Al Horford agrees to 4-year, $113M deal with the Boston Celtics!!

[mctyson]

I must be the only one who is not all that excited about signing an injury-prone, aging star player with declining skills who tends to be a non-factor in big games to a 4-year max contract?

No, you are not.  The risks of the contract are quite clear.  He may be hurt for half of it and he may simply decline in performance.

Having said that...all of the "risk" is tied up in Wyc's money and cap space.  As we have learned and it should be clear by now: cap space is meaningless if you cannot use it.

This was not a trade for Al Horford, giving up Smart, Olynyk and a future 1st.  WE KEEP ALL OF THOSE GUYS.  The players we likely see go (assuming now KD) were also likely to go regardless (Turner, Evan).

This was a 'no-brainer,' as Zach Lowe said on twitter.

[MBunge]

I must be the only one who is not all that excited about signing an injury-prone, aging star player with declining skills who tends to be a non-factor in big games to a 4-year max contract?

i still think it is better to overpay all star than to overpay Parsons, Mozgov...

Most definitely. And yet, we might be having different discussions here in the middle of year 2 of Horford's contract.

You have to take the opportunities when they are there.  What is the talk in Atlanta going to be next season when they could have had Howard and Horford for an extra six million dollars?

Mike

[jambr380]

Fantastic news - Boston is finally seen as a viable FA destination and we didn't give up anything except some cap space to be a true #2 in the East next year...could get even better with Durant or a big trade. No matter what, this is a giant step in the right direction. Thank you IT!

[jpotter33]

I must be the only one who is not all that excited about signing an injury-prone, aging star player with declining skills who tends to be a non-factor in big games to a 4-year max contract?

No, you are not.  The risks of the contract are quite clear.  He may be hurt for half of it and he may simply decline in performance.

Having said that...all of the "risk" is tied up in Wyc's money and cap space.  As we have learned and it should be clear by now: cap space is meaningless if you cannot use it.

This was not a trade for Al Horford, giving up Smart, Olynyk and a future 1st.  WE KEEP ALL OF THOSE GUYS.  The players we likely see go (assuming now KD) were also likely to go regardless (Turner, Evan).

This was a 'no-brainer,' as Zach Lowe said on twitter.

Good analysis. He's definitely worth the risk, because otherwise it would just be another year of us not utilizing cap space in any meaningful way.

[trickybilly]

This could be another attraction for KD to sign.

Lol. TP!

[Bobshot]

David Aldridge
League source: Horford to Boston.

Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojVerticalNBA
Al Horford plans to sign a four-year, $113M deal with the Boston Celtics, league sources tells @TheVertical.

Happy days are here again....

[kozlodoev]

I must be the only one who is not all that excited about signing an injury-prone, aging star player with declining skills who tends to be a non-factor in big games to a 4-year max contract?

No, you are not.  The risks of the contract are quite clear.  He may be hurt for half of it and he may simply decline in performance.

Having said that...all of the "risk" is tied up in Wyc's money and cap space.  As we have learned and it should be clear by now: cap space is meaningless if you cannot use it.

This was not a trade for Al Horford, giving up Smart, Olynyk and a future 1st.  WE KEEP ALL OF THOSE GUYS.  The players we likely see go (assuming now KD) were also likely to go regardless (Turner, Evan).

This was a 'no-brainer,' as Zach Lowe said on twitter.

Good analysis. He's definitely worth the risk, because otherwise it would just be another year of us not utilizing cap space in any meaningful way.

I would have rather spent $70-ish million on Howard for 3 years, but that's just me, and there's no telling whether he wanted to come. I like Horford, but feel that even if our roster stays the way it is, he might be the third best player on the Celtics next season.

[Bobshot]

I must be the only one who is not all that excited about signing an injury-prone, aging star player with declining skills who tends to be a non-factor in big games to a 4-year max contract?

i still think it is better to overpay all star than to overpay Parsons, Mozgov...

