In retrospect should Danny have signed Horford without KD?

[Csfan1984]

I'm no on Horford

Why?

He isn't a franchise level player. The team was rebuilding and didn't need to invest that kind of money in a guy who wouldnt put them in contention. If he was required to get KD than sure but if that wasn't a guarantee they should have passed imo

[Chris22]

He was the second-best free agent on the market at the time to be offered a max contract.

Celtics also needed reliable and experienced bigs that were not Sullinger, Zeller, and Olynyk.

Jeesh. Even more of a definite yes when you consider the caliber of big men we had then. Only one of them is still an NBA player for a reason

Sigh. If only Ainge had the confident mindset of drafting Giannis over Olynyk.

Exactly what I was thinking.
Giannis was the big miss.

[gouki88]

I'm no on Horford

Why?

He isn't a franchise level player. The team was rebuilding and didn't need to invest that kind of money in a guy who wouldnt put them in contention. If he was required to get KD than sure but if that wasn't a guarantee they should have passed imo

I just don’t get this kind of thinking. Would you have rathered we stayed bad/mediocre? Two trips to the ECF are valuable

[Csfan1984]

I'm no on Horford

Why?

He isn't a franchise level player. The team was rebuilding and didn't need to invest that kind of money in a guy who wouldnt put them in contention. If he was required to get KD than sure but if that wasn't a guarantee they should have passed imo

I just don’t get this kind of thinking. Would you have rathered we stayed bad/mediocre? Two trips to the ECF are valuable

Bad yes keep drafting and building save the money for the true impact players. I'm about chips not trips

[RJ87]

I'm no on Horford

Why?

He isn't a franchise level player. The team was rebuilding and didn't need to invest that kind of money in a guy who wouldnt put them in contention. If he was required to get KD than sure but if that wasn't a guarantee they should have passed imo

I just don’t get this kind of thinking. Would you have rathered we stayed bad/mediocre? Two trips to the ECF are valuable

People would prefer we be like the Wolves or Kings with no playoff trips for a decade. Because mOaR dRaFt PiCkS

[Fierce1]

Sure there was no KD, but the Celts got Hayward the following season.

It's just unfortunate Hayward got injured in his first regular season game with the Celts.

Celts were determined to sign two max free-agents.
It's just that the other max player is Hayward, not KD.

Signing Horford was a step in the right direction.

[Csfan1984]

I'm no on Horford

Why?

He isn't a franchise level player. The team was rebuilding and didn't need to invest that kind of money in a guy who wouldnt put them in contention. If he was required to get KD than sure but if that wasn't a guarantee they should have passed imo

I just don’t get this kind of thinking. Would you have rathered we stayed bad/mediocre? Two trips to the ECF are valuable

People would prefer we be like the Wolves or Kings with no playoff trips for a decade. Because mOaR dRaFt PiCkS

If we had the Kings and Wolves management I'd be worried but that isn't the case here.

[NKY fan]

He might be worth slightly less than the max at the time but it was a good signing. The money had to be spent anyway and he made some role players better then they were (Bradley , crowder )
Also his contract was going to be used to match salaries in the trade for a franchise player. That would be Davis ... but we got Irving surprisingly so we couldn’t do it

[gpap]

I'm no on Horford

Why?

He isn't a franchise level player. The team was rebuilding and didn't need to invest that kind of money in a guy who wouldnt put them in contention. If he was required to get KD than sure but if that wasn't a guarantee they should have passed imo

I just don’t get this kind of thinking. Would you have rathered we stayed bad/mediocre? Two trips to the ECF are valuable

People would prefer we be like the Wolves or Kings with no playoff trips for a decade. Because mOaR dRaFt PiCkS

Don't you know? We've got to load up on young, developing players and draft picks for that championship dynasty we are about to embark in about 100 years.

[Moranis]

I'm no on Horford

Why?

