Horford

[Erik]

Let’s also be honest... our true window of title contention probably starts after Horford comes off the books and we go into luxury tax.

Without Horford, no way the Celtics wouldn't get where they were right now.

I think you mean "no way the Celtics would get to where they are right now." And yes, obviously I agree. I don't think that you can find anyone that considers Al Horford a net negative when he's actually probably the most important player in our rotation. It also wasn't the point of my post. My post meant that the final form will be when Al Horford's contract gets replaced by a superstar, Tatum and Brown grow up, and Kyrie reaches his prime. About 2-3 years. Ideally he does us a solid and resigns at a heavy discount.

[kozlodoev]

If you are so dissatisfied with Horford (and his "poor" 13-7-5 line in ratio with his 30m salary),
how come I never see some ecstatic T-Roz thread backed up by the same logic where he extremely outplayed his money - scoring more than 2 ppg per mil of salary).

I don't  care about his stat line. But I expect max players to be able to carry you on their back when you struggle to win games -- and Al Horford is the least impactful max player in this respect that I've seen recently.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

If you are so dissatisfied with Horford (and his "poor" 13-7-5 line in ratio with his 30m salary),
how come I never see some ecstatic T-Roz thread backed up by the same logic where he extremely outplayed his money - scoring more than 2 ppg per mil of salary).

I don't  care about his stat line. But I expect max players to be able to carry you on their back when you struggle to win games -- and Al Horford is the least impactful max player in this respect that I've seen recently.

Anyone who thinks he is the least impactful max player in the NBA doesn't really get how smart players make an impact on a basketball game.

Andrew Wiggins? Paul Milsap? Blake Griffin? Kyle Lowry? Mike Conley? Jrue Holliday? Otto Porter? Andre Drummond? Hassan Whiteside? Steven Adams? Chandler Parsons? Harrison Barnes? Nic Batum?

That's 13 players that are max or near max players. I'll take Horford's impact over all of them.

[kozlodoev]

If you are so dissatisfied with Horford (and his "poor" 13-7-5 line in ratio with his 30m salary),
how come I never see some ecstatic T-Roz thread backed up by the same logic where he extremely outplayed his money - scoring more than 2 ppg per mil of salary).

I don't  care about his stat line. But I expect max players to be able to carry you on their back when you struggle to win games -- and Al Horford is the least impactful max player in this respect that I've seen recently.

Anyone who thinks he is the least impactful max player in the NBA doesn't really get how smart players make an impact on a basketball game.

Andrew Wiggins? Paul Milsap? Blake Griffin? Kyle Lowry? Mike Conley? Jrue Holliday? Otto Porter? Andre Drummond? Hassan Whiteside? Steven Adams? Chandler Parsons? Harrison Barnes? Nic Batum?

That's 13 players that are max or near max players. I'll take Horford's impact over all of them.

Ok. "One of the least impactful", is that better?

Also, it's funny you'd put Batum on this list, given that he's essentially the SF version of Al Horford.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

If you are so dissatisfied with Horford (and his "poor" 13-7-5 line in ratio with his 30m salary),
how come I never see some ecstatic T-Roz thread backed up by the same logic where he extremely outplayed his money - scoring more than 2 ppg per mil of salary).

I don't  care about his stat line. But I expect max players to be able to carry you on their back when you struggle to win games -- and Al Horford is the least impactful max player in this respect that I've seen recently.

Anyone who thinks he is the least impactful max player in the NBA doesn't really get how smart players make an impact on a basketball game.

Andrew Wiggins? Paul Milsap? Blake Griffin? Kyle Lowry? Mike Conley? Jrue Holliday? Otto Porter? Andre Drummond? Hassan Whiteside? Steven Adams? Chandler Parsons? Harrison Barnes? Nic Batum?

That's 13 players that are max or near max players. I'll take Horford's impact over all of them.

Ok. "One of the least impactful", is that better?

Also, it's funny you'd put Batum on this list, given that he's essentially the SF version of Al Horford.

That list was taken from https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html

That was 13 of the top 40. Bosh and Hayward were two others on this list. Reddick, Anthony, Howard, Gasol, Jordan, Kanter, and Gallinari were also part of the top 20 that i wouldn't take over Horford.

