$26 million man

[Evantime34]

Don't get me wrong, I love Horford

But he isn't worth what we are paying him. This type of money should be reserved for alpha and beta players not super role players.  I'd have been more comfortable with 22M a year.  Just not a full 25% of cap player

He wouldn't be playing hear for $22 MM a year. If we passed on him to wait for a better player we would have been waiting a long time, considering he was the first major free agent to sign here.

Think of his contract not just in terms of dollars but in terms of acquisition cost. We signed him without giving up an asset where if we were to acquire a real alpha guy like you mentioned we would probably need to trade for him.

So it's not Horford at $26 vs a superstar at $ 26, but Horford at $26 or a superstar at $26 MM plus two nets picks Jaylen Brown and Marcus Smart. In other words, we should be willing to pay Horford more money because it didn't cost assets to sign him.

That is just silly.  If Horford wasn't on the team now and Sullinger was brought back, how much better would Boston's record be really (let's assume Sully's freak foot injury doesn't happen, but it is Sully so he probably misses some games).  I mean 13-11 seems fairly reasonable with Sully.  So why should Boston overpay for someone that hasn't really altered the record all that much and doesn't make Boston a contender?  What if two max guys want to come here next summer, but Boston can only afford one because it overpaid for a guy who shouldn't have a max contract?  Also, by signing Horford, Boston is stuck with him.  I mean it can't trade him now or another free agent would never sign in Boston, so Boston now has to make moves that fit more in line with Horford's timeline.  Those moves might cause Boston to miss out on moves or players that might have formed the basis for a future championship team. 

Boston wasn't in a position to overpay for free agents last summer.  It just didn't make sense given the current makeup, financial and draft pick situation of the team last summer.

1. Sullinger's injury wasn't freak, he puts too much stress on his feet and has injured them before. Had we re-signed him he would be hurt and we would be in a much worse position. It's not a freak injury if it happens routinely.
2. Horford is still a big upgrade of Sully, just look at the plus minus with Horford on and off the court. He's not the problem.
3. The positive on/off indicates that the bench has been a bigger issue than Horford. I think we miss Turner a lot more than Sully, but I would never have wanted to give him what he got in Portland.
4. It's funny that people argue we should have saved the money for a better player when so many fans argued we would never sign a good free agent because we hadn't before.
5. We are more likely to be able to sign the superstar people want with Horford in the fold than by saving the space. What good free agents have signed to teams without big name players recently? Although the Horford signing gives less flexibility it increases the likelihood we are able to use future cap space on a star.
6. Starting an argument with "your argument is silly" is not a civil way to discuss things and I'd be more receptive to your point if you didn't do that.

[kozlodoev]

He's been excellent for most of his career, excellent for the Celtics thus far, and excellent in end-of-game situations.

And that's why the Celtics have an excellent record and an excellent position in the standings. Let's keep that up. 

What is the Celtics' record when Horford and IT both play? Are you still disappointed?

Our record with Horford is 8-6. And yes, if Al Horford needs Thomas to muster anything better than this (and he does), then he's a disappointment for his salary slot.

[Moranis]

Don't get me wrong, I love Horford

But he isn't worth what we are paying him. This type of money should be reserved for alpha and beta players not super role players.  I'd have been more comfortable with 22M a year.  Just not a full 25% of cap player

He wouldn't be playing hear for $22 MM a year. If we passed on him to wait for a better player we would have been waiting a long time, considering he was the first major free agent to sign here.

Think of his contract not just in terms of dollars but in terms of acquisition cost. We signed him without giving up an asset where if we were to acquire a real alpha guy like you mentioned we would probably need to trade for him.

So it's not Horford at $26 vs a superstar at $ 26, but Horford at $26 or a superstar at $26 MM plus two nets picks Jaylen Brown and Marcus Smart. In other words, we should be willing to pay Horford more money because it didn't cost assets to sign him.

That is just silly.  If Horford wasn't on the team now and Sullinger was brought back, how much better would Boston's record be really (let's assume Sully's freak foot injury doesn't happen, but it is Sully so he probably misses some games).  I mean 13-11 seems fairly reasonable with Sully.  So why should Boston overpay for someone that hasn't really altered the record all that much and doesn't make Boston a contender?  What if two max guys want to come here next summer, but Boston can only afford one because it overpaid for a guy who shouldn't have a max contract?  Also, by signing Horford, Boston is stuck with him.  I mean it can't trade him now or another free agent would never sign in Boston, so Boston now has to make moves that fit more in line with Horford's timeline.  Those moves might cause Boston to miss out on moves or players that might have formed the basis for a future championship team. 

