Could Horford end up being the worst contract of offseason?

[tazzmaniac]

You keep insisting this year doesn't matter, but some of us are telling you the later years of this contract might very well be inconsequential.  Ultimately we won't know for a while where on that spectrum the truth lies.

Yes, exactly. If the Sixers win a title in the next two seasons, the contract will be a bargain regardless of what happens in years three and four.

I totally agree with this roy, them winning a title could make it a bargain. It could still also be an albatross. That’s not decided whether he has a 5 or 22 point game in November of year 1.

Sixers signing Butler to a 5 year Max contract may well have been an even bigger albatross.  Paying him nearly 40M in those 4th/5th years when he will be 34/35 would have been a big concern.  Having to deal with Butler's prickly personality for 5 years would have been a concern.  They would have most likely lost Redick anyway so they would have had a whole at starting SG in addition to the whole at backup C.  The biggest issue is Butler did not fit well with Simmons and to a lesser extent Harris. 

Could Horford's contract end up being the worst?  Yes.  So could Butler's.  So could several other players who were signed to big contracts.  Waiting until the future to look back in hindsight to judge is pretty meaningless.  Decisions have to be made in the here and now. 

Folks on here supporting the decision are saying it makes sense for the Sixers given their situation.  May be it works out.  May be it doesn't.  Maybe Horford plays well for the whole contract but due to Embiid not being healthy for the playoffs or Simmons not ever shooting jumpers they don't win a championship.  Maybe the Clippers turn out to be the next GSW and nothing they could have realistically done would get them a championship. 
Winning championships and even making the finals is hard and requires a good bit of luck even if you make good decisions. 

So if you're saying their decision to sign Horford to that contract was a bad decision why don't you let us know what you think they should have and could have realistically done instead that would have been better.

I honestly think they should have kept butler. I think they would have the championship with him this year. He also takes incredible care of his body and has a reputation of being extremely hard working so I am more confident in him at 34 than Horford at 37. Also, embiid really liked butler and has said he missed him this season.

Horford turned 33 in June so the 4th year of the contract will be his age 36 season.  If he's actually playing for the Sixers when he turns 37, they would be in the championship finals in the 4th year of his contract which would most likely make his contract a rip roaring success.   Butler is already beginning to show his age.  He coasted on defense for much of last regular season which is a big reason why they were mid pack in team defense.  He's also only played 70+ games twice in his career. 

Considering the Clips got Kawhi and PG-13 I don't see how re-signing Butler would have made the Sixers championship favorites.  I think the Butler option would have given them less chance at a championship this season and would have had a much bigger albatross potential.  The hole at SG due to loss of Redick.  Poor fit with Simmons and Harris.  I'm not sure Harris would have re-signed with the Sixers if Butler did.  Embiid does appear to like Butler and probably wanted him back but I certainly don't think Simmons wanted Butler back.  If they had gone the Butler option, I think they would have needed to trade Simmons sooner rather than later.

Splitting hairs on Horford’s age aside, I just disagree with you. I think butler is huge in the playoffs down the stretch cause he can do everything. It is fine to agree to disagree though. You are not going to be able to convince me otherwise and I don’t think I can convince you otherwise either

Not trying to change your mind.  Just wanted to hear your actual position. 

Is Butler huge in the playoffs?  They just needed to be -9 in the 3 minutes Embiid was off the court in game 7 against Toronto.  A few years ago the Bulls were up 2-0 on us when Rondo got injured.  Butler couldn't get them even one more win to get them to a game 7.   Butler isn't Kawhi.  Don't think he is even PG-13. 

As for doing everything that's not really true.  He's not that good off the ball.  I seem to recall when they traded for him that you raised the issue of Butler needing to have the ball in his hands and how that would be an issue with Simmons.  They certainly need to figure out who their closer(s) are without Butler but I think that's the only big issue without Butler. 

I think we can both agree that the Sixers championship hopes rest predominantly on Embiid.  They need Embiid to improve his game a bit (e.g. reduced turnovers) but mostly they need him healthy for the playoffs.  Without that, Butler, Horford or whatever else they could have realistically done wouldn't matter. 