That's 22 of the top 40 paid players in the NBA that I wouldn't take before Horford. Even if you would take a couple of those guys (and I'd argue you shouldn't), at worst, that makes him an above average (by definition 22 of 40 is above average) value for his contract.

That isn't talking about other guys: Aldridge, DeRozan, McCullom, Love, and Oladipo.

He is not one of the worst big (or max) contracts in the NBA. Obviously, it'd be amazing to have a Lebron James, or Curry, or Durant with every max contract. Not only is that not realistic, but it isn't necessary when building a team, especially when you have multiple future max contracts being developed on your team on rookie contracts.

Horford is good value, especially when you consider his history at making guards that play next to him more efficient (Teague, Shroeder, Thomas, Irving, and Rozier).

[Moranis]

If you are so dissatisfied with Horford (and his "poor" 13-7-5 line in ratio with his 30m salary),
how come I never see some ecstatic T-Roz thread backed up by the same logic where he extremely outplayed his money - scoring more than 2 ppg per mil of salary).

I don't  care about his stat line. But I expect max players to be able to carry you on their back when you struggle to win games -- and Al Horford is the least impactful max player in this respect that I've seen recently.

Anyone who thinks he is the least impactful max player in the NBA doesn't really get how smart players make an impact on a basketball game.

Andrew Wiggins? Paul Milsap? Blake Griffin? Kyle Lowry? Mike Conley? Jrue Holliday? Otto Porter? Andre Drummond? Hassan Whiteside? Steven Adams? Chandler Parsons? Harrison Barnes? Nic Batum?

That's 13 players that are max or near max players. I'll take Horford's impact over all of them.

Ok. "One of the least impactful", is that better?

Also, it's funny you'd put Batum on this list, given that he's essentially the SF version of Al Horford.

That list was taken from https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html

That was 13 of the top 40. Bosh and Hayward were two others on this list. Reddick, Anthony, Howard, Gasol, Jordan, Kanter, and Gallinari were also part of the top 20 that i wouldn't take over Horford.

That's 22 of the top 40 paid players in the NBA that I wouldn't take before Horford. Even if you would take a couple of those guys (and I'd argue you shouldn't), at worst, that makes him an above average (by definition 22 of 40 is above average) value for his contract.

That isn't talking about other guys: Aldridge, DeRozan, McCullom, Love, and Oladipo.

He is not one of the worst big (or max) contracts in the NBA. Obviously, it'd be amazing to have a Lebron James, or Curry, or Durant with every max contract. Not only is that not realistic, but it isn't necessary when building a team, especially when you have multiple future max contracts being developed on your team on rookie contracts.

Horford is good value, especially when you consider his history at making guards that play next to him more efficient (Teague, Shroeder, Thomas, Irving, and Rozier).

of course not all max contracts are equal.  There is a big difference between 25%, 30%, and 35% of the cap. 

The way I look at it, Horford is not anywhere near the 11th best player in the NBA and thus he is pretty clearly overpaid since he has the 11th biggest salary this year.  And I'm not suggesting that if Horford was the 12th best player he would be overpaid, but I don't consider Horford a top 20 player in the league, and thus he is overpaid.  He isn't overpaid like Batum, but that doesn't mean he isn't overpaid. 

[DefenseWinsChamps]

If you are so dissatisfied with Horford (and his "poor" 13-7-5 line in ratio with his 30m salary),
how come I never see some ecstatic T-Roz thread backed up by the same logic where he extremely outplayed his money - scoring more than 2 ppg per mil of salary).

I don't  care about his stat line. But I expect max players to be able to carry you on their back when you struggle to win games -- and Al Horford is the least impactful max player in this respect that I've seen recently.

Anyone who thinks he is the least impactful max player in the NBA doesn't really get how smart players make an impact on a basketball game.

Andrew Wiggins? Paul Milsap? Blake Griffin? Kyle Lowry? Mike Conley? Jrue Holliday? Otto Porter? Andre Drummond? Hassan Whiteside? Steven Adams? Chandler Parsons? Harrison Barnes? Nic Batum?

That's 13 players that are max or near max players. I'll take Horford's impact over all of them.

Ok. "One of the least impactful", is that better?

Also, it's funny you'd put Batum on this list, given that he's essentially the SF version of Al Horford.

