draymond Green worth a max deal?
I think a person's answers to questions like that say a lot about how they see the game of basketball.
You're kidding, right? Let's just say you probably want to think about that again.
KG peaked at 18.8 ppg for the Celts in 2008 and never led the team in scoring for a regular season. He led the team in scoring during the 2012 playoffs but still scored less than 20 ppg.
He was never a go-to scoring option for an extended period of time. He had good scoring games but he was not going to go out and score 25-30 ppg for a series or whatever.
Despite that, KG was hugely valuable.
Horford, for reference, is averaging 18 points per game in these playoffs.
-
KG peaked at 18.8 ppg for the Celts in 2008 and never led the team in scoring for a regular season. He led the team in scoring during the 2012 playoffs but still scored less than 20 ppg.
He was never a go-to scoring option for an extended period of time. He had good scoring games but he was not going to go out and score 25-30 ppg for a series or whatever.
Despite that, KG was hugely valuable.
Horford, for reference, is averaging 18 points per game in these playoffs.
It's also true that KG was capable of scoring more than he did in Boston. He averaged 21+ for 8 seasons in Minnesota. Horford's career high is 18.6 and he only avergaed more than 15.3 ppg twice in his career.
In Boston, KG averaged between 18.8 and 14.3 ppg as the third option. There's no doubt that if he was ever asked to score more points he could have. Not 30 but 20 for sure. Horford, with the Celtics has averaged 14.0 and 12.9 ppg with a lot of the offense running through him.
Horford averaging 18 ppg in this playoffs has been great. But he's still not as aggressive of a scorer as KG was.
-
In Boston, KG averaged between 18.8 and 14.3 ppg as the third option. There's no doubt that if he was ever asked to score more points he could have. Not 30 but 20 for sure. Horford, with the Celtics has averaged 14.0 and 12.9 ppg with a lot of the offense running through him.
Horford averaging 18 ppg in this playoffs has been great. But he's still not as aggressive of a scorer as KG was.
I do have doubts about that, actually. I remember clearly that KG was reluctant to be a go-to scoring option, didn't want to carry that load. Preferred to be a complementary offensive player and focus his energies on being a leader on defense.
Even when he was the top scorer for the team, during the 2012 playoffs, he scored fewer than 20 points per game.
We can quibble over what "carry the team on offense" means, but scoring in the mid to high teens is not that, in my mind.
It's true that KG was capable of being a lead scoring option earlier in his career, but that's not who he was in Boston. Particularly not after the 07-08 season.
Yet I think we would all agree he was 100% worth whatever the Celts had to pay him to play for them during the 09 season (when he was healthy) and in 2010, 2011, and 2012. He was the heart and soul of that team and he was clutch on offense when he needed to be, even if he wasn't a guy who could "carry the team" on that end.
Horford, I submit, is similar to that version of KG in a lot of ways. If there's a gap in how "aggressive" the offense is between this version of Horford and 09-12 KG, I think it has more to do with how the Celts' offense is constructed than with any lack of determination or grit on Al's part.
-
Horford, I submit, is similar to that version of KG in a lot of ways. If there's a gap in how "aggressive" the offense is between this version of Horford and 09-12 KG, I think it has more to do with how the Celts' offense is constructed than with any lack of determination or grit on Al's part.
The problem with this argument is that he was the best player in Atlanta for years, and his scoring has always been ho-hum. I also remember a couple of particularly spectacular fizzles of those Atlanta teams that expected to hop on Horford's back against the Celtics. That's Horford. That's who he was in Atlanta, that's who he is in Boston, that's who everyone who pays attention knows him to be (including the Celtics brass).
There are no parallels between Garnett deferring to the likes of Allen and Pierce, and Horford being unable to establish himself as a reliable second option over two guys with a total of 3 years of NBA experience.
-
Horford, I submit, is similar to that version of KG in a lot of ways. If there's a gap in how "aggressive" the offense is between this version of Horford and 09-12 KG, I think it has more to do with how the Celts' offense is constructed than with any lack of determination or grit on Al's part.
The problem with this argument is that he was the best player in Atlanta for years, and his scoring has always been ho-hum. I also remember a couple of particularly spectacular fizzles of those Atlanta teams that expected to hop on Horford's back against the Celtics. That's Horford. That's who he was in Atlanta, that's who he is in Boston, that's who everyone who pays attention knows him to be (including the Celtics brass).
There are no parallels between Garnett deferring to the likes of Allen and Pierce, and Horford being unable to establish himself as a reliable second option over two guys with a total of 3 years of NBA experience.
I don't see how any of that matters to what I'm saying. The point is, KG was a mid-to-high teens scorer during his time on the Celts. He was not asked to be a primary scoring option nor did he display any particular desire to be one. Nonetheless he provided immense value in his two-way role. He provided timely and clutch scoring, and occasionally went back in time to create some tough baskets for himself.
Obviously that was a version of KG much diminished from where he was in the past. Horford has never been anywhere close to what KG was in his prime. But post-prime KG was still very much a max-worthy player, and prime-Horford is reminiscent of that player in some respects, particularly offensively (and his elite three point shooting is something KG never developed).
-
Horford, I submit, is similar to that version of KG in a lot of ways. If there's a gap in how "aggressive" the offense is between this version of Horford and 09-12 KG, I think it has more to do with how the Celts' offense is constructed than with any lack of determination or grit on Al's part.
The problem with this argument is that he was the best player in Atlanta for years, and his scoring has always been ho-hum. I also remember a couple of particularly spectacular fizzles of those Atlanta teams that expected to hop on Horford's back against the Celtics. That's Horford. That's who he was in Atlanta, that's who he is in Boston, that's who everyone who pays attention knows him to be (including the Celtics brass).
There are no parallels between Garnett deferring to the likes of Allen and Pierce, and Horford being unable to establish himself as a reliable second option over two guys with a total of 3 years of NBA experience.
