Big Lead Article: "Al Horford Has Become a Big Problem for the Celtics"

[tarheelsxxiii]

Of course I understand why Horford's salary is so large, but that still doesn't change the fact that he has the 11th highest salary in the league and is no where near the 11th best player in the league.  He is 24% of Boston's cap space this year and based on estimates of next year's cap will be close to 27%, and something like 25% in his final year (if he picks up the option).  Horford is a very good player, but he isn't worth that contract.

You are begging for a false premise:  That league salaries should be ordered in accordance to talent.

They are not.  They are not every going to be.  They are not really even supposed to be.

Whether a player is "worth" a contract is not based on this sort of dubious and contrived ranking.   A player on a rookie contract or a value deal blows that sort of methodology completely away.

Here is the proper way to assess whether a player is 'worth his contract'.

The job of a player is to help his team win.  That is what you are paying him to do.   His value is realized in how well he does that and can be estimated by estimating the share of his team's wins his contributions resulted in.  There are various analytics that estimate this, one of the more commonly known being BBREF Win Shares.

A win has a dollar value.   Based on BRI projections, I'm going to conservatively estimate that a Win Share this season will probably be worth on the order of $4M - $5M.

Horford is on pace to generate about 9 Win Shares this season.  That would put his revenue value at somewhere around $40M, plus or minus some handful of millions, but probably well, well above his salary.

Note, due to the size of Boston's market and the fact that wins on this team will contribute to a playoff run (thus generating playoff revenue), the case can be made that a Win Share is more valuable to a team like Boston than it is to the league on average.   Thus the real number is probably higher.

Thank you for this excellent explanation.



Would the Celts be better off now if they had not signed Al Horford and saved that cap space?  I say no.

Would the Celts be better off if they had used the cap space they used on Horford to sign 1-2 lower cost players who might be more productive in a conventional box score sense?  Again, I say no.

except the Celtics easily could be better off had they not signed Horford.  Perhaps Ainge pulls the trigger on a Cousins, George, or Butler trade since he would still had room to sign a max level free agent like Hayward.  Maybe Boston still has the assets to acquire Irving.  Wouldn't having one of those players instead of Horford be a better position.

And they could also easily be worse off if they made one of those trades.

Sure.  Never said that wasn't a possibility.  I merely pointed out that had Horford not signed here, Ainge would have had a lot more financial flexibility during the 2017 season and last summer to make trades or other moves.

Do you think that Horford had anything to do with Kyrie and Hayward coming to Boston? I do.

Maybe, but what if it was Paul George, Jimmy Butler, or Demarcus Cousins on the team making 10 million less than Horford.  Wouldn't one of those guys also likely had that sway with Hayward (Boston traded for Irving, he had no choice whether he came here or not)?  Or maybe, last summer Ainge could have use the 2 max slots to bring in Hayward and someone else as a package deal. 

I totally get Ainge was using Horford to try and entice Durant, but once Durant didn't come here, signing Horford to that contract was a poor use of all that cap space.  The Celtics would have been better served signing some 1 year contracts and trying again the following summer.  And to be clear, I said this at the time of the contract and my opinion hasn't changed.  Horford is a good player, but he was not the right player at the price he was paid for this team (I'd feel differently he had signed for something in the 20 to 25 a year range, as that makes way more sense for what Horford is as a player).

What you think he's sir th and what the market thinks he's worth are different things. There were at least 2 other teams in the same ball park as the Cs in that free agency.

They signed Horford because they had cap space and he was a great fit in this system.

and those two other teams (i.e. Washington and Atlanta) should be thankful they didn't get hamstrung with Horford's contract over the next 2 seasons.  Just because other teams will pay something, doesn't mean you should pay it.

Atlanta is clearly better off, but that's more of an indictment of the overall state of their roster. They should have started their rebuild at least a year sooner. So obviously it would have been a waste for them to sign Horford.

But Washington would be in a much better place right now if Horford had chosen them over Boston. They'd be the team at the top of the standings, not the Celtics. It's likely they would be where the Celtics are now, and Boston wouldn't even be a playoff team this year.  Signing Horford would have been a major coup for them.