Boston wasn't in a position to overpay for free agents last summer.  It just didn't make sense given the current makeup, financial and draft pick situation of the team last summer.

1. Sullinger's injury wasn't freak, he puts too much stress on his feet and has injured them before. Had we re-signed him he would be hurt and we would be in a much worse position. It's not a freak injury if it happens routinely.
2. Horford is still a big upgrade of Sully, just look at the plus minus with Horford on and off the court. He's not the problem.
3. The positive on/off indicates that the bench has been a bigger issue than Horford. I think we miss Turner a lot more than Sully, but I would never have wanted to give him what he got in Portland.
4. It's funny that people argue we should have saved the money for a better player when so many fans argued we would never sign a good free agent because we hadn't before.
5. We are more likely to be able to sign the superstar people want with Horford in the fold than by saving the space. What good free agents have signed to teams without big name players recently? Although the Horford signing gives less flexibility it increases the likelihood we are able to use future cap space on a star.
6. Starting an argument with "your argument is silly" is not a civil way to discuss things and I'd be more receptive to your point if you didn't do that.

Horford is taking up 26.5 million of the cap.  That money could have been put to better use on multiple players that actually alleviate the issues of the team i.e. rebounding, rim protection, bench.  Sullinger for example signed for 5.6 million.  Speights and Ezeli signed for less than 9 million combined. 

Boston is 8-6 with Horford, 5-5 without Horford (though just 3-5 in games that Crowder also missed and thus 2-0 in games Horford missed that Crowder played).

Boston was 14-10 through 24 games last year (though had some better health, including Sully who played in 81 games). 

This notion that overpaying for Horford was a great idea is just weird.  Sure, if Durant ended up here, then overpaying Horford made sense, but when Durant bailed it really didn't make sense to overpay Horford.  He didn't fit what this team was or had the potential to be. 

[GRADYCOLNON]

Don't get me wrong, I love Horford

But he isn't worth what we are paying him. This type of money should be reserved for alpha and beta players not super role players.  I'd have been more comfortable with 22M a year.  Just not a full 25% of cap player

He wouldn't be playing hear for $22 MM a year. If we passed on him to wait for a better player we would have been waiting a long time, considering he was the first major free agent to sign here.

Think of his contract not just in terms of dollars but in terms of acquisition cost. We signed him without giving up an asset where if we were to acquire a real alpha guy like you mentioned we would probably need to trade for him.

So it's not Horford at $26 vs a superstar at $ 26, but Horford at $26 or a superstar at $26 MM plus two nets picks Jaylen Brown and Marcus Smart. In other words, we should be willing to pay Horford more money because it didn't cost assets to sign him.

That is just silly.  If Horford wasn't on the team now and Sullinger was brought back, how much better would Boston's record be really (let's assume Sully's freak foot injury doesn't happen, but it is Sully so he probably misses some games).  I mean 13-11 seems fairly reasonable with Sully.  So why should Boston overpay for someone that hasn't really altered the record all that much and doesn't make Boston a contender?  What if two max guys want to come here next summer, but Boston can only afford one because it overpaid for a guy who shouldn't have a max contract?  Also, by signing Horford, Boston is stuck with him.  I mean it can't trade him now or another free agent would never sign in Boston, so Boston now has to make moves that fit more in line with Horford's timeline.  Those moves might cause Boston to miss out on moves or players that might have formed the basis for a future championship team. 

Boston wasn't in a position to overpay for free agents last summer.  It just didn't make sense given the current makeup, financial and draft pick situation of the team last summer.

1. Sullinger's injury wasn't freak, he puts too much stress on his feet and has injured them before. Had we re-signed him he would be hurt and we would be in a much worse position. It's not a freak injury if it happens routinely.
2. Horford is still a big upgrade of Sully, just look at the plus minus with Horford on and off the court. He's not the problem.
3. The positive on/off indicates that the bench has been a bigger issue than Horford. I think we miss Turner a lot more than Sully, but I would never have wanted to give him what he got in Portland.
4. It's funny that people argue we should have saved the money for a better player when so many fans argued we would never sign a good free agent because we hadn't before.
5. We are more likely to be able to sign the superstar people want with Horford in the fold than by saving the space. What good free agents have signed to teams without big name players recently? Although the Horford signing gives less flexibility it increases the likelihood we are able to use future cap space on a star.
6. Starting an argument with "your argument is silly" is not a civil way to discuss things and I'd be more receptive to your point if you didn't do that.