I don't see how any of that matters to what I'm saying. The point is, KG was a mid-to-high teens scorer during his time on the Celts. He was not asked to be a primary scoring option nor did he display any particular desire to be one. Nonetheless he provided immense value in his two-way role. He provided timely and clutch scoring, and occasionally went back in time to create some tough baskets for himself.
Obviously that was a version of KG much diminished from where he was in the past. Horford has never been anywhere close to what KG was in his prime. But post-prime KG was still very much a max-worthy player, and prime-Horford is reminiscent of that player in some respects, particularly offensively (and his elite three point shooting is something KG never developed).
I agree with your conclusion that Horford is definitely worth a max for his two-way contributions (three-way, if you count everything he does off the court) but I think the comparison between his offense and KG's offense is a stretch. First because of what their careers were pior to Boston and second, because KG scored more as a third option (every year he was here) than Horford has as the team's ostensible 2nd option (either of his seasons here).
-
j
-
10 points, 10 rebounds, and 4 turnovers tonight with a Celtics loss.
Overpaid right? Trade him right? :'( ::) :-X
-
Horford, I submit, is similar to that version of KG in a lot of ways. If there's a gap in how "aggressive" the offense is between this version of Horford and 09-12 KG, I think it has more to do with how the Celts' offense is constructed than with any lack of determination or grit on Al's part.
The problem with this argument is that he was the best player in Atlanta for years, and his scoring has always been ho-hum. I also remember a couple of particularly spectacular fizzles of those Atlanta teams that expected to hop on Horford's back against the Celtics. That's Horford. That's who he was in Atlanta, that's who he is in Boston, that's who everyone who pays attention knows him to be (including the Celtics brass).
There are no parallels between Garnett deferring to the likes of Allen and Pierce, and Horford being unable to establish himself as a reliable second option over two guys with a total of 3 years of NBA experience.
I don't see how any of that matters to what I'm saying. The point is, KG was a mid-to-high teens scorer during his time on the Celts. He was not asked to be a primary scoring option nor did he display any particular desire to be one. Nonetheless he provided immense value in his two-way role. He provided timely and clutch scoring, and occasionally went back in time to create some tough baskets for himself.
Obviously that was a version of KG much diminished from where he was in the past. Horford has never been anywhere close to what KG was in his prime. But post-prime KG was still very much a max-worthy player, and prime-Horford is reminiscent of that player in some respects, particularly offensively (and his elite three point shooting is something KG never developed).
I agree with your conclusion that Horford is definitely worth a max for his two-way contributions (three-way, if you count everything he does off the court) but I think the comparison between his offense and KG's offense is a stretch. First because of what their careers were pior to Boston and second, because KG scored more as a third option (every year he was here) than Horford has as the team's ostensible 2nd option (either of his seasons here).
KG led the Celtics in shots his first year in Boston. He then dropped to 3rd for a few seasons before going up to 2nd Allen's final season and again finishing 2nd his final season in town. Even during the years he was 3rd on shots a game he wasn't far behind Allen and Pierce. He also generally had a higher usage than Allen. I guess I'm saying is that KG was very much the 2nd option being Pierce
-
Love/TT vs. Horford time :)
-
Generally speaking, Love has usually dominated Horford when CLE plays against him (from his Atlanta days to now). Thompson to an extent as well in terms of grabbing boards.
Hopefully Horford shuts up the critics this time around! ;D
-
Generally speaking, Love has usually dominated Horford when CLE plays against him (from his Atlanta days to now). Thompson to an extent as well in terms of grabbing boards.
Hopefully Horford shuts up the critics this time around! ;D
This falls in the sad-but-true category. Come on, playoff Al!!
-
Generally speaking, Love has usually dominated Horford when CLE plays against him (from his Atlanta days to now). Thompson to an extent as well in terms of grabbing boards.
Hopefully Horford shuts up the critics this time around! ;D
This falls in the sad-but-true category. Come on, playoff Al!!
In the first two series, the Cs need Al to score more, taking advantage when other teams go small against him (Giannis, Saric, Illyasova, Maker, etc.).
This series will likely be different. I'd expect Horford to mainly match up with Love and Thompson. Horford can score some in those matchups, but they aren't mismatches. If the Cavs go small with Green, Hood, or James at the 4, then Horford should go into the post.
I think this series is more about Al's facilitating. We need him passing and screening to free up Tatum, Rozier, Brown, and Smart. We need him to assist those other guys and help them take advantage of a porous Cavs perimeter defense.
-
Generally speaking, Love has usually dominated Horford when CLE plays against him (from his Atlanta days to now). Thompson to an extent as well in terms of grabbing boards.
Hopefully Horford shuts up the critics this time around! ;D
This falls in the sad-but-true category. Come on, playoff Al!!
to be fair to Al, he hasn't had the likes of Baynes, Morris or Monroe to share the front court with him. KO didn't exactly offer up tough, physical defense or rebounding. I suspect a different result on the boards for the C's this time around.
-
Generally speaking, Love has usually dominated Horford when CLE plays against him (from his Atlanta days to now). Thompson to an extent as well in terms of grabbing boards.
Hopefully Horford shuts up the critics this time around! ;D
This falls in the sad-but-true category. Come on, playoff Al!!
to be fair to Al, he hasn't had the likes of Baynes, Morris or Monroe to share the front court with him. KO didn't exactly offer up tough, physical defense or rebounding. I suspect a different result on the boards for the C's this time around.
I don't think we'll see a lot of Monroe this series. Perhaps to match with Thompson, in spurts.
I'm curious whether we'll start Morris on LeBron, or put Baynes on Love and try Horford on LeBron. The latter is a bit of a longshot, but I'm not sure that Morris is the LBJ stopper that everyone makes him out to be.
-
Generally speaking, Love has usually dominated Horford when CLE plays against him (from his Atlanta days to now). Thompson to an extent as well in terms of grabbing boards.