Surely there are reasons ATL didn't start their rebuild at least a year earlier, right?

[wdleehi]

Of course I understand why Horford's salary is so large, but that still doesn't change the fact that he has the 11th highest salary in the league and is no where near the 11th best player in the league.  He is 24% of Boston's cap space this year and based on estimates of next year's cap will be close to 27%, and something like 25% in his final year (if he picks up the option).  Horford is a very good player, but he isn't worth that contract.

You are begging for a false premise:  That league salaries should be ordered in accordance to talent.

They are not.  They are not every going to be.  They are not really even supposed to be.

Whether a player is "worth" a contract is not based on this sort of dubious and contrived ranking.   A player on a rookie contract or a value deal blows that sort of methodology completely away.

Here is the proper way to assess whether a player is 'worth his contract'.

The job of a player is to help his team win.  That is what you are paying him to do.   His value is realized in how well he does that and can be estimated by estimating the share of his team's wins his contributions resulted in.  There are various analytics that estimate this, one of the more commonly known being BBREF Win Shares.

A win has a dollar value.   Based on BRI projections, I'm going to conservatively estimate that a Win Share this season will probably be worth on the order of $4M - $5M.

Horford is on pace to generate about 9 Win Shares this season.  That would put his revenue value at somewhere around $40M, plus or minus some handful of millions, but probably well, well above his salary.

Note, due to the size of Boston's market and the fact that wins on this team will contribute to a playoff run (thus generating playoff revenue), the case can be made that a Win Share is more valuable to a team like Boston than it is to the league on average.   Thus the real number is probably higher.

Thank you for this excellent explanation.



Would the Celts be better off now if they had not signed Al Horford and saved that cap space?  I say no.

Would the Celts be better off if they had used the cap space they used on Horford to sign 1-2 lower cost players who might be more productive in a conventional box score sense?  Again, I say no.

except the Celtics easily could be better off had they not signed Horford.  Perhaps Ainge pulls the trigger on a Cousins, George, or Butler trade since he would still had room to sign a max level free agent like Hayward.  Maybe Boston still has the assets to acquire Irving.  Wouldn't having one of those players instead of Horford be a better position.

And they could also easily be worse off if they made one of those trades.

Sure.  Never said that wasn't a possibility.  I merely pointed out that had Horford not signed here, Ainge would have had a lot more financial flexibility during the 2017 season and last summer to make trades or other moves.

Do you think that Horford had anything to do with Kyrie and Hayward coming to Boston? I do.

Maybe, but what if it was Paul George, Jimmy Butler, or Demarcus Cousins on the team making 10 million less than Horford.  Wouldn't one of those guys also likely had that sway with Hayward (Boston traded for Irving, he had no choice whether he came here or not)?  Or maybe, last summer Ainge could have use the 2 max slots to bring in Hayward and someone else as a package deal. 

I totally get Ainge was using Horford to try and entice Durant, but once Durant didn't come here, signing Horford to that contract was a poor use of all that cap space.  The Celtics would have been better served signing some 1 year contracts and trying again the following summer.  And to be clear, I said this at the time of the contract and my opinion hasn't changed.  Horford is a good player, but he was not the right player at the price he was paid for this team (I'd feel differently he had signed for something in the 20 to 25 a year range, as that makes way more sense for what Horford is as a player).

What you think he's sir th and what the market thinks he's worth are different things. There were at least 2 other teams in the same ball park as the Cs in that free agency.

They signed Horford because they had cap space and he was a great fit in this system.

and those two other teams (i.e. Washington and Atlanta) should be thankful they didn't get hamstrung with Horford's contract over the next 2 seasons.  Just because other teams will pay something, doesn't mean you should pay it.

Atlanta is clearly better off, but that's more of an indictment of the overall state of their roster. They should have started their rebuild at least a year sooner. So obviously it would have been a waste for them to sign Horford.

But Washington would be in a much better place right now if Horford had chosen them over Boston. They'd be the team at the top of the standings, not the Celtics. It's likely they would be where the Celtics are now, and Boston wouldn't even be a playoff team this year.  Signing Horford would have been a major coup for them.