Horford is taking up 26.5 million of the cap.  That money could have been put to better use on multiple players that actually alleviate the issues of the team i.e. rebounding, rim protection, bench.  Sullinger for example signed for 5.6 million.  Speights and Ezeli signed for less than 9 million combined. 

Boston is 8-6 with Horford, 5-5 without Horford (though just 3-5 in games that Crowder also missed and thus 2-0 in games Horford missed that Crowder played).

Boston was 14-10 through 24 games last year (though had some better health, including Sully who played in 81 games). 

This notion that overpaying for Horford was a great idea is just weird.  Sure, if Durant ended up here, then overpaying Horford made sense, but when Durant bailed it really didn't make sense to overpay Horford.  He didn't fit what this team was or had the potential to be.

I agree with both of you are saying for the most part.  I was just wishing that the market wasn't forcing the Celtics to overpay for a role player.  He was definitely the guy we needed to sign as he fits all our schemes.  I just regret that he cost that much when it could've been spent more efficiently on future players like Thomas, Bradley or free agents in upcoming summer.  The loss to the Thunder highlighted that he isn't a player you can ask to go get you a bucket like traditional superstars and it didn't make sense to pay him like one. But hindsights 20/20. probably why Atlanta didn't pay him

[vjcsmoke]

Horford is a very good player.  But we never signed him to be the Alpha. 

This team's Alpha is IT, but IT is hurt.

When he comes back healthy, it will get better.

Boston still needs 1 more star who can take a closing seconds shot and then I think we will be very tough to beat.

Let's hope that Zizic becomes our Marc Gasol, That Yabu becomes our Charles Barkley, and JB becomes our version of Jimmy Butler.

If that is all true, add 1 clutch/star free agent and we're good to contend with the best of them.

I agree with both of you are saying for the most part.  I was just wishing that the market wasn't forcing the Celtics to overpay for a role player. He was definitely the guy we needed to sign as he fits all our schemes.  I just regret that he cost that much when it could've been spent more efficiently on future players like Thomas, Bradley or free agents in upcoming summer.  The loss to the Thunder highlighted that he isn't a player you can ask to go get you a bucket like traditional superstars and it didn't make sense to pay him like one. But hindsights 20/20. probably why Atlanta didn't pay him

Horford ain't a role player.  He's a bona fide 1st team starter and 4x all-star.
The only thing that Horford doesn't do great is rebound.  Every other skill he is pretty much top of the ladder for an NBA big.

Do I wish he was a game-changer like KG?  Of course I do, but those HOF types are one of a kind.  Horford still impacts the game in a lot of meaningful ways.  His ability to nail the open 3 forces spacing, and makes the defense defend us in a different way.

Bottom line Horford was the second best free agent available after Durant and we got our money's worth.  Do I understand he gets some criticism when he misses a bunny layup to lose us a game.  Sure.  that's fine.  But he's far from just a role player.  He would start as 1st choice big on any team in the NBA, and if that team already has an elite big, they'd love to play Horford next to that guy.

[GRADYCOLNON]

I agree with both of you are saying for the most part.  I was just wishing that the market wasn't forcing the Celtics to overpay for a role player. He was definitely the guy we needed to sign as he fits all our schemes.  I just regret that he cost that much when it could've been spent more efficiently on future players like Thomas, Bradley or free agents in upcoming summer.  The loss to the Thunder highlighted that he isn't a player you can ask to go get you a bucket like traditional superstars and it didn't make sense to pay him like one. But hindsights 20/20. probably why Atlanta didn't pay him

Horford ain't a role player.  He's a bona fide 1st team starter and 4x all-star.
The only thing that Horford doesn't do great is rebound.  Every other skill he is pretty much top of the ladder for an NBA big.

Do I wish he was a game-changer like KG?  Of course I do, but those HOF types are one of a kind.  Horford still impacts the game in a lot of meaningful ways.  His ability to nail the open 3 forces spacing, and makes the defense defend us in a different way.

Bottom line Horford was the second best free agent available after Durant and we got our money's worth.  Do I understand he gets some criticism when he misses a bunny layup to lose us a game.  Sure.  that's fine.  But he's far from just a role player.  He would start as 1st choice big on any team in the NBA, and if that team already has an elite big, they'd love to play Horford next to that guy.