That list was taken from https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html

That was 13 of the top 40. Bosh and Hayward were two others on this list. Reddick, Anthony, Howard, Gasol, Jordan, Kanter, and Gallinari were also part of the top 20 that i wouldn't take over Horford.

That's 22 of the top 40 paid players in the NBA that I wouldn't take before Horford. Even if you would take a couple of those guys (and I'd argue you shouldn't), at worst, that makes him an above average (by definition 22 of 40 is above average) value for his contract.

That isn't talking about other guys: Aldridge, DeRozan, McCullom, Love, and Oladipo.

He is not one of the worst big (or max) contracts in the NBA. Obviously, it'd be amazing to have a Lebron James, or Curry, or Durant with every max contract. Not only is that not realistic, but it isn't necessary when building a team, especially when you have multiple future max contracts being developed on your team on rookie contracts.

Horford is good value, especially when you consider his history at making guards that play next to him more efficient (Teague, Shroeder, Thomas, Irving, and Rozier).

of course not all max contracts are equal.  There is a big difference between 25%, 30%, and 35% of the cap. 

The way I look at it, Horford is not anywhere near the 11th best player in the NBA and thus he is pretty clearly overpaid since he has the 11th biggest salary this year.  And I'm not suggesting that if Horford was the 12th best player he would be overpaid, but I don't consider Horford a top 20 player in the league, and thus he is overpaid.  He isn't overpaid like Batum, but that doesn't mean he isn't overpaid.

That's one way to look at it, if you want to look at it in the most negative light.

The other way is to consider the top 40 paid players in the NBA, and realize you would take Horford over at least 20 of them (maybe more). Thus, he is not overpaid.

[Moranis]

If you are so dissatisfied with Horford (and his "poor" 13-7-5 line in ratio with his 30m salary),
how come I never see some ecstatic T-Roz thread backed up by the same logic where he extremely outplayed his money - scoring more than 2 ppg per mil of salary).

I don't  care about his stat line. But I expect max players to be able to carry you on their back when you struggle to win games -- and Al Horford is the least impactful max player in this respect that I've seen recently.

Anyone who thinks he is the least impactful max player in the NBA doesn't really get how smart players make an impact on a basketball game.

Andrew Wiggins? Paul Milsap? Blake Griffin? Kyle Lowry? Mike Conley? Jrue Holliday? Otto Porter? Andre Drummond? Hassan Whiteside? Steven Adams? Chandler Parsons? Harrison Barnes? Nic Batum?

That's 13 players that are max or near max players. I'll take Horford's impact over all of them.

Ok. "One of the least impactful", is that better?

Also, it's funny you'd put Batum on this list, given that he's essentially the SF version of Al Horford.

That list was taken from https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html

That was 13 of the top 40. Bosh and Hayward were two others on this list. Reddick, Anthony, Howard, Gasol, Jordan, Kanter, and Gallinari were also part of the top 20 that i wouldn't take over Horford.

That's 22 of the top 40 paid players in the NBA that I wouldn't take before Horford. Even if you would take a couple of those guys (and I'd argue you shouldn't), at worst, that makes him an above average (by definition 22 of 40 is above average) value for his contract.

That isn't talking about other guys: Aldridge, DeRozan, McCullom, Love, and Oladipo.

He is not one of the worst big (or max) contracts in the NBA. Obviously, it'd be amazing to have a Lebron James, or Curry, or Durant with every max contract. Not only is that not realistic, but it isn't necessary when building a team, especially when you have multiple future max contracts being developed on your team on rookie contracts.

Horford is good value, especially when you consider his history at making guards that play next to him more efficient (Teague, Shroeder, Thomas, Irving, and Rozier).

of course not all max contracts are equal.  There is a big difference between 25%, 30%, and 35% of the cap. 

The way I look at it, Horford is not anywhere near the 11th best player in the NBA and thus he is pretty clearly overpaid since he has the 11th biggest salary this year.  And I'm not suggesting that if Horford was the 12th best player he would be overpaid, but I don't consider Horford a top 20 player in the league, and thus he is overpaid.  He isn't overpaid like Batum, but that doesn't mean he isn't overpaid.

That's one way to look at it, if you want to look at it in the most negative light.

The other way is to consider the top 40 paid players in the NBA, and realize you would take Horford over at least 20 of them (maybe more). Thus, he is not overpaid.