[celticsclay]

Yea l mean that would be pretty logical kg. As you say, at a minimum it is not going to matter till the playoffs, so repeatedly bumping a thread over October and November games is pretty foolish. I’m being consistent on this, I didn’t bump the thread when he had a crap game a few days ago and they almost got upset by the hawks (thAt was also meaningless in deciding if his contract was bad) If they make the finals or win the title I’ll be the first person to admit it was not a bad contract. I would like to see a thread like this rise above the pettiness of repeated bumping over game 5 of a 320 game contract, but that doesn’t look like the direction a few vocal people want to head.

Oh, I definitely think they need to win the Finals for it to be worth it. Simply making it doesn't count and it in fact gets Horford's last year up to almost $20M. The fact is, they were going to be really good this year regardless of whether or not they had Al. In fact, that $28M they are paying this season could have been allocated to another Max level FA. If the East stays this way, I think it will be considered an utter disappointment if they don't make the Finals at least once.

Al has been one of the luckiest players in terms of contracts that I can think of. He signed a max with us the first year of the cap spike and somehow was able to land another near max at the age of 33 - despite not playing at an All-Star level for years. Contrast that with a player like IT4 who was easily better than Al at his peak and yet is scrounging around for the minimum these days - never having landed a big contract.

Al is a very good player and he certainly helps teams win, but so do other $28M/yr players. Let's just hope that the Cs can help prevent 'Average Al' from reaching his ultimate goal.

Ah yes the championship or else bust nonsense.  If you're going that route, then any big signing they made was a championship or else bust move.  Re-signing Butler to a 5yr max contract would have been a much more championship or bust move.  Who are these free agents that the Sixers could have had besides Horford?  Please, please don't say D'Angelo Russell.

Leonard?

[bellerephon]

Yea l mean that would be pretty logical kg. As you say, at a minimum it is not going to matter till the playoffs, so repeatedly bumping a thread over October and November games is pretty foolish. I’m being consistent on this, I didn’t bump the thread when he had a crap game a few days ago and they almost got upset by the hawks (thAt was also meaningless in deciding if his contract was bad) If they make the finals or win the title I’ll be the first person to admit it was not a bad contract. I would like to see a thread like this rise above the pettiness of repeated bumping over game 5 of a 320 game contract, but that doesn’t look like the direction a few vocal people want to head.

Oh, I definitely think they need to win the Finals for it to be worth it. Simply making it doesn't count and it in fact gets Horford's last year up to almost $20M. The fact is, they were going to be really good this year regardless of whether or not they had Al. In fact, that $28M they are paying this season could have been allocated to another Max level FA. If the East stays this way, I think it will be considered an utter disappointment if they don't make the Finals at least once.

Al has been one of the luckiest players in terms of contracts that I can think of. He signed a max with us the first year of the cap spike and somehow was able to land another near max at the age of 33 - despite not playing at an All-Star level for years. Contrast that with a player like IT4 who was easily better than Al at his peak and yet is scrounging around for the minimum these days - never having landed a big contract.

Al is a very good player and he certainly helps teams win, but so do other $28M/yr players. Let's just hope that the Cs can help prevent 'Average Al' from reaching his ultimate goal.

Ah yes the championship or else bust nonsense.  If you're going that route, then any big signing they made was a championship or else bust move.  Re-signing Butler to a 5yr max contract would have been a much more championship or bust move.  Who are these free agents that the Sixers could have had besides Horford?  Please, please don't say D'Angelo Russell.

Leonard?

It’s pretty clear Leonard was set on LA.

[Moranis]

Yea l mean that would be pretty logical kg. As you say, at a minimum it is not going to matter till the playoffs, so repeatedly bumping a thread over October and November games is pretty foolish. I’m being consistent on this, I didn’t bump the thread when he had a crap game a few days ago and they almost got upset by the hawks (thAt was also meaningless in deciding if his contract was bad) If they make the finals or win the title I’ll be the first person to admit it was not a bad contract. I would like to see a thread like this rise above the pettiness of repeated bumping over game 5 of a 320 game contract, but that doesn’t look like the direction a few vocal people want to head.