He isn't a franchise level player. The team was rebuilding and didn't need to invest that kind of money in a guy who wouldnt put them in contention. If he was required to get KD than sure but if that wasn't a guarantee they should have passed imo

I just don’t get this kind of thinking. Would you have rathered we stayed bad/mediocre? Two trips to the ECF are valuable

Boston was a 48 win team, very young, had just picked Brown, and still had 2 more Nets draft picks on the way.  It had no one up that summer such that the unused cap space could be carried over to the following summer (and in fact was - at least what wasn't spent on Horford).  There was no reason why it had to get used that summer on Horford.  The team could have punted one more year, and had a lot more flexibility the following summer or at the deadline the following season.  Perhaps without Horford, Ainge pulls the trigger on a Cousins or George trade because he would have still had room for 1 max the following summer.  You just don't know the lost opportunity cost that Horford's salary caused.  I mean it was absolutely possible that Boston could have acquired George for the rumored cost of Crowder, Smart, and Boston's 1st, then signed Hayward, all while keeping KO, and still later that summer acquired Irving (for something like Bradley, Thomas, and BKN 1st).  How much closer to a title is Boston with a starting 5 of Irving, Brown, Hayward, George, KO while still having Rozier, Zizic, Baynes, Theis, Semi, etc.  Of course it obviously could have gone the other way, maybe no one ends up in Boston, maybe Irving refuses to report so that trade isn't done, and last summer we watched as IT and company left in free agency, leaving Boston with just Tatum, Brown, Smart, Rozier, Zizic, and whoever was drafted at 8.  Who knows what might have been, but time and time again history has shown that you don't gather complimentary pieces (especially at huge prices) when you don't have the foundational piece on the roster as the complimentary pieces almost always prevents a team from acquiring the foundational piece while they are still on the roster.

[gpap]

I've long argued that signing Horford without Durant was a mistake for many of these same reasons.  I just believe that the cap space should have been punted another year and it would have let Ainge be more aggressive in trades for players better than Horford such as Cousins, George, or Butler.  Horford is a great complimentary piece, but Boston has never had the grade A player to pair with him, which makes his money not the most effective use for that money.

I used to be really high on Demarcus Cousins, but when I saw how awful he was in New Orleans before his injury, I am kinda glad we never ended up getting him. I know we have a premium need at center and Cousins is fitting in well at GSW but I am not too heartbroken he's not on the Celtics.

As for Paul George, I am pretty sure the Celtics tried to acquire him via trade but Indy sent him to OKC instead and it turns out, Oladipo and Sabonis has turned out to be a really good package (probably better than what we could've offered.)

And Jimmy Butler's career has been somewhat of a train wreck in the last year because of his poor attitude.

So, I am glad we have Horford.

[gpap]

I still believe KD may again be a target. He always wanted to play with Horford and now Kyrie is here. I seriously don't think the target is AD...Ainge wants to take a shot at KD again.

I wish but I think the KD ship has sailed. I don't think he leaves GSW and if he did, the Clippers could be a strong possibility
https://sports.yahoo.com/report-clippers-want-pair-kawhi-033010086.html

I think since KD announced he was joining the Warriors that AD has been Ainge's main target and will get him this summer (fingers crossed.)

[Chief Macho]

horford was a good signing, but you have to wonder if it was all for nothing when you factor in the money they gave hayward.

[Fierce1]

horford was a good signing, but you have to wonder if it was all for nothing when you factor in the money they gave hayward.

The money Hayward got was dictated by the market price.
It was what Hayward should get according to the rules.

Celts didn't overpay for Hayward.

It was just unfortunate that he got injured.

[SparzWizard]

horford was a good signing, but you have to wonder if it was all for nothing when you factor in the money they gave hayward.

The money Hayward got was dictated by the market price.
It was what Hayward should get according to the rules.

Celts didn't overpay for Hayward.

It was just unfortunate that he got injured.

Besides Hayward, it was either giving the max to Paul Millsap or Danilo Gallanari or trade for Paul George/Jimmy Butler.