Of course Paul George is 43rd, Jimmy Butler is 45th, Kawhi Leonard is 47th, Kyrie Irving is 48th, John Wall is 49th, Demarcus Cousins is 50th, Klay Thompson is 53rd, Draymond Green is 65th.  Then you have all the rookie contract players like Embiid, Porzingis, Towns.  And then you have the guys who are arguably in Horford's class (or at least not gigantic drop offs), but that make so much less they are way more value for the dollar, guys like Goran Dragic at 17 million this year as an example.  Or Pau Gasol at 16 million.  Or Khris Middleton at 14 million.  Or Eric Gordon at 13 million.  Heck even if you think Horford is better than someone like Oladipo, I'd rather have Oladipo at exactly 21 million over the next couple of seasons than the increasing contract that is Horford over that same time.  That savings could be the difference between keeping both Smart and Monroe or losing at least 1 if not both of them. 

[DefenseWinsChamps]

If you are so dissatisfied with Horford (and his "poor" 13-7-5 line in ratio with his 30m salary),
how come I never see some ecstatic T-Roz thread backed up by the same logic where he extremely outplayed his money - scoring more than 2 ppg per mil of salary).

I don't  care about his stat line. But I expect max players to be able to carry you on their back when you struggle to win games -- and Al Horford is the least impactful max player in this respect that I've seen recently.

Anyone who thinks he is the least impactful max player in the NBA doesn't really get how smart players make an impact on a basketball game.

Andrew Wiggins? Paul Milsap? Blake Griffin? Kyle Lowry? Mike Conley? Jrue Holliday? Otto Porter? Andre Drummond? Hassan Whiteside? Steven Adams? Chandler Parsons? Harrison Barnes? Nic Batum?

That's 13 players that are max or near max players. I'll take Horford's impact over all of them.

Ok. "One of the least impactful", is that better?

Also, it's funny you'd put Batum on this list, given that he's essentially the SF version of Al Horford.

That list was taken from https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html

That was 13 of the top 40. Bosh and Hayward were two others on this list. Reddick, Anthony, Howard, Gasol, Jordan, Kanter, and Gallinari were also part of the top 20 that i wouldn't take over Horford.

That's 22 of the top 40 paid players in the NBA that I wouldn't take before Horford. Even if you would take a couple of those guys (and I'd argue you shouldn't), at worst, that makes him an above average (by definition 22 of 40 is above average) value for his contract.

That isn't talking about other guys: Aldridge, DeRozan, McCullom, Love, and Oladipo.

He is not one of the worst big (or max) contracts in the NBA. Obviously, it'd be amazing to have a Lebron James, or Curry, or Durant with every max contract. Not only is that not realistic, but it isn't necessary when building a team, especially when you have multiple future max contracts being developed on your team on rookie contracts.

Horford is good value, especially when you consider his history at making guards that play next to him more efficient (Teague, Shroeder, Thomas, Irving, and Rozier).

of course not all max contracts are equal.  There is a big difference between 25%, 30%, and 35% of the cap. 

The way I look at it, Horford is not anywhere near the 11th best player in the NBA and thus he is pretty clearly overpaid since he has the 11th biggest salary this year.  And I'm not suggesting that if Horford was the 12th best player he would be overpaid, but I don't consider Horford a top 20 player in the league, and thus he is overpaid.  He isn't overpaid like Batum, but that doesn't mean he isn't overpaid.

That's one way to look at it, if you want to look at it in the most negative light.

The other way is to consider the top 40 paid players in the NBA, and realize you would take Horford over at least 20 of them (maybe more). Thus, he is not overpaid.

Of course Paul George is 43rd, Jimmy Butler is 45th, Kawhi Leonard is 47th, Kyrie Irving is 48th, John Wall is 49th, Demarcus Cousins is 50th, Klay Thompson is 53rd, Draymond Green is 65th.  Then you have all the rookie contract players like Embiid, Porzingis, Towns.  And then you have the guys who are arguably in Horford's class (or at least not gigantic drop offs), but that make so much less they are way more value for the dollar, guys like Goran Dragic at 17 million this year as an example.  Or Pau Gasol at 16 million.  Or Khris Middleton at 14 million.  Or Eric Gordon at 13 million.  Heck even if you think Horford is better than someone like Oladipo, I'd rather have Oladipo at exactly 21 million over the next couple of seasons than the increasing contract that is Horford over that same time.  That savings could be the difference between keeping both Smart and Monroe or losing at least 1 if not both of them.