Hopefully Horford shuts up the critics this time around! ;D
This falls in the sad-but-true category. Come on, playoff Al!!
to be fair to Al, he hasn't had the likes of Baynes, Morris or Monroe to share the front court with him. KO didn't exactly offer up tough, physical defense or rebounding. I suspect a different result on the boards for the C's this time around.
I don't think we'll see a lot of Monroe this series. Perhaps to match with Thompson, in spurts.
I'm curious whether we'll start Morris on LeBron, or put Baynes on Love and try Horford on LeBron. The latter is a bit of a longshot, but I'm not sure that Morris is the LBJ stopper that everyone makes him out to be.
I think we're going to start Morris and matchup like this:
Morris - James
Tatum - Smith
Horford - Love
Rozier - Hill
Brown - Korver
I think Semi will get some run against on James, Smart will get his usual allocation of minutes, and Baynes will mirror Thompson's minutes in order to keep him off the offensive glass.
-
Show them, Al! SHOW THEM!
-
Go Playoff Al!
-
UNDERPAID
-
“Average Al”, my butt.
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
lol
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
lol
Yeah this thread has not aged well at all.
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
agreed
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Can we pin HOF threads like this somewhere visible as a sign to ward off bad threads?
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
agreed
iconic
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake like thread" or "No other prospects are at Fultz level thread" ???
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake thread"
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
Happy you are willing to admit your mistake, but Dedmon? Yikes.
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake thread"
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
Happy you are willing to admit your mistake, but Dedmon? Yikes.
You think Dedmon is horrid ? He is actually a pretty good center
I guess you don't remember him playing well against the Celts this season
But Al is playing very well right now. And without Kyrie. Knowing that he will be the "point" forward and getting calls underneath the basket to make important buckets etc. (instead of Kyrie getting most of the calls) ... has energized his game
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
People in Glass houses....
-
“Average Al”, my butt.
Average Al in the regular season
Exceptional Al in the playoffs
I guess not so bad :)
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake like thread" or "No other prospects are at Fultz level thread" ???
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
I’ve made my share of mistakes and failed predictions, although, respectfully, failing to appreciate Al Horford’s role in both our offense and defense after getting to watch him play for a couple of seasons is just bizarre to me.
Did I make a “trading Rondo would be a mistake” thread? That one doesn’t sound like me, although I didn’t like the return we got. I’ve absolutely hated my share of trades, though: Pierce/KG to Nets (very wrong), IT to the Cavs (wrong, although I think we overpaid, and I’d still trade Kyrie for value), Perk to the Thunder (100% right, and I’ll believe this to my dying day).
And, what makes it a HOF thread is that the player stepped up and proved you spectacularly wrong. I’ve got my own Terry Rozier thread that has aged pretty poorly. Own it with a sense of pride. The farther we go, the more iconic the thread seems. People will remember this thread years from now.
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
People in Glass houses....
Are stupid? Who the heck builds a house primarily out of glass, especially the type that is easily shattered?
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake like thread" or "No other prospects are at Fultz level thread" ???
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
I’ve made my share of mistakes and failed predictions, although, respectfully, failing to appreciate Al Horford’s role in both our offense and defense after getting to watch him play for a couple of seasons is just bizarre to me.
Did I make a “trading Rondo would be a mistake” thread? That one doesn’t sound like me, although I didn’t like the return we got. I’ve absolutely hated my share of trades, though: Pierce/KG to Nets (very wrong), IT to the Cavs (wrong, although I think we overpaid, and I’d still trade Kyrie for value), Perk to the Thunder (100% right, and I’ll believe this to my dying day).
I have had my share of being on the "wrong end" ;D
I hated the Perk trade and still don't get it. Team went from "tough" to "softer" with one trade
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake like thread" or "No other prospects are at Fultz level thread" ???
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
And, what makes it a HOF thread is that the player stepped up and proved you spectacularly wrong. I’ve got my own Terry Rozier thread that has aged pretty poorly. Own it with a sense of pride. The farther we go, the more iconic the thread seems. People will remember this thread years from now.
Maybe AL read this thread and said F#$% Y#$ Triboy16
And you know what. GOOD!
Scoring 7 points or going 3 for 10 ... does not match his style/capabilities
It doesn't matter to me if this on HOF list. As long as he has "awaken" and plays exceptional so the team can move past the Cavs/take off that smirk off Lebron..... thats all that matters to me
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
People in Glass houses....
Are stupid? Who the heck builds a house primarily out of glass, especially the type that is easily shattered?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Palace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Palace)
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake like thread" or "No other prospects are at Fultz level thread" ???
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
And, what makes it a HOF thread is that the player stepped up and proved you spectacularly wrong. I’ve got my own Terry Rozier thread that has aged pretty poorly. Own it with a sense of pride. The farther we go, the more iconic the thread seems. People will remember this thread years from now.
Maybe AL read this thread and said F#$% Y#$ Triboy16
And you know what. GOOD!
Scoring 7 points or going 3 for 10 ... does not match his style/capabilities
It doesn't matter to me if this on HOF list. As long as he has "awaken" and plays exceptional so the team can move past the Cavs/take off that smirk off Lebron..... thats all that matters to me
Triboy, in your defense your Mickey thread, one in which you said he would be a multiple time all-star, was more HOF worthy.
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake like thread" or "No other prospects are at Fultz level thread" ???
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
And, what makes it a HOF thread is that the player stepped up and proved you spectacularly wrong. I’ve got my own Terry Rozier thread that has aged pretty poorly. Own it with a sense of pride. The farther we go, the more iconic the thread seems. People will remember this thread years from now.
Maybe AL read this thread and said F#$% Y#$ Triboy16
And you know what. GOOD!