Being a role player doesn't mean he isn't good. There are many greats that are role players especially in Celtics history.  But that doesn't mean we should've paid him the fourth highest contract in the league. If he was truly worth 26M+ then fans wouldn't be upset

[vjcsmoke]

Unfortunately in the NBA two dimes and a nickel don't add up to a quarter.  You're suggesting signing 2 less talented players would make a bigger impact than signing one Al Horford and in the NBA that rarely, read -never- turns out to be true.  True talent wins out.  Horford is a big piece for this team, he's just not the final piece.  And he's locked up long term so we have a window.

Do we need another star player, yes we do.
Is Horford a "closer" no he's not.
Let's not try to make him into what he's not.

And bringing up Sullinger as an example is laughable.  We know why he was -done- for Boston.  He was never coming back.  Horrible work ethic, always out of shape.  Just please don't even try that.

Horford is taking up 26.5 million of the cap.  That money could have been put to better use on multiple players that actually alleviate the issues of the team i.e. rebounding, rim protection, bench.  Sullinger for example signed for 5.6 million.  Speights and Ezeli signed for less than 9 million combined. 

Boston is 8-6 with Horford, 5-5 without Horford (though just 3-5 in games that Crowder also missed and thus 2-0 in games Horford missed that Crowder played).

Boston was 14-10 through 24 games last year (though had some better health, including Sully who played in 81 games). 

This notion that overpaying for Horford was a great idea is just weird.  Sure, if Durant ended up here, then overpaying Horford made sense, but when Durant bailed it really didn't make sense to overpay Horford.  He didn't fit what this team was or had the potential to be.

[celticsclay]

Don't get me wrong, I love Horford

But he isn't worth what we are paying him. This type of money should be reserved for alpha and beta players not super role players.  I'd have been more comfortable with 22M a year.  Just not a full 25% of cap player

He wouldn't be playing hear for $22 MM a year. If we passed on him to wait for a better player we would have been waiting a long time, considering he was the first major free agent to sign here.

Think of his contract not just in terms of dollars but in terms of acquisition cost. We signed him without giving up an asset where if we were to acquire a real alpha guy like you mentioned we would probably need to trade for him.

So it's not Horford at $26 vs a superstar at $ 26, but Horford at $26 or a superstar at $26 MM plus two nets picks Jaylen Brown and Marcus Smart. In other words, we should be willing to pay Horford more money because it didn't cost assets to sign him.

That is just silly.  If Horford wasn't on the team now and Sullinger was brought back, how much better would Boston's record be really (let's assume Sully's freak foot injury doesn't happen, but it is Sully so he probably misses some games).  I mean 13-11 seems fairly reasonable with Sully.  So why should Boston overpay for someone that hasn't really altered the record all that much and doesn't make Boston a contender?  What if two max guys want to come here next summer, but Boston can only afford one because it overpaid for a guy who shouldn't have a max contract?  Also, by signing Horford, Boston is stuck with him.  I mean it can't trade him now or another free agent would never sign in Boston, so Boston now has to make moves that fit more in line with Horford's timeline.  Those moves might cause Boston to miss out on moves or players that might have formed the basis for a future championship team. 

Boston wasn't in a position to overpay for free agents last summer.  It just didn't make sense given the current makeup, financial and draft pick situation of the team last summer.

1. Sullinger's injury wasn't freak, he puts too much stress on his feet and has injured them before. Had we re-signed him he would be hurt and we would be in a much worse position. It's not a freak injury if it happens routinely.
2. Horford is still a big upgrade of Sully, just look at the plus minus with Horford on and off the court. He's not the problem.
3. The positive on/off indicates that the bench has been a bigger issue than Horford. I think we miss Turner a lot more than Sully, but I would never have wanted to give him what he got in Portland.
4. It's funny that people argue we should have saved the money for a better player when so many fans argued we would never sign a good free agent because we hadn't before.
5. We are more likely to be able to sign the superstar people want with Horford in the fold than by saving the space. What good free agents have signed to teams without big name players recently? Although the Horford signing gives less flexibility it increases the likelihood we are able to use future cap space on a star.
6. Starting an argument with "your argument is silly" is not a civil way to discuss things and I'd be more receptive to your point if you didn't do that.