Oh, I definitely think they need to win the Finals for it to be worth it. Simply making it doesn't count and it in fact gets Horford's last year up to almost $20M. The fact is, they were going to be really good this year regardless of whether or not they had Al. In fact, that $28M they are paying this season could have been allocated to another Max level FA. If the East stays this way, I think it will be considered an utter disappointment if they don't make the Finals at least once.

Al has been one of the luckiest players in terms of contracts that I can think of. He signed a max with us the first year of the cap spike and somehow was able to land another near max at the age of 33 - despite not playing at an All-Star level for years. Contrast that with a player like IT4 who was easily better than Al at his peak and yet is scrounging around for the minimum these days - never having landed a big contract.

Al is a very good player and he certainly helps teams win, but so do other $28M/yr players. Let's just hope that the Cs can help prevent 'Average Al' from reaching his ultimate goal.

Ah yes the championship or else bust nonsense.  If you're going that route, then any big signing they made was a championship or else bust move.  Re-signing Butler to a 5yr max contract would have been a much more championship or bust move.  Who are these free agents that the Sixers could have had besides Horford?  Please, please don't say D'Angelo Russell.

Leonard?

Leonard was never going anywhere but LA or staying in Toronto.

[jambr380]

Yea l mean that would be pretty logical kg. As you say, at a minimum it is not going to matter till the playoffs, so repeatedly bumping a thread over October and November games is pretty foolish. I’m being consistent on this, I didn’t bump the thread when he had a crap game a few days ago and they almost got upset by the hawks (thAt was also meaningless in deciding if his contract was bad) If they make the finals or win the title I’ll be the first person to admit it was not a bad contract. I would like to see a thread like this rise above the pettiness of repeated bumping over game 5 of a 320 game contract, but that doesn’t look like the direction a few vocal people want to head.

Oh, I definitely think they need to win the Finals for it to be worth it. Simply making it doesn't count and it in fact gets Horford's last year up to almost $20M. The fact is, they were going to be really good this year regardless of whether or not they had Al. In fact, that $28M they are paying this season could have been allocated to another Max level FA. If the East stays this way, I think it will be considered an utter disappointment if they don't make the Finals at least once.

Al has been one of the luckiest players in terms of contracts that I can think of. He signed a max with us the first year of the cap spike and somehow was able to land another near max at the age of 33 - despite not playing at an All-Star level for years. Contrast that with a player like IT4 who was easily better than Al at his peak and yet is scrounging around for the minimum these days - never having landed a big contract.

Al is a very good player and he certainly helps teams win, but so do other $28M/yr players. Let's just hope that the Cs can help prevent 'Average Al' from reaching his ultimate goal.

Ah yes the championship or else bust nonsense.  If you're going that route, then any big signing they made was a championship or else bust move.  Re-signing Butler to a 5yr max contract would have been a much more championship or bust move.  Who are these free agents that the Sixers could have had besides Horford?  Please, please don't say D'Angelo Russell.

Oh, I know why they signed Horford, but they had to give him a Rozier-like overpay to steal him away from the Cs. Besides the obvious in Butler (sounds like you are bitter in Butler wanting to skip town), they could have made a number of other quality depth moves.

I am just saying they are going to be really good anyway. There is no reason that team shouldn't make it out of the East at least once in the next three years - with or without Horford. It has to be considered a championship or bust signing since his signing is pretty irrelevant to whether or not they can eventually make it out of the East. They chose him because they decided he was their best chance at a title, not so they could just beat other Leastern Conference foes. The core they have put together is a once in a generation opportunity - they can't afford to blow it.

[td450]

As a C's fan, I take some comfort in the fact that another season has started, and Embiid hasn't addressed his conditioning shortcomings, and Simmons hasn't shown any substantive improvement in his shooting. These two just don't want it that bad.

Horford is their only chance to take a step. If it happens for them, it will probably be because of him.

