Hawks ready to offer Horford max

[nickagneta]

Better them than us.

Mark my words right now - any team who offers Al Horford upwards of $25m+ a year for the next 4+ years is going to regret it in a huge way.

I personally think he will be a good signing for at least three of those four years. Over the last four years his stats have been pretty consistent in just about every category, advanced stats or not, with the exception of his rebounding, which has trailed off some as Atlanta has played him more on the perimeter, and his three point shooting, which he has developed into a weapon just this year.

I think Horford's game will stay consistent for a few years but probably not be great at 34 years old. But he will give great value for that contract under the new salary structure for at least three years, IMO.

I'm not sure how anybody could describe a 30 year old 15-and-7 guy as being "great value" when being paid $25 million a year.   

Even when you factor in the rising cap situation, I still just cannot fathom that concept.

For any guy to be considered "great value" at $25M a year, they had better be either:

1) An all our superstar (Lebron, Durant, Harden, etc)
2) A <25 year old All-Star who has potential to become an all out superstar

I just don't understand how $25M a year for a fringe All-Star can be considered great value, good value, or even fair value.  It's a definite overpay (even at his current level of production) and projects to be a horrendous overpay in 2-3 years if he declines further (which he almost certainly will).

Somebody mentioned Joe Johnson's contract as a comparison - it sounds a bit harsh, but it's actually not far off the reality of the situation.  Joe Johnson was from memory around 28-29 when he got his last huge contract, and at the time he still looked like an All-Star for the most part.  Fast forward a couple of years, and Johnson's massive decline has rendered him utterly untradeable.  The only good thing that came from Johnson's big contract is that it utterly crippled the Nets finances, which in turn left them unable to recover from the Pierce/KG failed experiment, which in turn led to us scoring the Nets #3 pick.

You take a very, very big risk when you give a huge contract to a ~ 30 year old fringe star. 

I'm ok with giving a big contract to a ~30 year old guy if it's somebody who is a former / current superstar (Lebron, Carmelo, Dwight) because when a superstar declines, you usually still end up with an All-Star or fringe All-Star.  But taking that gamble on a ~30 year old guy who is ALREADY a fringe All-Star is risky, because when those guys fade out they become decent starters at best - and nobody will ever take on a mammoth contract for a 'decent starter', so those guys end up becoming completely untradeable.

Really feel you are in the deep end of negativity with this. First, Horford will be only 30-33 years old for the length of his contract and hasn't shown any wear and tear or had injury in his lower extremities. This is key for determining whether injury risk is a problem. I don't see that as being a concern.

Second, Horford has never been a 1st offensive option type player. He is more suited to be a second or third option offensive player. Always has been. Always will be.

Third, the only area in any of his stats that can be looked upon as declining is his rebounding. That can be easily explained by the presence of Milsap and Horford's move towards a more perimeter oriented positioning in the Atlanta offense as well as a defensive change of philosophy that has Atlanta not crashing the offensive boards as much.

$25 million a year is not a huge overpay for Horford because he is so much more than just a 15 and 7 guy, as you describe. He is an excellent defender that can play either the 4 or 5 effectively and communicates tremendously with his team mates when on the floor. Atlanta has been a top defense for years and the one constant in that time has been Horford. There is a reason for that. His consistent performance year after year, his locker room presence, his playoff experience, and his leadership are intangibles that can't be measured through any other way than through paying him more for them. In this way he becomes worth every penny he will be paid, as long as he is playing and playing well.

You also mention him slowing down or moving worse laterally an I just don't see it. I have watched Horford about 10 times this year and the only time he looked slow or lethargic was recently against the C's in one of the last games of a long season. A slight injury or just being tired after a long year easily explains that. My guess is  Horford will be his old self in these playoffs, as long as he doesn't have some undisclosed injury the Hawks are hiding.

Lastly, Atlanta is willing to max him out for five years. They wouldn't be willing to go their unless they felt he had five good years left in him and felt he would be healthy. They know him better than anyone. The fact that they aren't walking away from him speaks volumes to me about how much he is valued and how that value will be retained throughout the contract.

The Celtics need to upgrade over Sully, Amir, and Jerebko. Horford is definitely a major upgrade over those players and I would expect a slight uptick in his stats for a couple years because of this system and his perfect fit into it.