Scoring 7 points or going 3 for 10 ... does not match his style/capabilities
It doesn't matter to me if this on HOF list. As long as he has "awaken" and plays exceptional so the team can move past the Cavs/take off that smirk off Lebron..... thats all that matters to me
Triboy, in your defense your Mickey thread, one in which you said he would be a multiple time all-star, was more HOF worthy.
you're right
But I can't top your "Dragan Bender is the next big thing" HOF thread.
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake like thread" or "No other prospects are at Fultz level thread" ???
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
And, what makes it a HOF thread is that the player stepped up and proved you spectacularly wrong. I’ve got my own Terry Rozier thread that has aged pretty poorly. Own it with a sense of pride. The farther we go, the more iconic the thread seems. People will remember this thread years from now.
Maybe AL read this thread and said F#$% Y#$ Triboy16
And you know what. GOOD!
Scoring 7 points or going 3 for 10 ... does not match his style/capabilities
It doesn't matter to me if this on HOF list. As long as he has "awaken" and plays exceptional so the team can move past the Cavs/take off that smirk off Lebron..... thats all that matters to me
Triboy, in your defense your Mickey thread, one in which you said he would be a multiple time all-star, was more HOF worthy.
or "Jakob Poeltl is an excellent prospect" HOF thread. Sabonis says hi
-
Don’t get snippy, guys. We all miss in our analysis. There’s nothing legendary about simply being wrong. Most of those threads die out in the first page or two.
To be epic, a thread needs staying power.
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake like thread" or "No other prospects are at Fultz level thread" ???
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
And, what makes it a HOF thread is that the player stepped up and proved you spectacularly wrong. I’ve got my own Terry Rozier thread that has aged pretty poorly. Own it with a sense of pride. The farther we go, the more iconic the thread seems. People will remember this thread years from now.
Maybe AL read this thread and said F#$% Y#$ Triboy16
And you know what. GOOD!
Scoring 7 points or going 3 for 10 ... does not match his style/capabilities
It doesn't matter to me if this on HOF list. As long as he has "awaken" and plays exceptional so the team can move past the Cavs/take off that smirk off Lebron..... thats all that matters to me
He didn't.
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake like thread" or "No other prospects are at Fultz level thread" ???
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
And, what makes it a HOF thread is that the player stepped up and proved you spectacularly wrong. I’ve got my own Terry Rozier thread that has aged pretty poorly. Own it with a sense of pride. The farther we go, the more iconic the thread seems. People will remember this thread years from now.
Maybe AL read this thread and said F#$% Y#$ Triboy16
And you know what. GOOD!
Scoring 7 points or going 3 for 10 ... does not match his style/capabilities
It doesn't matter to me if this on HOF list. As long as he has "awaken" and plays exceptional so the team can move past the Cavs/take off that smirk off Lebron..... thats all that matters to me
He didn't.
Probably not, but you know some of these guys read blogs / twitter / instagram. Durant definitely does, haha.
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
Along with your "Trading Rondo would be a mistake thread"
Al making me eat my words. I'm glad, he is playing exceptional
Playoff Al is the guy I like watching
Happy you are willing to admit your mistake, but Dedmon? Yikes.
You think Dedmon is horrid ? He is actually a pretty good center
I guess you don't remember him playing well against the Celts this season
But Al is playing very well right now. And without Kyrie. Knowing that he will be the "point" forward and getting calls underneath the basket to make important buckets etc. (instead of Kyrie getting most of the calls) ... has energized his game
I agree. I actually like Dedmon, but I don't think they are in the same league of player. Dedmon has been, at his best, a productive backup on a playoff team. Even at his worst, Horford is a starter on a playoff team due to his IQ and the little things he does consistently.
-
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/dba967cec46825a45a58d2a63ccd0617/tenor.gif?itemid=5267724)
-
CelticsBlog HOF thread.
People in Glass houses....
Are stupid? Who the heck builds a house primarily out of glass, especially the type that is easily shattered?
😂
-
Balling beast tonight!
-
Can we pay him more? Like, right now? At least give the Dominican God some free beers or something!
-
This thread never gets old ;D
-
This thread is my favorite thing.
-
This thread: The gift that keeps on giving! ;D
-
Ballin!! Hope he’s alright after the cheap shot!
-
He dominated in the fourth.
-
Come on Donoghus, say what you think about "Average Al".
-
He dominated in the fourth.
Yep. It felt like he got lost in the middle quarters a little but he finished strong when the team needed his focus.
-
All time Celticsblog, EAT CROW HALL OF FAME, post that keeps coming back to haunt the OP.
-
Looks like a mediocre performance tonight....here comes the "trade Horford"/"overpaid bum Horford" group again. :'(
-
Looks like a mediocre performance tonight....here comes the "trade Horford"/"overpaid bum Horford" group again. :'(
:o
-
I am fully in the camp that Horford is an all star and a max player and I love having him on the Celtics. He's been the best player for the Celtics in the playoffs.
But... Seeing him take 4 shots in 30 minutes in a blowout loss makes is frustrating to argue with those who say he's overrated and too passive. While I generally disagree with that assessment of his game, he does have to be more aggressive than he was in Game 3.
-
Big Al definitely needs to assert himself on the road in Cleveland. There is no more important time for him to be the aggressor then in this situation. 4 shots in the game is unreal. Stevens needs to get him involved from the get go. Al is not the only one to blame in that situation.
A team filled with young one's on the road in a hostile Lebron environment. Your veteran superstar needs to say hello in Big Al fashion tonight.
-
I am fully in the camp that Horford is an all star and a max player and I love having him on the Celtics. He's been the best player for the Celtics in the playoffs.
But... Seeing him take 4 shots in 30 minutes in a blowout loss makes is frustrating to argue with those who say he's overrated and too passive. While I generally disagree with that assessment of his game, he does have to be more aggressive than he was in Game 3.