Horford is taking up 26.5 million of the cap.  That money could have been put to better use on multiple players that actually alleviate the issues of the team i.e. rebounding, rim protection, bench.  Sullinger for example signed for 5.6 million.  Speights and Ezeli signed for less than 9 million combined. 

Boston is 8-6 with Horford, 5-5 without Horford (though just 3-5 in games that Crowder also missed and thus 2-0 in games Horford missed that Crowder played).

Boston was 14-10 through 24 games last year (though had some better health, including Sully who played in 81 games). 

This notion that overpaying for Horford was a great idea is just weird.  Sure, if Durant ended up here, then overpaying Horford made sense, but when Durant bailed it really didn't make sense to overpay Horford.  He didn't fit what this team was or had the potential to be.

Are you seriously advocating we sign Ezeli and Sullinger/Speights instead of Horford? It is unknown when Ezeli will play and if he will ever be able to stay healthy (which was true when he was signed and why he was so cheap). Sullinger has constantly been injured so it is not surprising he is injured again. Though I disagree with you that it would be better to get 2 dimes and a nick for Horford, at the very least you chose truly horrible examples to illustrate your point.

[mctyson]

This is a ridiculous thread and that's all I wanted to say.

[Moranis]

Don't get me wrong, I love Horford

But he isn't worth what we are paying him. This type of money should be reserved for alpha and beta players not super role players.  I'd have been more comfortable with 22M a year.  Just not a full 25% of cap player

He wouldn't be playing hear for $22 MM a year. If we passed on him to wait for a better player we would have been waiting a long time, considering he was the first major free agent to sign here.

Think of his contract not just in terms of dollars but in terms of acquisition cost. We signed him without giving up an asset where if we were to acquire a real alpha guy like you mentioned we would probably need to trade for him.

So it's not Horford at $26 vs a superstar at $ 26, but Horford at $26 or a superstar at $26 MM plus two nets picks Jaylen Brown and Marcus Smart. In other words, we should be willing to pay Horford more money because it didn't cost assets to sign him.

That is just silly.  If Horford wasn't on the team now and Sullinger was brought back, how much better would Boston's record be really (let's assume Sully's freak foot injury doesn't happen, but it is Sully so he probably misses some games).  I mean 13-11 seems fairly reasonable with Sully.  So why should Boston overpay for someone that hasn't really altered the record all that much and doesn't make Boston a contender?  What if two max guys want to come here next summer, but Boston can only afford one because it overpaid for a guy who shouldn't have a max contract?  Also, by signing Horford, Boston is stuck with him.  I mean it can't trade him now or another free agent would never sign in Boston, so Boston now has to make moves that fit more in line with Horford's timeline.  Those moves might cause Boston to miss out on moves or players that might have formed the basis for a future championship team. 

Boston wasn't in a position to overpay for free agents last summer.  It just didn't make sense given the current makeup, financial and draft pick situation of the team last summer.

1. Sullinger's injury wasn't freak, he puts too much stress on his feet and has injured them before. Had we re-signed him he would be hurt and we would be in a much worse position. It's not a freak injury if it happens routinely.
2. Horford is still a big upgrade of Sully, just look at the plus minus with Horford on and off the court. He's not the problem.
3. The positive on/off indicates that the bench has been a bigger issue than Horford. I think we miss Turner a lot more than Sully, but I would never have wanted to give him what he got in Portland.
4. It's funny that people argue we should have saved the money for a better player when so many fans argued we would never sign a good free agent because we hadn't before.
5. We are more likely to be able to sign the superstar people want with Horford in the fold than by saving the space. What good free agents have signed to teams without big name players recently? Although the Horford signing gives less flexibility it increases the likelihood we are able to use future cap space on a star.
6. Starting an argument with "your argument is silly" is not a civil way to discuss things and I'd be more receptive to your point if you didn't do that.

Horford is taking up 26.5 million of the cap.  That money could have been put to better use on multiple players that actually alleviate the issues of the team i.e. rebounding, rim protection, bench.  Sullinger for example signed for 5.6 million.  Speights and Ezeli signed for less than 9 million combined. 

Boston is 8-6 with Horford, 5-5 without Horford (though just 3-5 in games that Crowder also missed and thus 2-0 in games Horford missed that Crowder played).

Boston was 14-10 through 24 games last year (though had some better health, including Sully who played in 81 games). 

This notion that overpaying for Horford was a great idea is just weird.  Sure, if Durant ended up here, then overpaying Horford made sense, but when Durant bailed it really didn't make sense to overpay Horford.  He didn't fit what this team was or had the potential to be.