.
Most definitely. And yet, we might be having different discussions here in the middle of year 2 of Horford's contract.

You have to take the opportunities when they are there.  What is the talk in Atlanta going to be next season when they could have had Howard and Horford for an extra six million dollars?

Mike

They might have had Horford without Howard. I heard Horford was not enamored with that sign. They may have screwed themselves.

[LilRip]

I really thought we were going to lose out on the Horford sweepstakes with all the ATL talk recently, and this would then doom our chances for KD. It has never felt so good to be wrong!!!

Welcome to Boston, Al!!

[mctyson]

Even if Durant goes back to OKC, this deal is huge.  If Horford stays healthy and the Cs win 50+ games and challenge Cleveland, Durant will know it is real. He can come here in 2017.

With our top 3 draft pick.

For the second year in a row.

With another one on the way.

 

[RJ87]

Now that I've had a little while to process this....

So this if the end of Jared Sullinger, right?

[SHAQATTACK]

Had to post this one from the Wizards board:

Might as well go after Sully. F***

Hahaha!

Sully can be signed TONIGhT !

At he local Pizza Hut

[crimson_stallion]

I am still not sure whether I even want Horford on that contract. At least he will improve the team considerably in the short term. I worry about the back end of that contract though. I do not think Horford will age well. As his athleticism continues to decline, I think his lack of size as a center will become tougher and tougher for him to overcome.

Horford's game isn't based on athleticism. He's more of a fundamentals player. He should age relatively well.

I honestly have concerns about Horford's game ageing as well to be honest...

There is a massive misconception that athletic players age faster, and fundamental players age slower.  I have no idea where in god's name people get this from because it's a major farce.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is some truth to that when it comes to smaller guys like point guards and (to a degree) shooting guards.   But even then it's not always true - just look at how long Vince Carter, Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant managed to stick around - all three was massively dependent on their athleticism early in their careers...but over time as they lost athleticism, they were able to remain effective by BECOMING smarter and more fundamentally sound.  Jordan for example has openly admitted that early in his career he largely depended on athleticism, but later in his career he became much smarter and depended a lot more on smarts and experience.

When it comes to bigs I think it's even less a thing.  Kevin Garnett is a perfect example of a guy who was incredibly dependant on athleticism early in his career, but managed to remain a big impact player until the age of around 37.

On the other hand if you look at guys like Carlos Boozer, David West, Elton Brand - all big men who lack athleticism, and who relied on fundamentals and skills to get by...but struggled with age.

* Boozer was once a 20 / 11 guy, now at age 33 he's averaging 11 and 6 for the lowly Lakers

* David West was once a 20/9 guy, now at age 35 he's putting up 7 and 4 in 18 minutes for the spurs - the man clearly has one foot in the retirement pool

* Brand was a 20/10 guy for years, and at the age of 33 he was averaging 7 and 6

By comparison:

- Kevin Garnett was still averaging 15 / 8 / 3 at age 35
* David Robinson was averaging 14 / 8 at age 35
* Vince carter was still averaging 14 PPG at age 34
* Marcus Camby was still averaging 11 rebounds and 2 blocks a game at age 35
* Dominique Wilkins was averaging 25 PPG a the age of 34
* Clyde Drexler averaged 18 PPG at the age of 35
* Kobe at 34 was averaging 25 PPG
* Jordan 34 was averaging 28 PPG

All guys who were highly dependant on their athleticism for their success, yet still managed to remain very productive late in their careers.

Al Horford's lack of outright size concerns me a little bit, because as he starts to get older I can see his defence fading of hard.  I feel like it already has dropped off a noticable degree.  His post game has also mostly disappeared, and I don't see it coming back.  His rebounding his dropped off as well - and I see that continuing. Offensively I think he'll be able to remain effective because he's a good passer and can shoot the ball, and those skills age well. 