Agreed, but as he's not the primary ball handler, it would be nice to see someone pass him the ball. There was far too much isolation ball. The ball should touch Horford's hands on most if not all positions. Pull up threes and Morris going one on one will not win games.
Sure Horford needs to be more aggressive, but his team mates have to help him with that.
-
I am fully in the camp that Horford is an all star and a max player and I love having him on the Celtics. He's been the best player for the Celtics in the playoffs.
But... Seeing him take 4 shots in 30 minutes in a blowout loss makes is frustrating to argue with those who say he's overrated and too passive. While I generally disagree with that assessment of his game, he does have to be more aggressive than he was in Game 3.
Agreed, but as he's not the primary ball handler, it would be nice to see someone pass him the ball. There was far too much isolation ball. The ball should touch Horford's hands on most if not all positions. Pull up threes and Morris going one on one will not win games.
Sure Horford needs to be more aggressive, but his team mates have to help him with that.
Totally agree, the ISO was bad. Cleveland fans think Big Al cannot shoot due to Thompson owning him.
-
Very abysmal performance. Ainge did not pay this man to score only 6 points tonight.
Overpaid fosho, amiright Trade Horford camp?
-
Very abysmal performance. Ainge did not pay this man to score only 6 points tonight.
Overpaid fosho, amiright Trade Horford camp?
He didn't pay him for any single game, good or bad
-
Very abysmal performance. Ainge did not pay this man to score only 6 points tonight.
Overpaid fosho, amiright Trade Horford camp?
*facepalm*
Terrible performance tonight
-
lol y’all are resilient
-
Cleveland defend the low-post up really well.
Al's strength is really playing out of the high post.
-
Al Horford, TRoz & whatever it takes for KAT & Teague!!!!! ;D
But in all seriousness, this was a simply pathetic game from Al. Hope Brad and the others give him a good bake, because he deserves it
-
Al Horford, TRoz & whatever it takes for KAT & Teague!!!!! ;D
But in all seriousness, this was a simply pathetic game from Al. Hope Brad and the others give him a good bake, because he deserves it
To be fair to him he was getting doubled every time he touched the ball. He still should’ve done a better job finding the open man though
-
Al Horford, TRoz & whatever it takes for KAT & Teague!!!!! ;D
But in all seriousness, this was a simply pathetic game from Al. Hope Brad and the others give him a good bake, because he deserves it
To be fair to him he was getting doubled every time he touched the ball. He still should’ve done a better job finding the open man though
Not to mention he made Larry Nance look like Andre Drummond on the offensive boards, and played some of the worst defence I've ever seen him play. Disgusted with his effort
-
he sure sucked tonight
-
How can we trade him for other Elite big man ?
-
How can we trade him for other Elite big man ?
ask Donoghus
-
Al Horford, TRoz & whatever it takes for KAT & Teague!!!!! ;D
But in all seriousness, this was a simply pathetic game from Al. Hope Brad and the others give him a good bake, because he deserves it
To be fair to him he was getting doubled every time he touched the ball. He still should’ve done a better job finding the open man though
Not to mention he made Larry Nance look like Andre Drummond on the offensive boards, and played some of the worst defence I've ever seen him play. Disgusted with his effort
tp gouk
-
he surely is overpaid. BUT he is very valuable to this team. and perhaps danny had to overpay to change the culture/notion in boston that we can't sign big free agents.
There is a reason Danny went out and got Kyrie Irving/Gordon Hayward....Horford wasnt/isnt supposed to be "the guy" he is/was supposed to be the 3rd guy who can facilitate and score when needed.
-
Weird how you started a Terry is a keeper thread after one good game, but didn't start/bump one about how he's a bum after game 5.
-
Here’s to redemption in G7!
-
Weird how you started a Terry is a keeper thread after one good game, but didn't start/bump one about how he's a bum after game 5.
You understand the difference between game 5 and 6 right? Terry is also making 2 million dollars this season
-
These double teams by Cleveland have been interesting. Horford is such a good passer, the Celtics should be destroying the Cavaliers on this but Horford isn't reacting fast enough. He's not used ot be doubled this way. He has to make quicker decisions when he sees the double coming and everyone else has to be making better cuts (Jaylen is the only one really taking advantage and moving off the ball).
-
These double teams by Cleveland have been interesting. Horford is such a good passer, the Celtics should be destroying the Cavaliers on this but Horford isn't reacting fast enough. He's not used ot be doubled this way. He has to make quicker decisions when he sees the double coming and everyone else has to be making better cuts (Jaylen is the only one really taking advantage and moving off the ball).
Totally agree. Brad and Al have to figure out how to attack that double. With the shooters and cutters we have that should be doable! So frustrating to see Al get Jeff Green on the block and nothing comes of it.
-
These double teams by Cleveland have been interesting. Horford is such a good passer, the Celtics should be destroying the Cavaliers on this but Horford isn't reacting fast enough. He's not used ot be doubled this way. He has to make quicker decisions when he sees the double coming and everyone else has to be making better cuts (Jaylen is the only one really taking advantage and moving off the ball).
Hes an all star on a $100+ million contract, so he better figure it out quickly.
That was a horrible game by Al. I'm a big fan, but that simply cant happen. And it became so much worse with Rozier and Brown teeing off
-
These double teams by Cleveland have been interesting. Horford is such a good passer, the Celtics should be destroying the Cavaliers on this but Horford isn't reacting fast enough. He's not used ot be doubled this way. He has to make quicker decisions when he sees the double coming and everyone else has to be making better cuts (Jaylen is the only one really taking advantage and moving off the ball).
Hes an all star on a $100+ million contract, so he better figure it out quickly.
That was a horrible game by Al. I'm a big fan, but that simply cant happen. And it became so much worse with Rozier and Brown teeing off
Yeah. Al had his worst game in a long while, at a bad time. But that’s on the whole team. Has to be someone cutting or spotting up. He has to keep composure, and they have to give him an opportunity.