Are you seriously advocating we sign Ezeli and Sullinger/Speights instead of Horford? It is unknown when Ezeli will play and if he will ever be able to stay healthy (which was true when he was signed and why he was so cheap). Sullinger has constantly been injured so it is not surprising he is injured again. Though I disagree with you that it would be better to get 2 dimes and a nick for Horford, at the very least you chose truly horrible examples to illustrate your point.

Boston was 14-10 with sullinger last year as the starting center.  Is the 13-11 this year worth well over 100 million over the next 4 seasons for a player past his prime?  Giving Horford that kind of money didn't make sense for a team that didn't sign Kevin Durant also. Giving a guy that has all the same strengths and all the same weaknesses as your team that kind money didn't make sense.  Giving a guy who doesn't fit in the same age time frame as the rest of your team that kind of money didn't make sense. And most importantly locking a player into a maximum contract who is not a difference maker and when you don't have a difference maker on your team didn't make sense.

Overpaying for Horford this past summer almost certainly requires Boston to trade prime assets to go into a win now phase.  Boston can't trade vets and can't stand Pat or it makes the Horford signing even worse.

Given the context of the team signing Horford to that type of contract just didn't make sense and still doesn't.

[Csfan1984]

I was very against signing Horford without signing KD but he has been very good overall. Had this team been healthy it would be in a lot  better shape. Let's not dismiss the injuries please. Now did we over pay? Of course we did every team must to aquire a top 10 FA. Just look at what Turner got. Let's not hold Horford to that 26 million dollar contract. He is a legit top 3 player on a championship team. That's what C's paid for and what he has shown to me so far.

[celticsclay]

Don't get me wrong, I love Horford

But he isn't worth what we are paying him. This type of money should be reserved for alpha and beta players not super role players.  I'd have been more comfortable with 22M a year.  Just not a full 25% of cap player

He wouldn't be playing hear for $22 MM a year. If we passed on him to wait for a better player we would have been waiting a long time, considering he was the first major free agent to sign here.

Think of his contract not just in terms of dollars but in terms of acquisition cost. We signed him without giving up an asset where if we were to acquire a real alpha guy like you mentioned we would probably need to trade for him.

So it's not Horford at $26 vs a superstar at $ 26, but Horford at $26 or a superstar at $26 MM plus two nets picks Jaylen Brown and Marcus Smart. In other words, we should be willing to pay Horford more money because it didn't cost assets to sign him.

That is just silly.  If Horford wasn't on the team now and Sullinger was brought back, how much better would Boston's record be really (let's assume Sully's freak foot injury doesn't happen, but it is Sully so he probably misses some games).  I mean 13-11 seems fairly reasonable with Sully.  So why should Boston overpay for someone that hasn't really altered the record all that much and doesn't make Boston a contender?  What if two max guys want to come here next summer, but Boston can only afford one because it overpaid for a guy who shouldn't have a max contract?  Also, by signing Horford, Boston is stuck with him.  I mean it can't trade him now or another free agent would never sign in Boston, so Boston now has to make moves that fit more in line with Horford's timeline.  Those moves might cause Boston to miss out on moves or players that might have formed the basis for a future championship team. 

Boston wasn't in a position to overpay for free agents last summer.  It just didn't make sense given the current makeup, financial and draft pick situation of the team last summer.

1. Sullinger's injury wasn't freak, he puts too much stress on his feet and has injured them before. Had we re-signed him he would be hurt and we would be in a much worse position. It's not a freak injury if it happens routinely.
2. Horford is still a big upgrade of Sully, just look at the plus minus with Horford on and off the court. He's not the problem.
3. The positive on/off indicates that the bench has been a bigger issue than Horford. I think we miss Turner a lot more than Sully, but I would never have wanted to give him what he got in Portland.
4. It's funny that people argue we should have saved the money for a better player when so many fans argued we would never sign a good free agent because we hadn't before.
5. We are more likely to be able to sign the superstar people want with Horford in the fold than by saving the space. What good free agents have signed to teams without big name players recently? Although the Horford signing gives less flexibility it increases the likelihood we are able to use future cap space on a star.
6. Starting an argument with "your argument is silly" is not a civil way to discuss things and I'd be more receptive to your point if you didn't do that.