[tazzmaniac]

Yea l mean that would be pretty logical kg. As you say, at a minimum it is not going to matter till the playoffs, so repeatedly bumping a thread over October and November games is pretty foolish. I’m being consistent on this, I didn’t bump the thread when he had a crap game a few days ago and they almost got upset by the hawks (thAt was also meaningless in deciding if his contract was bad) If they make the finals or win the title I’ll be the first person to admit it was not a bad contract. I would like to see a thread like this rise above the pettiness of repeated bumping over game 5 of a 320 game contract, but that doesn’t look like the direction a few vocal people want to head.

Oh, I definitely think they need to win the Finals for it to be worth it. Simply making it doesn't count and it in fact gets Horford's last year up to almost $20M. The fact is, they were going to be really good this year regardless of whether or not they had Al. In fact, that $28M they are paying this season could have been allocated to another Max level FA. If the East stays this way, I think it will be considered an utter disappointment if they don't make the Finals at least once.

Al has been one of the luckiest players in terms of contracts that I can think of. He signed a max with us the first year of the cap spike and somehow was able to land another near max at the age of 33 - despite not playing at an All-Star level for years. Contrast that with a player like IT4 who was easily better than Al at his peak and yet is scrounging around for the minimum these days - never having landed a big contract.

Al is a very good player and he certainly helps teams win, but so do other $28M/yr players. Let's just hope that the Cs can help prevent 'Average Al' from reaching his ultimate goal.

Ah yes the championship or else bust nonsense.  If you're going that route, then any big signing they made was a championship or else bust move.  Re-signing Butler to a 5yr max contract would have been a much more championship or bust move.  Who are these free agents that the Sixers could have had besides Horford?  Please, please don't say D'Angelo Russell.

Leonard?

I can't believe you even suggested that.  Getting Leonard would have been more of a pipe dream than getting Lebron the season before.  At least they got a faux visit with Lebron ... his representative before the Lebron went to the Lakers like he always intended.  Kawhi should be up for executive of the year.  Getting PG13 to ask for a trade and using the Lakers and Raptors to get them both to the Clips like Kawhi intended. 

Philly is probably less of a destination for top tier free agents than Boston.  Who is the best free agent they've gotten in the past 20 years?  Horford? 

[KGs Knee]

Let's be clear, here: Butler was never an option for the Sixers, he didn't want to be there.  And in truth, he wasn't a great fit there anyway.  Butler and Harris were completely redundant and one of them was not going to come back.  Butler made that choice for them.  He wanted to go somewhere he could be the unquestioned alpha.  In Philly that is Embiid.  Butler served as the closer and guy who was there to take over offensively when things got messy.  Otherwise, he drifted through games.  That was not a role he desired.  Harris seems to be fine with that role, even if he isn't as good at it.

That aside, Horford was a smart but admittedly risky bet.  He is being asked to fill a very unique role, the value of which has been set, but yet to be determined if it was justified entirely.  Early returns are that Horford is giving Philly exactly what they needed from him, as he stands a very good chance at being the difference between something like a 3-4 seed and being the top seed.  I don't think Horford was the only option Philly had, as they certainly could have received a trade exception for Butler instead of the ability to sign Horford, but let's not forget the Sixers also received Josh Richardson.  Richardson is a pretty solid piece himself and certainly was worth some price there.

[tazzmaniac]

Yea l mean that would be pretty logical kg. As you say, at a minimum it is not going to matter till the playoffs, so repeatedly bumping a thread over October and November games is pretty foolish. I’m being consistent on this, I didn’t bump the thread when he had a crap game a few days ago and they almost got upset by the hawks (thAt was also meaningless in deciding if his contract was bad) If they make the finals or win the title I’ll be the first person to admit it was not a bad contract. I would like to see a thread like this rise above the pettiness of repeated bumping over game 5 of a 320 game contract, but that doesn’t look like the direction a few vocal people want to head.

