Embiid sits out with a sprained ankle. Horford steps up with 23 pts, 9 reb and 5 ast. Sixers gets the win over the Pistons. Exhibit #1 in why they overpaid to get Horford. Be competitive when Embiid is off court.
Come on man. I know you know more About basketball than this from our discussions over the year. I also clearly said above, as has everyone else, that the contract is not bad cause of this first year. The problem is next year and even more the year after that. That is why it was questionably a terrible contract. I知 also baffled we have now had two people bump this thread this season. I am not petty enough to bump it next time al has a 5 point game...
So if Horford plays a significant role in helping the Sixers win the title this year, but then craps out the next 3 is it really a horrible contract?
You have to judge the contract in its entirety, relative to what Horford contributes in aggregate over the 4 years he is being paid by the Sixers. You seem to want to discount what his contributions are currently and only focus on what he may look like in years 3 or 4. But that isn't how it works.
Sure, it's possible that Horford's contract could put the team in a bad spot towards the end of it, but it could very easily be worth it if it leads to great success at the beginning of his time there.
But to directly answer the question the thread title is asking, sure it's possible. I just don't think it's very likely he'll be the worst contract signed this summer. My guess is his contributions in years 1-2 will more than outweigh the possible negatives in years 3-4.
Also, dismissing the value of keeping Embiid fresh seems a bit misguided. Embiid is a stud. But he needs his minutes managed. Having a guy as good as Horford to seamlessly take his place on the nights he's resting is huge. I'm guessing it will be worth at least an additional 5 wins this season alone.