Washington wouldn't have been able to keep Porter though.  It just wouldn't have been financially doable.

Wiz would easily better.   One of the things the team is missing is good leadership.   The last time they had it was when Pierce was there.   


2nd, if they had Horford, do they waste money on Ian Mahinmi?  16 million a year for the next two seasons. 

And if they had to cut salary, the could have traded away Gortat. 

[KGs Knee]

Of course I understand why Horford's salary is so large, but that still doesn't change the fact that he has the 11th highest salary in the league and is no where near the 11th best player in the league.  He is 24% of Boston's cap space this year and based on estimates of next year's cap will be close to 27%, and something like 25% in his final year (if he picks up the option).  Horford is a very good player, but he isn't worth that contract.

You are begging for a false premise:  That league salaries should be ordered in accordance to talent.

They are not.  They are not every going to be.  They are not really even supposed to be.

Whether a player is "worth" a contract is not based on this sort of dubious and contrived ranking.   A player on a rookie contract or a value deal blows that sort of methodology completely away.

Here is the proper way to assess whether a player is 'worth his contract'.

The job of a player is to help his team win.  That is what you are paying him to do.   His value is realized in how well he does that and can be estimated by estimating the share of his team's wins his contributions resulted in.  There are various analytics that estimate this, one of the more commonly known being BBREF Win Shares.

A win has a dollar value.   Based on BRI projections, I'm going to conservatively estimate that a Win Share this season will probably be worth on the order of $4M - $5M.

Horford is on pace to generate about 9 Win Shares this season.  That would put his revenue value at somewhere around $40M, plus or minus some handful of millions, but probably well, well above his salary.

Note, due to the size of Boston's market and the fact that wins on this team will contribute to a playoff run (thus generating playoff revenue), the case can be made that a Win Share is more valuable to a team like Boston than it is to the league on average.   Thus the real number is probably higher.

Thank you for this excellent explanation.



Would the Celts be better off now if they had not signed Al Horford and saved that cap space?  I say no.

Would the Celts be better off if they had used the cap space they used on Horford to sign 1-2 lower cost players who might be more productive in a conventional box score sense?  Again, I say no.

except the Celtics easily could be better off had they not signed Horford.  Perhaps Ainge pulls the trigger on a Cousins, George, or Butler trade since he would still had room to sign a max level free agent like Hayward.  Maybe Boston still has the assets to acquire Irving.  Wouldn't having one of those players instead of Horford be a better position.

And they could also easily be worse off if they made one of those trades.

Sure.  Never said that wasn't a possibility.  I merely pointed out that had Horford not signed here, Ainge would have had a lot more financial flexibility during the 2017 season and last summer to make trades or other moves.

Do you think that Horford had anything to do with Kyrie and Hayward coming to Boston? I do.

Maybe, but what if it was Paul George, Jimmy Butler, or Demarcus Cousins on the team making 10 million less than Horford.  Wouldn't one of those guys also likely had that sway with Hayward (Boston traded for Irving, he had no choice whether he came here or not)?  Or maybe, last summer Ainge could have use the 2 max slots to bring in Hayward and someone else as a package deal. 

I totally get Ainge was using Horford to try and entice Durant, but once Durant didn't come here, signing Horford to that contract was a poor use of all that cap space.  The Celtics would have been better served signing some 1 year contracts and trying again the following summer.  And to be clear, I said this at the time of the contract and my opinion hasn't changed.  Horford is a good player, but he was not the right player at the price he was paid for this team (I'd feel differently he had signed for something in the 20 to 25 a year range, as that makes way more sense for what Horford is as a player).

What you think he's sir th and what the market thinks he's worth are different things. There were at least 2 other teams in the same ball park as the Cs in that free agency.

They signed Horford because they had cap space and he was a great fit in this system.

and those two other teams (i.e. Washington and Atlanta) should be thankful they didn't get hamstrung with Horford's contract over the next 2 seasons.  Just because other teams will pay something, doesn't mean you should pay it.