Oh, I definitely think they need to win the Finals for it to be worth it. Simply making it doesn't count and it in fact gets Horford's last year up to almost $20M. The fact is, they were going to be really good this year regardless of whether or not they had Al. In fact, that $28M they are paying this season could have been allocated to another Max level FA. If the East stays this way, I think it will be considered an utter disappointment if they don't make the Finals at least once.

Al has been one of the luckiest players in terms of contracts that I can think of. He signed a max with us the first year of the cap spike and somehow was able to land another near max at the age of 33 - despite not playing at an All-Star level for years. Contrast that with a player like IT4 who was easily better than Al at his peak and yet is scrounging around for the minimum these days - never having landed a big contract.

Al is a very good player and he certainly helps teams win, but so do other $28M/yr players. Let's just hope that the Cs can help prevent 'Average Al' from reaching his ultimate goal.

Ah yes the championship or else bust nonsense.  If you're going that route, then any big signing they made was a championship or else bust move.  Re-signing Butler to a 5yr max contract would have been a much more championship or bust move.  Who are these free agents that the Sixers could have had besides Horford?  Please, please don't say D'Angelo Russell.

Oh, I know why they signed Horford, but they had to give him a Rozier-like overpay to steal him away from the Cs. Besides the obvious in Butler (sounds like you are bitter in Butler wanting to skip town), they could have made a number of other quality depth moves.

I am just saying they are going to be really good anyway. There is no reason that team shouldn't make out of the East at least once in the next three years - with or without Horford. It has to be considered a championship or bust signing since his signing is pretty irrelevant to whether or not they can eventually make it out of the East. They chose him because they decided he was their best chance at a title, not so they could just beat other Leastern Conference foes. The core they have put together is a once in a generation opportunity - they can't afford to blow it.

Bitter?  I don't care about Butler.  Don't really care about Philly.  I like some of their other players but the only reason I follow them is Embiid. 

The Sixers couldn't get out of the 2nd round last season with Butler because they were lousy when Embiid was off the court.  Being able to start Horford at the 4 with Embiid and then slide him to the 5 when Embiid sits should be huge for them in the playoffs.  The Sixers gave Horford incentives to make the Finals because that is important to them.  The last time they made the finals was in 2000/01.  That's the last time they made the ECF too. 

[tazzmaniac]

Let's be clear, here: Butler was never an option for the Sixers, he didn't want to be there.  And in truth, he wasn't a great fit there anyway.  Butler and Harris were completely redundant and one of them was not going to come back.  Butler made that choice for them.  He wanted to go somewhere he could be the unquestioned alpha.  In Philly that is Embiid.  Butler served as the closer and guy who was there to take over offensively when things got messy.  Otherwise, he drifted through games.  That was not a role he desired.  Harris seems to be fine with that role, even if he isn't as good at it.

That aside, Horford was a smart but admittedly risky bet.  He is being asked to fill a very unique role, the value of which has been set, but yet to be determined if it was justified entirely.  Early returns are that Horford is giving Philly exactly what they needed from him, as he stands a very good chance at being the difference between something like a 3-4 seed and being the top seed.  I don't think Horford was the only option Philly had, as they certainly could have received a trade exception for Butler instead of the ability to sign Horford, but let's not forget the Sixers also received Josh Richardson.  Richardson is a pretty solid piece himself and certainly was worth some price there.

How could the Sixers have received a trade exception?  The Heat had to send out equivalent salary.  Remember the trade got hung up for a couple days because the Heat deal to dump salary on the Mavs fell apart.  In any case trade exceptions generally don't amount to much.  Richardson is much better than getting a trade exception and the Sixers are lucky circumstances allowed them to get him. 

[KGs Knee]

Let's be clear, here: Butler was never an option for the Sixers, he didn't want to be there.  And in truth, he wasn't a great fit there anyway.  Butler and Harris were completely redundant and one of them was not going to come back.  Butler made that choice for them.  He wanted to go somewhere he could be the unquestioned alpha.  In Philly that is Embiid.  Butler served as the closer and guy who was there to take over offensively when things got messy.  Otherwise, he drifted through games.  That was not a role he desired.  Harris seems to be fine with that role, even if he isn't as good at it.

