We aren't very good without Horford

[Chris22]

Horford is our most valuable player.

[vgulab]

He impacts the game on both sides. His numbers are not the best but is our best big and improves our defense and offense

[Moranis]

Well yeah, but a lot of that is who is playing instead of Horford, especially with Amir and KO in foul trouble. 

[Chris22]

Well yeah, but a lot of that is who is playing instead of Horford, especially with Amir and KO in foul trouble.

True, but look at our record without Horford, we completely collapse.

[green_bballers13]

Not a shocker that a rebuilding team would need their most expensive player.

What shocks me is how Danny hasn't filled in some of the problems relating to defense/rebounding down low.

They should have gone after Bogut or someone similar (Tyson Chandler).

[Moranis]

Well yeah, but a lot of that is who is playing instead of Horford, especially with Amir and KO in foul trouble.

True, but look at our record without Horford, we completely collapse.

because we have no front court depth.  If you took Horford's 28 million and used it on 3 useful front court players that were all individually worse than Horford but in the same general skill range as Amir and KO (but maybe a defensive guy, a rebounder, and a jack of all trades guy), would the team be better or worse?  That has always been the issue I've had with the Horford signing.  He is a very strong all around player, but he isn't elite and by giving him all this money, Boston gave up a lot of flexibility both long and short term. 

[RockinRyA]

Well yeah, but a lot of that is who is playing instead of Horford, especially with Amir and KO in foul trouble.

True, but look at our record without Horford, we completely collapse.

because we have no front court depth.  If you took Horford's 28 million and used it on 3 useful front court players that were all individually worse than Horford but in the same general skill range as Amir and KO (but maybe a defensive guy, a rebounder, and a jack of all trades guy), would the team be better or worse?  That has always been the issue I've had with the Horford signing.  He is a very strong all around player, but he isn't elite and by giving him all this money, Boston gave up a lot of flexibility both long and short term.

Aw come on, you can't be serious?! Last thing we need is more players! We need to consolidate in fact. You are just hating on Horford.

[Surferdad]

Well yeah, but a lot of that is who is playing instead of Horford, especially with Amir and KO in foul trouble.

True, but look at our record without Horford, we completely collapse.

because we have no front court depth.  If you took Horford's 28 million and used it on 3 useful front court players that were all individually worse than Horford but in the same general skill range as Amir and KO (but maybe a defensive guy, a rebounder, and a jack of all trades guy), would the team be better or worse?  That has always been the issue I've had with the Horford signing.  He is a very strong all around player, but he isn't elite and by giving him all this money, Boston gave up a lot of flexibility both long and short term.

(1) The team would be worse and (2) Boston did NOT give up flexibility. 

The teams with the best players are the most successful in today's NBA.  Keep in mind that the plan was apparently to sign BOTH Horford and Durant, so Horford does not limit's the ability to sign a second all-star.  This will be even more favorable after this season when many players could potentially come off the books.  Ainge did not give up flexibility.

[Moranis]

Well yeah, but a lot of that is who is playing instead of Horford, especially with Amir and KO in foul trouble.

True, but look at our record without Horford, we completely collapse.

because we have no front court depth.  If you took Horford's 28 million and used it on 3 useful front court players that were all individually worse than Horford but in the same general skill range as Amir and KO (but maybe a defensive guy, a rebounder, and a jack of all trades guy), would the team be better or worse?  That has always been the issue I've had with the Horford signing.  He is a very strong all around player, but he isn't elite and by giving him all this money, Boston gave up a lot of flexibility both long and short term.

(1) The team would be worse and (2) Boston did NOT give up flexibility. 

The teams with the best players are the most successful in today's NBA.  Keep in mind that the plan was apparently to sign BOTH Horford and Durant, so Horford does not limit's the ability to sign a second all-star.  This will be even more favorable after this season when many players could potentially come off the books.  Ainge did not give up flexibility.

Horford is great next to Durant, but when Durant bailed the Horford signing became a lot more problematic.  Without Horford, Boston could have enough room for 2 max contracts this summer or could have acquired players at the deadline and still had room for 1 max contract this summer.  Boston could have signed any combination of players that could have resolved a lot of the interior problems on the team, i.e. rebounding, shot blocking, and depth. 

[incoherent]

Not a shocker that a rebuilding team would need their most expensive player.

What shocks me is how Danny hasn't filled in some of the problems relating to defense/rebounding down low.

They should have gone after Bogut or someone similar (Tyson Chandler).

Its not shocking that the GM didnt hurt our future on a rebuilding team for short-sighted fix this season.

[hpantazo]

Not a shocker that a rebuilding team would need their most expensive player.

What shocks me is how Danny hasn't filled in some of the problems relating to defense/rebounding down low.

They should have gone after Bogut or someone similar (Tyson Chandler).

We did go after Bogut, he passed on us, and we are lucky he did.

[wdleehi]

Not a shocker that a rebuilding team would need their most expensive player.

What shocks me is how Danny hasn't filled in some of the problems relating to defense/rebounding down low.

They should have gone after Bogut or someone similar (Tyson Chandler).

It really depends on what they would have wanted for Bogut in a trade and was it worth the long term loss.


As for Chandler, that contract is a long term loss. 

[mctyson]

Well yeah, but a lot of that is who is playing instead of Horford, especially with Amir and KO in foul trouble.

True, but look at our record without Horford, we completely collapse.

because we have no front court depth.  If you took Horford's 28 million and used it on 3 useful front court players that were all individually worse than Horford but in the same general skill range as Amir and KO (but maybe a defensive guy, a rebounder, and a jack of all trades guy), would the team be better or worse?  That has always been the issue I've had with the Horford signing.  He is a very strong all around player, but he isn't elite and by giving him all this money, Boston gave up a lot of flexibility both long and short term.

So you want to be last year's team?

[Rosco917]

True enough we're not very good without Horford, he's our best passer, I guess our best rebounder, he provides rim protection, and a good team player that plays the game the right way.

But the truth is this team is so lacking at the Center/Power Forward position any of our bigs that is out due to injury causes real problems for us.

[chilidawg]

28 million on 3 guys gets you Amir, KO, and Jerebko.  Not seeing how that helps.

For a good part of the game last night I thought we played really well, great ball movement and defense.  We just couldn't hit wide open shots.  Then Crawford got hot and things fell apart.  Horford certainly would have helped, but sometimes **** just happens.