Again, that's one way to look at it. I wouldn't take many of them over Horford. I don't think CBS or Ainge would either, otherwise they wouldn't have signed him.

That's beside the point. The question was whether or not Horford was one of the least impactful max contracts in the NBA. I argued that he is probably around 20-25th most impactful out of the top 40 biggest contracts in the NBA. Therefore, by definition, he is not one of the least impactful. He is in the median or average.

[Donoghus]

This is really coming down to silly semantics now, isn't it?

Horford is arguably the 2nd most important basketball player on this team right now.  They're currently a 2 seed with a realistic chance of making the NBA Finals this year. He was an All Star this season and played a vital role on a team that went to the conference finals last year.  His signing with the team can certainly be argued to help set things in motion regarding the Irving & Hayward acquisitions.  He plays both ends of the court (one end which is tougher to quantify than the other) and, by most accounts, is an excellent teammate.  Yet, people want to harp on his salary? 

[Roy H.]

It cracks me up that there’s this much debate over an All-Star who has easily been a top-10 defender.

I mean, sure, we could have signed Nic Batum, or a combination of Evan Turner and Timofey Mozgov, or maybe a Chandler Parsons / Matt Delladoeva duo. Luol Deng and John Leuer?

http://www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/nba/2016/6/30/12052290/nba-free-agent-signings-tracker-2016-rumors

I’m happy with Horford.

[Tr1boy]

It does come down to the Salary with Horford

Due to his max salary , it is going to cause issues to retain Marcus Smart next season and beyond. 

It will cause problems to retain Terry Rozier the year after as well


IF Horford lived up to his salary ....it would be less painful to let one or both of these key role players to walk.

But thats not the case.   Horford can't makeup for even the loss of Smart as it was witnessed prior to the all star break

If it came down to keeping Smart at 15 million a season, saving 15 million vs keeping Horford.  I'm taking the 1st option

[green_bballers13]

It cracks me up that there’s this much debate over an All-Star who has easily been a top-10 defender.

I mean, sure, we could have signed Nic Batum, or a combination of Evan Turner and Timofey Mozgov, or maybe a Chandler Parsons / Matt Delladoeva duo. Luol Deng and John Leuer?

http://www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/nba/2016/6/30/12052290/nba-free-agent-signings-tracker-2016-rumors

I’m happy with Horford.

No kidding. I don't get the anti-Horford stuff. Yeah, he's not flashy and doesn't have the stats, but he's a good player. He made a ton of $. There are other good, not great players that will get paid in the future. It happens. Danny has enough young guys that he's not paying much, so the opportunity cost of his big contract is decreased a little. He doesn't have that many years left on his contract. He's fine, the Celtics will be fine, no need to freak out over Horford. The young guys should be the focus of anxiety (for those looking to worry about something). I expect that Horford and Kyrie will be fine in a playoff series.

btw, there's still time for you to jump on Team Kyrie (the silent majority)....

[green_bballers13]

It does come down to the Salary with Horford

Due to his max salary , it is going to cause issues to retain Marcus Smart next season and beyond. 

It will cause problems to retain Terry Rozier the year after as well


IF Horford lived up to his salary ....it would be less painful to let one or both of these key role players to walk.

But thats not the case.   Horford can't makeup for even the loss of Smart as it was witnessed prior to the all star break

If it came down to keeping Smart at 15 million a season, saving 15 million vs keeping Horford.  I'm taking the 1st option

Smart and Rozier are not game changers. I like them both, and want them both to come back, but not at the # that they will prob get on the open market. Resigning these guys does not seem like a big priority at this point. In my eyes, they are both above replacement level, but not by much. I'd rather overpay Horford than Smart/Rozier.

[mctyson]

We had to overpay  Al to get him to come here.   We are now looked a viable location for Free Agents something that was not always true in the past.

I do not understand why so many fans of this team get hung up on how much money he is making.  Who really cares? 

He was getting a max contract from someone, either ATL, WAS, or OKC.  He chose BOS, and we complain.  Geez.