-
Hasn't this thread become everything we are not supposed to have on the forum? Horford has a good game game any someone bumps this to rub it in people's faces that doubted his worth. He has a bad game and someone bumps it to tell the people that think he deserves his salary they were wrong/stupid. It's been going on for months? Is this what people want on the board? Probably should be locked at this point but I'm no mod
-
Hasn't this thread become everything we are not supposed to have on the forum? Horford has a good game game any someone bumps this to rub it in people's faces that doubted his worth. He has a bad game and someone bumps it to tell the people that think he deserves his salary they were wrong/stupid. It's been going on for months? Is this what people want on the board? Probably should be locked at this point but I'm no mod
The mod is the one bringing this thread back to life ... lol
after good home games... this thread pops up
after no show road playoff games (which has been many so far) ... the "Average Al my butt folks" are nowhere to be found
The reality is, the Celts even getting this far....he has earned his salary. But when you see players who make around the same Giannis, Lebron etc play well on either home/road games.... you want more from Big Al
I hope he has an excellent game 7 .... then have Donghus, Fafnir etc rub it in my face. Just win, I don't care about anything else
-
These double teams by Cleveland have been interesting. Horford is such a good passer, the Celtics should be destroying the Cavaliers on this but Horford isn't reacting fast enough. He's not used ot be doubled this way. He has to make quicker decisions when he sees the double coming and everyone else has to be making better cuts (Jaylen is the only one really taking advantage and moving off the ball).
I'm not understanding why the double teams are causing so many problems, especially for a guy who's such a good passer. He must've seen double teams before during his long career, right? You see a double team coming, you find the open man—because there's almost always an open man. Maybe his teammates weren't cutting to open spots like they should've been? I just don't think this should be the total brain scrambler it obviously was to Al.
-
I love Al and he brings a unique skill set to the Celtics, and he also gave us the credibility to sign GH and trade for KI.
But if he'd played anywhere near worth his salary, this series would already be over. He's shooting 38% since game 1.
-
Al has been very good in these playoffs. Even in games where the scoring is not there his defense and passing have been key. He does need to do better with the double teams, however. The Celts know that the Cavs are going to double Al, it should not be a surprise and they should look to exploit it. With Tatum, Brown, Rozier, and Morris around him, they should get good looks from the 3 point line when Al gets doubled.
-
At least if Horford tanks game 7 team can trade him and not catch heat.
-
I love Al and he brings a unique skill set to the Celtics, and he also gave us the credibility to sign GH and trade for KI.
But if he'd played anywhere near worth his salary, this series would already be over. He's shooting 38% since game 1.
You conveniently didn't mention his great defense, including stints on LeBron, his great passing skills and his leadership.
-
At least if Horford tanks game 7 team can trade him and not catch heat.
Why would we want to trade him?
He’s elite at defense, passing and floor spacing.
-
I think the Celts have approached Al's offense poorly in the last few games. They don't need him to be a big time scorer. They need him to pass, defend, and stretch the floor. They shouldn't ask him to post up one on one vs TT. That's a bad match up for the Celts. When TT is on the floor, Al should go out to the three point line to pull him out of the paint and open up driving lanes for Brown and Tatum.
The Celtic's offense is at its best when they search out mismatches. Get Al in the post against a smaller player, and when the double team comes, as it will, pass out to the shooters. Get Brown and Tatum on slower guys and attack the rim, if TT collapses to protect the paint, kick it out to Al for an open 3. They have been trying too hard to get Al going offensively, that plays right into the Cavs defensive strategy. Don't force feed Al in the post, attack the mismatches and I think the Cavs defense will fold.
-
If he farts around Celtics will loose game 7
-
At least if Horford tanks game 7 team can trade him and not catch heat.
Why would we want to trade him?
He’s elite at defense, passing and floor spacing.
He disappears too often in all phases of the game. He just doesn't play with energy enough. Hate to say it's age because he isn't that old. But maybe he has too many miles.
-
These double teams by Cleveland have been interesting. Horford is such a good passer, the Celtics should be destroying the Cavaliers on this but Horford isn't reacting fast enough. He's not used ot be doubled this way. He has to make quicker decisions when he sees the double coming and everyone else has to be making better cuts (Jaylen is the only one really taking advantage and moving off the ball).
I'm not understanding why the double teams are causing so many problems, especially for a guy who's such a good passer. He must've seen double teams before during his long career, right? You see a double team coming, you find the open man—because there's almost always an open man. Maybe his teammates weren't cutting to open spots like they should've been? I just don't think this should be the total brain scrambler it obviously was to Al.
In game 5 it was a new wrinkle, they'd been playing it one on one till then.
Then in game 6 the other C's weren't cutting iirc on the first few doubles. After the next time out we saw Brown and others get layups or open 3s off the doubles. Just took Horford a bit to adjust. The Cavs did a good job of varying the timing and positioning of the double as well.
-
These double teams by Cleveland have been interesting. Horford is such a good passer, the Celtics should be destroying the Cavaliers on this but Horford isn't reacting fast enough. He's not used ot be doubled this way. He has to make quicker decisions when he sees the double coming and everyone else has to be making better cuts (Jaylen is the only one really taking advantage and moving off the ball).
I'm not understanding why the double teams are causing so many problems, especially for a guy who's such a good passer. He must've seen double teams before during his long career, right? You see a double team coming, you find the open man—because there's almost always an open man. Maybe his teammates weren't cutting to open spots like they should've been? I just don't think this should be the total brain scrambler it obviously was to Al.
In game 5 it was a new wrinkle, they'd been playing it one on one till then.
Then in game 6 the other C's weren't cutting iirc on the first few doubles. After the next time out we saw Brown and others get layups or open 3s off the doubles. Just took Horford a bit to adjust. The Cavs did a good job of varying the timing and positioning of the double as well.