[Big333223]

The 5th year of that max deal would make me nervous but if Horford actually does want to leave, I would max him out for 4 years without flinching. He doesn't turn 30 until this summer so the contract would run 30-31-32-33 and then expire before age would really become a worry. Look around the league at what Pau Gasol just did at 35. Horford has a game that is going to age well because he's smart and he's got a nice shot for a big man.

No better way to convince him he doesn't need that 5th year than beating the Hawks.

But that would be a ton of money for him to be giving up, if he leaves Atlanta. There's no way he'll be getting anything close to comparable money when he's about to turn 34.

[crimson_stallion]

I don't agree - at all - with the "best deal is the one not made" philosophy and I fear we're about to see why played out on the floor in the Atlanta series.

This team as constituted is NOT a championship contender, and I'd caution Celtics Fan against becoming enamored with it. Ainge is quite correct - moves are going to have to be made to upgrade the talent on this roster.

Al Horford is a talented player who would be an asset to the Celtics. Is he atop my wish list? No. But he is a definite upgrade over our inside game as it exists today. I wouldn't be upset if Ainge landed him - because this franchise is not close to 18, and Ainge needs to move it closer NOW. The window of "well, we'll stand pat because we can't fleece anyone" has closed. "Assets" aren't valuable if you can't parlay them into championship basketball.

I completely agree with you that this team is not a contender, and doesn't have the talent to become one.  I absolutely concur that we need to add talent if we hope to become one.

The problem is, when you pay max contract money to fringe star players you end up overcommitting yourself financially, which tends to hold you back from ever becoming the caliber of team you hope to become.

Reason for this is that a max contract tends to take up up around 25% - 30% of a team's salary cap.  If you sign a max contract guy, then you are essentially committing between 1/4 to 1/3  of your cap space to one man.  If you sign two max contract players, then you are committing betweern 1/2 to 2/3 of your cap space into two guys.   An NBA team needs 10-13 players, and when you have 25% - 60% of your cap space allocated to one or two guys, it doesn't leave you with a whole lot of "wiggle room" to build a team around those guys.

This is perfectly fine if the one or two guys you are throwing max money at are legit superstar players who carry your franchise to title contention...but it's a problem if the guys are middle of the ground fringe stars who are good, but are not game changers.

See, this team right now is not a title contender.  If we were to take our current team (i.e. bring back all of the guys expiring next year) and also add Al Horford for $25m, we will become a better team...but we still won't be a contender.

If we want to add Horford AND a second max contract player, then it means we need to let a lot of our current players (such as Turner, Sully, Amir, Jerebko and Zeller) walk.  That means adding Horford might not even improve our team at all - he might contirbute enough to make up for all the guys we have lost...in which case we haven't really moved forward at all.

That means the second guy we bring in for that second max contract needs to be an absolute game changer - of the Durant / Cousins variety - in order to make that Horford signing worthwhile and move us into 'contender' status.   

Not lets say we get sign Horford and another max contract guy, and we still don't end up strong enough to beat Clevleand, San Antonio or Golden State.  We're not at the cap, so we are in a position that makes it very difficult to actually add more talent. We are essentially capped (no pun intended) because we have no real means to improve enough to beat those teams.

This is why max contracts really should be reserved for legitimate game changing players.  Unless a guy is capable of single handedly taking this team to contender (or [dang] near contender) status, it's not really worth throwing max contract money at said guy.

Horford is a nice player, but he's not the kind of talent who can carry a team on a nightly.  He's not the type of talent who can transform a pretty good team into a contender - that's a big part of why the Hawks have never been a legit contender in the entire time Horford has been there.  They have been a good team, at times they have even been a REALLY good team.  But they have never been taken all that seriously as a contender.  They don't have a guy on the team (Horford included) who can be that go-to guy, who can create offense from nothing, and who can put the team on his shoulders and carry them. 

If we pay that type of money to bring in Horford, we put ourselves into that exact same predicament.  We can make the argument that we are different because we have IT (who is a capable shot creator and can carry the team offensively) but in all honest, I still don't feel that is enough.  If IT and Horford are our two best players, then we still don't have a hope at beating the Spurs or Warriors in a 7 game series.  We need more than that.