That aside, Horford was a smart but admittedly risky bet.  He is being asked to fill a very unique role, the value of which has been set, but yet to be determined if it was justified entirely.  Early returns are that Horford is giving Philly exactly what they needed from him, as he stands a very good chance at being the difference between something like a 3-4 seed and being the top seed.  I don't think Horford was the only option Philly had, as they certainly could have received a trade exception for Butler instead of the ability to sign Horford, but let's not forget the Sixers also received Josh Richardson.  Richardson is a pretty solid piece himself and certainly was worth some price there.

How could the Sixers have received a trade exception?  The Heat had to send out equivalent salary.  Remember the trade got hung up for a couple days because the Heat deal to dump salary on the Mavs fell apart.  In any case trade exceptions generally don't amount to much.  Richardson is much better than getting a trade exception and the Sixers are lucky circumstances allowed them to get him. 

Philly signed Horford using a trade exception created by sending out Butler.  They simply could have used it to sign a different player or not signed anyone and gained a trade exception for the difference in outgoing salary (Butler) vs incoming salary (Richardson).  Philly still could have completed the trade that sent Butler to Miami without taking Horford back.  The trade exception would have lasted a year and could have been split.  It also might have required additional assets to use, however.

I do think signing Horford was probably the best play they had, but it wasn't the only play.  It remains to be seen whether or not it was the right play.

[Moranis]

Let's be clear, here: Butler was never an option for the Sixers, he didn't want to be there.  And in truth, he wasn't a great fit there anyway.  Butler and Harris were completely redundant and one of them was not going to come back.  Butler made that choice for them.  He wanted to go somewhere he could be the unquestioned alpha.  In Philly that is Embiid.  Butler served as the closer and guy who was there to take over offensively when things got messy.  Otherwise, he drifted through games.  That was not a role he desired.  Harris seems to be fine with that role, even if he isn't as good at it.

That aside, Horford was a smart but admittedly risky bet.  He is being asked to fill a very unique role, the value of which has been set, but yet to be determined if it was justified entirely.  Early returns are that Horford is giving Philly exactly what they needed from him, as he stands a very good chance at being the difference between something like a 3-4 seed and being the top seed.  I don't think Horford was the only option Philly had, as they certainly could have received a trade exception for Butler instead of the ability to sign Horford, but let's not forget the Sixers also received Josh Richardson.  Richardson is a pretty solid piece himself and certainly was worth some price there.

How could the Sixers have received a trade exception?  The Heat had to send out equivalent salary.  Remember the trade got hung up for a couple days because the Heat deal to dump salary on the Mavs fell apart.  In any case trade exceptions generally don't amount to much.  Richardson is much better than getting a trade exception and the Sixers are lucky circumstances allowed them to get him. 

Philly signed Horford using a trade exception created by sending out Butler.  They simply could have used it to sign a different player or not signed anyone and gained a trade exception for the difference in outgoing salary (Butler) vs incoming salary (Richardson).  Philly still could have completed the trade that sent Butler to Miami without taking Horford back.  The trade exception would have lasted a year and could have been split.  It also might have required additional assets to use, however.

I do think signing Horford was probably the best play they had, but it wasn't the only play.  It remains to be seen whether or not it was the right play.

you can't sign a player with a trade exception.

[KGs Knee]

Let's be clear, here: Butler was never an option for the Sixers, he didn't want to be there.  And in truth, he wasn't a great fit there anyway.  Butler and Harris were completely redundant and one of them was not going to come back.  Butler made that choice for them.  He wanted to go somewhere he could be the unquestioned alpha.  In Philly that is Embiid.  Butler served as the closer and guy who was there to take over offensively when things got messy.  Otherwise, he drifted through games.  That was not a role he desired.  Harris seems to be fine with that role, even if he isn't as good at it.