I think the timing of the double was the most interesting thing the Cavs did. Al knew the double was coming, so he'd face up and wait for the second defender to commit so he could pass the ball. However, Cleveland would wait 5 or 6 seconds before the double started, burning almost a quarter of the shot clock and eliminating the possibility of four or five passes for a layup. That's where you saw lots of rushed, off-balance drives late in the shot clock. Al tried to adjust by attacking his defender, but, when he spun, the double would already be there, putting him in an uncomfortable position and leading to turnovers/shot clock violations.
-
At least if Horford tanks game 7 team can trade him and not catch heat.
Why would we want to trade him?
He’s elite at defense, passing and floor spacing.
He disappears too often in all phases of the game. He just doesn't play with energy enough. Hate to say it's age because he isn't that old. But maybe he has too many miles.
He's not a go to scorer. Never has been his entire career. If you think that means he's not an immensely valuable player I don't know what to tell you.
We just see basketball differently.
-
I think the timing of the double was the most interesting thing the Cavs did. Al knew the double was coming, so he'd face up and wait for the second defender to commit so he could pass the ball. However, Cleveland would wait 5 or 6 seconds before the double started, burning almost a quarter of the shot clock and eliminating the possibility of four or five passes for a layup. That's where you saw lots of rushed, off-balance drives late in the shot clock. Al tried to adjust by attacking his defender, but, when he spun, the double would already be there, putting him in an uncomfortable position and leading to turnovers/shot clock violations.
Yeah I don't think Ty Lue is a good head coach, but I do think he does a good job of putting together specific defensive attacks like the Big Al doubles and trapping of Oladipo.
Too bad the Cavs barely try most games.
-
need AL to come out with KG energy tonight.
-
These double teams by Cleveland have been interesting. Horford is such a good passer, the Celtics should be destroying the Cavaliers on this but Horford isn't reacting fast enough. He's not used ot be doubled this way. He has to make quicker decisions when he sees the double coming and everyone else has to be making better cuts (Jaylen is the only one really taking advantage and moving off the ball).
I'm not understanding why the double teams are causing so many problems, especially for a guy who's such a good passer. He must've seen double teams before during his long career, right? You see a double team coming, you find the open man—because there's almost always an open man. Maybe his teammates weren't cutting to open spots like they should've been? I just don't think this should be the total brain scrambler it obviously was to Al.
In game 5 it was a new wrinkle, they'd been playing it one on one till then.
Then in game 6 the other C's weren't cutting iirc on the first few doubles. After the next time out we saw Brown and others get layups or open 3s off the doubles. Just took Horford a bit to adjust. The Cavs did a good job of varying the timing and positioning of the double as well.
I think the timing of the double was the most interesting thing the Cavs did. Al knew the double was coming, so he'd face up and wait for the second defender to commit so he could pass the ball. However, Cleveland would wait 5 or 6 seconds before the double started, burning almost a quarter of the shot clock and eliminating the possibility of four or five passes for a layup. That's where you saw lots of rushed, off-balance drives late in the shot clock. Al tried to adjust by attacking his defender, but, when he spun, the double would already be there, putting him in an uncomfortable position and leading to turnovers/shot clock violations.
Good point. Which means as soon as he gets ball he needs to attack to trigger double team sooner. And team needs to feed him early in the set.
-
These double teams by Cleveland have been interesting. Horford is such a good passer, the Celtics should be destroying the Cavaliers on this but Horford isn't reacting fast enough. He's not used ot be doubled this way. He has to make quicker decisions when he sees the double coming and everyone else has to be making better cuts (Jaylen is the only one really taking advantage and moving off the ball).
I'm not understanding why the double teams are causing so many problems, especially for a guy who's such a good passer. He must've seen double teams before during his long career, right? You see a double team coming, you find the open man—because there's almost always an open man. Maybe his teammates weren't cutting to open spots like they should've been? I just don't think this should be the total brain scrambler it obviously was to Al.
In game 5 it was a new wrinkle, they'd been playing it one on one till then.
Then in game 6 the other C's weren't cutting iirc on the first few doubles. After the next time out we saw Brown and others get layups or open 3s off the doubles. Just took Horford a bit to adjust. The Cavs did a good job of varying the timing and positioning of the double as well.
I think the timing of the double was the most interesting thing the Cavs did. Al knew the double was coming, so he'd face up and wait for the second defender to commit so he could pass the ball. However, Cleveland would wait 5 or 6 seconds before the double started, burning almost a quarter of the shot clock and eliminating the possibility of four or five passes for a layup. That's where you saw lots of rushed, off-balance drives late in the shot clock. Al tried to adjust by attacking his defender, but, when he spun, the double would already be there, putting him in an uncomfortable position and leading to turnovers/shot clock violations.
Good point. Which means as soon as he gets ball he needs to attack to trigger double team sooner. And team needs to feed him early in the set.
It seems to me that since they have doubled Al he has gotten flustered and either gets tied up, turns the ball over or he gets a 24-second violation. He has to be prepared to look and find the open guy right away. If that happens and the ball swings it will kill their double teams.
-
These double teams by Cleveland have been interesting. Horford is such a good passer, the Celtics should be destroying the Cavaliers on this but Horford isn't reacting fast enough. He's not used ot be doubled this way. He has to make quicker decisions when he sees the double coming and everyone else has to be making better cuts (Jaylen is the only one really taking advantage and moving off the ball).
I'm not understanding why the double teams are causing so many problems, especially for a guy who's such a good passer. He must've seen double teams before during his long career, right? You see a double team coming, you find the open man—because there's almost always an open man. Maybe his teammates weren't cutting to open spots like they should've been? I just don't think this should be the total brain scrambler it obviously was to Al.
In game 5 it was a new wrinkle, they'd been playing it one on one till then.