Atlanta is clearly better off, but that's more of an indictment of the overall state of their roster. They should have started their rebuild at least a year sooner. So obviously it would have been a waste for them to sign Horford.

But Washington would be in a much better place right now if Horford had chosen them over Boston. They'd be the team at the top of the standings, not the Celtics. It's likely they would be where the Celtics are now, and Boston wouldn't even be a playoff team this year.  Signing Horford would have been a major coup for them.

Surely there are reasons ATL didn't start their rebuild at least a year earlier, right?

Probably because their ownership has been extremely reluctant to go that route, due to a very weak fan base even when the team is winning.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Of course I understand why Horford's salary is so large, but that still doesn't change the fact that he has the 11th highest salary in the league and is no where near the 11th best player in the league.  He is 24% of Boston's cap space this year and based on estimates of next year's cap will be close to 27%, and something like 25% in his final year (if he picks up the option).  Horford is a very good player, but he isn't worth that contract.

You are begging for a false premise:  That league salaries should be ordered in accordance to talent.

They are not.  They are not every going to be.  They are not really even supposed to be.

Whether a player is "worth" a contract is not based on this sort of dubious and contrived ranking.   A player on a rookie contract or a value deal blows that sort of methodology completely away.

Here is the proper way to assess whether a player is 'worth his contract'.

The job of a player is to help his team win.  That is what you are paying him to do.   His value is realized in how well he does that and can be estimated by estimating the share of his team's wins his contributions resulted in.  There are various analytics that estimate this, one of the more commonly known being BBREF Win Shares.

A win has a dollar value.   Based on BRI projections, I'm going to conservatively estimate that a Win Share this season will probably be worth on the order of $4M - $5M.

Horford is on pace to generate about 9 Win Shares this season.  That would put his revenue value at somewhere around $40M, plus or minus some handful of millions, but probably well, well above his salary.

Note, due to the size of Boston's market and the fact that wins on this team will contribute to a playoff run (thus generating playoff revenue), the case can be made that a Win Share is more valuable to a team like Boston than it is to the league on average.   Thus the real number is probably higher.

Thank you for this excellent explanation.



Would the Celts be better off now if they had not signed Al Horford and saved that cap space?  I say no.

Would the Celts be better off if they had used the cap space they used on Horford to sign 1-2 lower cost players who might be more productive in a conventional box score sense?  Again, I say no.

except the Celtics easily could be better off had they not signed Horford.  Perhaps Ainge pulls the trigger on a Cousins, George, or Butler trade since he would still had room to sign a max level free agent like Hayward.  Maybe Boston still has the assets to acquire Irving.  Wouldn't having one of those players instead of Horford be a better position.

And they could also easily be worse off if they made one of those trades.

Sure.  Never said that wasn't a possibility.  I merely pointed out that had Horford not signed here, Ainge would have had a lot more financial flexibility during the 2017 season and last summer to make trades or other moves.

Do you think that Horford had anything to do with Kyrie and Hayward coming to Boston? I do.

Maybe, but what if it was Paul George, Jimmy Butler, or Demarcus Cousins on the team making 10 million less than Horford.  Wouldn't one of those guys also likely had that sway with Hayward (Boston traded for Irving, he had no choice whether he came here or not)?  Or maybe, last summer Ainge could have use the 2 max slots to bring in Hayward and someone else as a package deal. 

I totally get Ainge was using Horford to try and entice Durant, but once Durant didn't come here, signing Horford to that contract was a poor use of all that cap space.  The Celtics would have been better served signing some 1 year contracts and trying again the following summer.  And to be clear, I said this at the time of the contract and my opinion hasn't changed.  Horford is a good player, but he was not the right player at the price he was paid for this team (I'd feel differently he had signed for something in the 20 to 25 a year range, as that makes way more sense for what Horford is as a player).

What you think he's sir th and what the market thinks he's worth are different things. There were at least 2 other teams in the same ball park as the Cs in that free agency.

They signed Horford because they had cap space and he was a great fit in this system.

and those two other teams (i.e. Washington and Atlanta) should be thankful they didn't get hamstrung with Horford's contract over the next 2 seasons.  Just because other teams will pay something, doesn't mean you should pay it.