That aside, Horford was a smart but admittedly risky bet.  He is being asked to fill a very unique role, the value of which has been set, but yet to be determined if it was justified entirely.  Early returns are that Horford is giving Philly exactly what they needed from him, as he stands a very good chance at being the difference between something like a 3-4 seed and being the top seed.  I don't think Horford was the only option Philly had, as they certainly could have received a trade exception for Butler instead of the ability to sign Horford, but let's not forget the Sixers also received Josh Richardson.  Richardson is a pretty solid piece himself and certainly was worth some price there.

How could the Sixers have received a trade exception?  The Heat had to send out equivalent salary.  Remember the trade got hung up for a couple days because the Heat deal to dump salary on the Mavs fell apart.  In any case trade exceptions generally don't amount to much.  Richardson is much better than getting a trade exception and the Sixers are lucky circumstances allowed them to get him. 

Philly signed Horford using a trade exception created by sending out Butler.  They simply could have used it to sign a different player or not signed anyone and gained a trade exception for the difference in outgoing salary (Butler) vs incoming salary (Richardson).  Philly still could have completed the trade that sent Butler to Miami without taking Horford back.  The trade exception would have lasted a year and could have been split.  It also might have required additional assets to use, however.

I do think signing Horford was probably the best play they had, but it wasn't the only play.  It remains to be seen whether or not it was the right play.

you can't sign a player with a trade exception.

Well, obviously. But you can use a trade exception to acquire a free agent via sign and trade, which was what I was implying. But that isn't accurate here anyway, as Horford was signed by the Sixers via cap space (not sure why I got that detail confused).

But that ultimately gets back to my larger point that the Sixers didn't need to sign Horford to acquire Richardson. Philly could have used their cap space on anyone, they simply chose Horford as the best available option. But they did have options.

[Moranis]

Let's be clear, here: Butler was never an option for the Sixers, he didn't want to be there.  And in truth, he wasn't a great fit there anyway.  Butler and Harris were completely redundant and one of them was not going to come back.  Butler made that choice for them.  He wanted to go somewhere he could be the unquestioned alpha.  In Philly that is Embiid.  Butler served as the closer and guy who was there to take over offensively when things got messy.  Otherwise, he drifted through games.  That was not a role he desired.  Harris seems to be fine with that role, even if he isn't as good at it.

That aside, Horford was a smart but admittedly risky bet.  He is being asked to fill a very unique role, the value of which has been set, but yet to be determined if it was justified entirely.  Early returns are that Horford is giving Philly exactly what they needed from him, as he stands a very good chance at being the difference between something like a 3-4 seed and being the top seed.  I don't think Horford was the only option Philly had, as they certainly could have received a trade exception for Butler instead of the ability to sign Horford, but let's not forget the Sixers also received Josh Richardson.  Richardson is a pretty solid piece himself and certainly was worth some price there.

How could the Sixers have received a trade exception?  The Heat had to send out equivalent salary.  Remember the trade got hung up for a couple days because the Heat deal to dump salary on the Mavs fell apart.  In any case trade exceptions generally don't amount to much.  Richardson is much better than getting a trade exception and the Sixers are lucky circumstances allowed them to get him. 

Philly signed Horford using a trade exception created by sending out Butler.  They simply could have used it to sign a different player or not signed anyone and gained a trade exception for the difference in outgoing salary (Butler) vs incoming salary (Richardson).  Philly still could have completed the trade that sent Butler to Miami without taking Horford back.  The trade exception would have lasted a year and could have been split.  It also might have required additional assets to use, however.

I do think signing Horford was probably the best play they had, but it wasn't the only play.  It remains to be seen whether or not it was the right play.

you can't sign a player with a trade exception.

Well, obviously. But you can use a trade exception to acquire a free agent via sign and trade, which was what I was implying. But that isn't accurate here anyway, as Horford was signed by the Sixers via cap space (not sure why I got that detail confused).

But that ultimately gets back to my larger point that the Sixers didn't need to sign Horford to acquire Richardson. Philly could have used their cap space on anyone, they simply chose Horford as the best available option. But they did have options.

what were those options?  Basically just looking at guys like Danny Green (though even he seemed pretty set on LA). 

[celticsclay]

I am willing to concede that Harris may actually be a worse contract than Horford now. Wow