Then in game 6 the other C's weren't cutting iirc on the first few doubles. After the next time out we saw Brown and others get layups or open 3s off the doubles. Just took Horford a bit to adjust. The Cavs did a good job of varying the timing and positioning of the double as well.
I think the timing of the double was the most interesting thing the Cavs did. Al knew the double was coming, so he'd face up and wait for the second defender to commit so he could pass the ball. However, Cleveland would wait 5 or 6 seconds before the double started, burning almost a quarter of the shot clock and eliminating the possibility of four or five passes for a layup. That's where you saw lots of rushed, off-balance drives late in the shot clock. Al tried to adjust by attacking his defender, but, when he spun, the double would already be there, putting him in an uncomfortable position and leading to turnovers/shot clock violations.
Good point. Which means as soon as he gets ball he needs to attack to trigger double team sooner. And team needs to feed him early in the set.
I thought he was taking way to long to make a move for all those double teams. Most of the time he had George hill on him and would wait 5 or 6 seconds and then the double would come. If u got hill on ur back as soon as u get the ball RIP through and drive to the bucket. Not that hard and he had been doing that most of the time up til game 6. Idk what changed
-
I feel like we need to run more actions off Brown and Tatum. That way the Cavs will just be wasting time and energy on Horford. As long as he spaces the floor well, he will open things up for our other guys to score.
-
Regardless of what happens in game 7, Horford has been worth every penny of his contract in his two season with us. I'm as frustrated as anyone with his dismal game 6 performance, but that doesn't diminish what he's done for us.
We reached the ECF last year with a team with lots of weaknesses. We could very well have been knocked out of the 1st round against the Bulls without Horford.
This season he's been healthy for the most part, and has been the stabilizing force that helped us to win as many games as we did (to secure home court advantage) despite all of the key injuries we've suffered. He was great against the Bucks in the first round - a series we'd have lost without his solid play. He came up big in game 7. He's a primary reason why we made "the process" look overhyped despite everyone counting the C's out. And now we have a chance to advance to the finals, something that not even the most optimistic C's fan would have predicted given how shorthanded we are.
I could go on and on about what he does for us - leadership, defensive versatility, intangibles on the court, etc. But I think two ECFs in a row speaks for itself.
-
PS - don't make me look like a jerk Al. You better play well tonight.
-
Go AL!
-
He had the lowest amount of rebounds in game seven out of all of our starters-He did not assert himself like I had hoped for-Good complimentary piece who will never carey his team in game sevens of finals or ecf vs Lebron or Embiid—-good complimentary piece-
-
He had the lowest amount of rebounds in game seven out of all of our starters-He did not assert himself like I had hoped for-Good complimentary piece who will never carey his team in game sevens of finals or ecf vs Lebron or Embiid—-good complimentary piece-
Wait.... Horford isn't as good as Lebron?
-
He had the lowest amount of rebounds in game seven out of all of our starters-He did not assert himself like I had hoped for-Good complimentary piece who will never carey his team in game sevens of finals or ecf vs Lebron or Embiid—-good complimentary piece-
Wait.... Horford isn't as good as Lebron?
Revelation right there
-
He had the lowest amount of rebounds in game seven out of all of our starters-He did not assert himself like I had hoped for-Good complimentary piece who will never carey his team in game sevens of finals or ecf vs Lebron or Embiid—-good complimentary piece-
I agree. Missed two crucial shots late in the game and had a poor game 6 performance
Lebron is his worst nightmare
-
Average Al was who he is tonight, average.
-
He had the lowest amount of rebounds in game seven out of all of our starters-He did not assert himself like I had hoped for-Good complimentary piece who will never carey his team in game sevens of finals or ecf vs Lebron or Embiid—-good complimentary piece-
We won the rebounding battle 42-41. Al not getting a bunch of rebounds didn't lose this game. It was shooting the three that did us in and Horford only took one and missed. The rest of this team was 7 for 38. Horford was outstanding out there tonight.
-
He had the lowest amount of rebounds in game seven out of all of our starters-He did not assert himself like I had hoped for-Good complimentary piece who will never carey his team in game sevens of finals or ecf vs Lebron or Embiid—-good complimentary piece-
Wait.... Horford isn't as good as Lebron?
He just needed to be better then Green and Thompson for this game to go down to wire- Didn't expect Blount with boards- who wants it more usually who gets the boards-
-
I'm not going to be too hard on Horford - he has been a stabilizing force for our young team - but it's unfortunate that he (along with everybody but Tatum) wilted under the pressure of Lebron once again. The dude only went 1-5 in the 2nd half and that was on a dunk. We needed more from him, we needed a coach on the floor, and he came up empty when we needed him most.
It will be interesting to see this team fully healthy. I've always thought Hayward could take over the Horford role pretty seamlessly. Of course I'd like to see everyone on this roster return next year for a real shot at a championship, but I'd rather Horford's huge contract not prevent us from re-signing players to fair contracts in the future.
-
Bottom line is Horford is a really god player. If he's the best player on your team like he had to be this playoff run then you arent winning it all. If he is your 4th or 5th best player like he might be next season then you are a contender.
-
They let the Cavs hammer him all night and no fouls called. He played really well tonight in spite of no respect.
-
Ready to package Rozier, Morris, Horford, Yabusele, Nader, and SAC 19 for Karl Anthony Towns?
-
Ready to package Rozier, Morris, Horford, Yabusele, Nader, and SAC 19 for Karl Anthony Towns?
Not good enough. Prob would need to include Brown
-
Ready to package Rozier, Morris, Horford, Yabusele, Nader, and SAC 19 for Karl Anthony Towns?
Not good enough. Prob would need to include Brown
I gotta ask. Why do we want Towns? He is a great offensive player but he honestly couldn't play in the conference finals right now, he's that bad defensively. I'd rather have Brown. A 1-5 switchable defender is a arguably more valuable on a team with Tatum and Irving to do the heaving lifting offensively.