[spikelovetheCelts]

I don't want him for max money at 30 years old. He's an old 30 too.

This will be a worse contract for the Hawks than Joe Johnson if signed. I think it is a rumor to make him happy for the playoffs. Some silly money is going to be wasted this summer for sure.

[CoachBo]

I don't agree - at all - with the "best deal is the one not made" philosophy and I fear we're about to see why played out on the floor in the Atlanta series.

This team as constituted is NOT a championship contender, and I'd caution Celtics Fan against becoming enamored with it. Ainge is quite correct - moves are going to have to be made to upgrade the talent on this roster.

Al Horford is a talented player who would be an asset to the Celtics. Is he atop my wish list? No. But he is a definite upgrade over our inside game as it exists today. I wouldn't be upset if Ainge landed him - because this franchise is not close to 18, and Ainge needs to move it closer NOW. The window of "well, we'll stand pat because we can't fleece anyone" has closed. "Assets" aren't valuable if you can't parlay them into championship basketball.

I completely agree with you that this team is not a contender, and doesn't have the talent to become one.  I absolutely concur that we need to add talent if we hope to become one.

The problem is, when you pay max contract money to fringe star players you end up overcommitting yourself financially, which tends to hold you back from ever becoming the caliber of team you hope to become.

Reason for this is that a max contract tends to take up up around 25% - 30% of a team's salary cap.  If you sign a max contract guy, then you are essentially committing between 1/4 to 1/3  of your cap space to one man.  If you sign two max contract players, then you are committing betweern 1/2 to 2/3 of your cap space into two guys.   An NBA team needs 10-13 players, and when you have 25% - 60% of your cap space allocated to one or two guys, it doesn't leave you with a whole lot of "wiggle room" to build a team around those guys.

This is perfectly fine if the one or two guys you are throwing max money at are legit superstar players who carry your franchise to title contention...but it's a problem if the guys are middle of the ground fringe stars who are good, but are not game changers.

See, this team right now is not a title contender.  If we were to take our current team (i.e. bring back all of the guys expiring next year) and also add Al Horford for $25m, we will become a better team...but we still won't be a contender.

If we want to add Horford AND a second max contract player, then it means we need to let a lot of our current players (such as Turner, Sully, Amir, Jerebko and Zeller) walk.  That means adding Horford might not even improve our team at all - he might contirbute enough to make up for all the guys we have lost...in which case we haven't really moved forward at all.

That means the second guy we bring in for that second max contract needs to be an absolute game changer - of the Durant / Cousins variety - in order to make that Horford signing worthwhile and move us into 'contender' status.   

Not lets say we get sign Horford and another max contract guy, and we still don't end up strong enough to beat Clevleand, San Antonio or Golden State.  We're not at the cap, so we are in a position that makes it very difficult to actually add more talent. We are essentially capped (no pun intended) because we have no real means to improve enough to beat those teams.

This is why max contracts really should be reserved for legitimate game changing players.  Unless a guy is capable of single handedly taking this team to contender (or [dang] near contender) status, it's not really worth throwing max contract money at said guy.

Horford is a nice player, but he's not the kind of talent who can carry a team on a nightly.  He's not the type of talent who can transform a pretty good team into a contender - that's a big part of why the Hawks have never been a legit contender in the entire time Horford has been there.  They have been a good team, at times they have even been a REALLY good team.  But they have never been taken all that seriously as a contender.  They don't have a guy on the team (Horford included) who can be that go-to guy, who can create offense from nothing, and who can put the team on his shoulders and carry them. 

If we pay that type of money to bring in Horford, we put ourselves into that exact same predicament.  We can make the argument that we are different because we have IT (who is a capable shot creator and can carry the team offensively) but in all honest, I still don't feel that is enough.  If IT and Horford are our two best players, then we still don't have a hope at beating the Spurs or Warriors in a 7 game series.  We need more than that.

You are making one errant assumption - that Ainge would stop at Horford in free agency.

If he did, then I'd have to agree with you. That move would rank with Ainge's numerous draft mistakes.

I'm not thinking, however, that he would.