Horford is taking up 26.5 million of the cap.  That money could have been put to better use on multiple players that actually alleviate the issues of the team i.e. rebounding, rim protection, bench.  Sullinger for example signed for 5.6 million.  Speights and Ezeli signed for less than 9 million combined. 

Boston is 8-6 with Horford, 5-5 without Horford (though just 3-5 in games that Crowder also missed and thus 2-0 in games Horford missed that Crowder played).

Boston was 14-10 through 24 games last year (though had some better health, including Sully who played in 81 games). 

This notion that overpaying for Horford was a great idea is just weird.  Sure, if Durant ended up here, then overpaying Horford made sense, but when Durant bailed it really didn't make sense to overpay Horford.  He didn't fit what this team was or had the potential to be.

Are you seriously advocating we sign Ezeli and Sullinger/Speights instead of Horford? It is unknown when Ezeli will play and if he will ever be able to stay healthy (which was true when he was signed and why he was so cheap). Sullinger has constantly been injured so it is not surprising he is injured again. Though I disagree with you that it would be better to get 2 dimes and a nick for Horford, at the very least you chose truly horrible examples to illustrate your point.

Boston was 14-10 with sullinger last year as the starting center.  Is the 13-11 this year worth well over 100 million over the next 4 seasons for a player past his prime?  Giving Horford that kind of money didn't make sense for a team that didn't sign Kevin Durant also. Giving a guy that has all the same strengths and all the same weaknesses as your team that kind money didn't make sense.  Giving a guy who doesn't fit in the same age time frame as the rest of your team that kind of money didn't make sense. And most importantly locking a player into a maximum contract who is not a difference maker and when you don't have a difference maker on your team didn't make sense.

Overpaying for Horford this past summer almost certainly requires Boston to trade prime assets to go into a win now phase.  Boston can't trade vets and can't stand Pat or it makes the Horford signing even worse.

Given the context of the team signing Horford to that type of contract just didn't make sense and still doesn't.

you at this 14-10 stat. If it was great why did we not even bother to play him in the playoffs? Lol seriously

[trickybilly]

Speaking of expensive players, Evan Turner showed why Portland threw all that cash at him. Controlled the game like last year..

[moiso]

If you can sign a very good team first allstar like Horford without giving anything up, you sign him.  No questions asked.  I don't even know why we are talking about this.  We didn't give anything up and now have an extra allstar on the Celtics.  This is crazy talk.

Players are more likely to come to the Celtics with Horford than they are to come to the Celtics without Horford.

The timeline stuff isn't legit either.  Since when are the players on great teams all the same age?  Tim Duncan and Leonard weren't on the same timeline so I guess they should give back one of their titles

Signing Horford does not mean we have to win now.  We can still build through the young guys and the draft if no superstar becomes available.  Horford is an asset and a good influence on the young guys.

Plus a guy like Horford shows the young guys how to play the right way.  A guy like Cousins or Howard would not do that.

If Ainge failed to sign a decent free agent, half the people here would be whining.  If he traded some good players/draft picks for a different allstar, 3/4 of the people on here would be whining.  Ainge can't win with you guys.  Everyone on Celticsblog would make a better GM than Ainge.

[Celtics4ever]

Boston was 14-10 through 24 games last year (though had some better health, including Sully who played in 81 games). 

If we relied on Sully, he would not be playing right now, so your argument is beyond silly.   How many games has he played for Toronto this year?   None, due to a foot surgery.  And for you to present that he played in 81 games ignore the fact, that he was largely useless after mid April and a complete non factor in the playoffs due to letting himself go once again.  If we kept as you suggest we would be playing Zeller at C because Sully would be not able to play for us.   Somehow, I do not think that makes us better.

I dare you to send in that question to comcast sports, would we be better with Sully than Horford?   So they can laugh at that proposition.   Guys might come here to play with Horford, the only pro that Sullinger would attract is Joey Chestnut!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szgd71BoeA4


CBS likes where we are going, you never hear him lament losing Sully.  We are getting better and will continue to improve.   Other teams are not taking right now.


NOW
Offensive Rating   105.5 (9th)
Defensive Rating   101.2 (5th)
Net Rating      +4.3 (8th)
Rebound %      48.8 (25th)


It is clear we miss Sully's Rebounds but we would never be up there in Offensive Rating with his poor shooting and penchant for shooting threes he does not.   Keep in mind we are playing without our best player the last few games.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724680/brad-stevens-says-celtics-are-in-a-better-place-now