Overall I think he's a very similar player to David West, and I can see him taking a very similar career path.  West was playing really strong up until the age of 32 (when he was averaging 17 / 7). 

After that he dropped off rapidly to:
* 14 / 6 at age 33
* 11 and 6 at age 34
* 7 and 4 at age 35

Horford was putting up 18/8 at age 27, and that's already dropped to 15/7 over the past two seasons (age 28 and 29).  We have him under contract for BIG money over the next four seasons, from the age of 30 - 33. I'm confident he can continue to play at a high level at the age of 30, 31 and hopefully 32.  The four year of that deal is a question mark - we may well be paying $28M for a 10/5 guy by the time year four comes along. 

I'm hoping he can produce at a similar level until he hits 34, which will mean he remains effective over the course of this contract - if so we've lucked out. Certainly no assurances to that though...so we just have to pray that Danny can pull off another big deal to add another key player to the mix, so we can get at least a handful of finals runs before Horford's deal runs out.

     

[jpotter33]

I must be the only one who is not all that excited about signing an injury-prone, aging star player with declining skills who tends to be a non-factor in big games to a 4-year max contract?

No, you are not.  The risks of the contract are quite clear.  He may be hurt for half of it and he may simply decline in performance.

Having said that...all of the "risk" is tied up in Wyc's money and cap space.  As we have learned and it should be clear by now: cap space is meaningless if you cannot use it.

This was not a trade for Al Horford, giving up Smart, Olynyk and a future 1st.  WE KEEP ALL OF THOSE GUYS.  The players we likely see go (assuming now KD) were also likely to go regardless (Turner, Evan).

This was a 'no-brainer,' as Zach Lowe said on twitter.

Good analysis. He's definitely worth the risk, because otherwise it would just be another year of us not utilizing cap space in any meaningful way.

I would have rather spent $70-ish million on Howard for 3 years, but that's just me, and there's no telling whether he wanted to come. I like Horford, but feel that even if our roster stays the way it is, he might be the third best player on the Celtics next season.

That's understandable. I wouldn't have minded Howard at that rate over Horford. But, to me, either of them is better than nothing once again. There's only so many times that you can say "next year," especially when you actually have a chance to sign one.

The character issue has me prefer Horford over Howard, though. I think HOward could definitely work in the right environment, but at least you don't have those concerns with Horford.

[kozlodoev]

I must be the only one who is not all that excited about signing an injury-prone, aging star player with declining skills who tends to be a non-factor in big games to a 4-year max contract?

No, you are not.  The risks of the contract are quite clear.  He may be hurt for half of it and he may simply decline in performance.

Having said that...all of the "risk" is tied up in Wyc's money and cap space.  As we have learned and it should be clear by now: cap space is meaningless if you cannot use it.

This was not a trade for Al Horford, giving up Smart, Olynyk and a future 1st.  WE KEEP ALL OF THOSE GUYS.  The players we likely see go (assuming now KD) were also likely to go regardless (Turner, Evan).

This was a 'no-brainer,' as Zach Lowe said on twitter.

Good analysis. He's definitely worth the risk, because otherwise it would just be another year of us not utilizing cap space in any meaningful way.

I would have rather spent $70-ish million on Howard for 3 years, but that's just me, and there's no telling whether he wanted to come. I like Horford, but feel that even if our roster stays the way it is, he might be the third best player on the Celtics next season.

That's understandable. I wouldn't have minded Howard at that rate over Horford. But, to me, either of them is better than nothing once again. There's only so many times that you can say "next year," especially when you actually have a chance to sign one.

The character issue has me prefer Horford over Howard, though. I think HOward could definitely work in the right environment, but at least you don't have those concerns with Horford.

Sure, there's an argument to be made that we have 3 core players signed under market for 2-3 years, so we might as well go ahead and overpay for 2 more core players with the remaining money over a comparable time period. That's not horrible logic. Just make sure not to be disappointed if Thomas performs like a $25 million player and Horford -- like the $8 million one