Atlanta is clearly better off, but that's more of an indictment of the overall state of their roster. They should have started their rebuild at least a year sooner. So obviously it would have been a waste for them to sign Horford.

But Washington would be in a much better place right now if Horford had chosen them over Boston. They'd be the team at the top of the standings, not the Celtics. It's likely they would be where the Celtics are now, and Boston wouldn't even be a playoff team this year.  Signing Horford would have been a major coup for them.

Surely there are reasons ATL didn't start their rebuild at least a year earlier, right?

Probably because their ownership has been extremely reluctant to go that route, due to a very weak fan base even when the team is winning.

Yeah. I've lived in GA for years, and the fan base couldn't be weaker.  The cheap tickets have been nice though. 
They were bought out in 2015, and are spending a fortune on a new venue.  They also made significant revenue gains relative to the past in Al's last two years. So fron their perspective the direction they chose probably made sense.

[Moranis]

Of course I understand why Horford's salary is so large, but that still doesn't change the fact that he has the 11th highest salary in the league and is no where near the 11th best player in the league.  He is 24% of Boston's cap space this year and based on estimates of next year's cap will be close to 27%, and something like 25% in his final year (if he picks up the option).  Horford is a very good player, but he isn't worth that contract.

You are begging for a false premise:  That league salaries should be ordered in accordance to talent.

They are not.  They are not every going to be.  They are not really even supposed to be.

Whether a player is "worth" a contract is not based on this sort of dubious and contrived ranking.   A player on a rookie contract or a value deal blows that sort of methodology completely away.

Here is the proper way to assess whether a player is 'worth his contract'.

The job of a player is to help his team win.  That is what you are paying him to do.   His value is realized in how well he does that and can be estimated by estimating the share of his team's wins his contributions resulted in.  There are various analytics that estimate this, one of the more commonly known being BBREF Win Shares.

A win has a dollar value.   Based on BRI projections, I'm going to conservatively estimate that a Win Share this season will probably be worth on the order of $4M - $5M.

Horford is on pace to generate about 9 Win Shares this season.  That would put his revenue value at somewhere around $40M, plus or minus some handful of millions, but probably well, well above his salary.

Note, due to the size of Boston's market and the fact that wins on this team will contribute to a playoff run (thus generating playoff revenue), the case can be made that a Win Share is more valuable to a team like Boston than it is to the league on average.   Thus the real number is probably higher.

Thank you for this excellent explanation.



Would the Celts be better off now if they had not signed Al Horford and saved that cap space?  I say no.

Would the Celts be better off if they had used the cap space they used on Horford to sign 1-2 lower cost players who might be more productive in a conventional box score sense?  Again, I say no.

except the Celtics easily could be better off had they not signed Horford.  Perhaps Ainge pulls the trigger on a Cousins, George, or Butler trade since he would still had room to sign a max level free agent like Hayward.  Maybe Boston still has the assets to acquire Irving.  Wouldn't having one of those players instead of Horford be a better position.

And they could also easily be worse off if they made one of those trades.

Sure.  Never said that wasn't a possibility.  I merely pointed out that had Horford not signed here, Ainge would have had a lot more financial flexibility during the 2017 season and last summer to make trades or other moves.

Do you think that Horford had anything to do with Kyrie and Hayward coming to Boston? I do.

Maybe, but what if it was Paul George, Jimmy Butler, or Demarcus Cousins on the team making 10 million less than Horford.  Wouldn't one of those guys also likely had that sway with Hayward (Boston traded for Irving, he had no choice whether he came here or not)?  Or maybe, last summer Ainge could have use the 2 max slots to bring in Hayward and someone else as a package deal. 

I totally get Ainge was using Horford to try and entice Durant, but once Durant didn't come here, signing Horford to that contract was a poor use of all that cap space.  The Celtics would have been better served signing some 1 year contracts and trying again the following summer.  And to be clear, I said this at the time of the contract and my opinion hasn't changed.  Horford is a good player, but he was not the right player at the price he was paid for this team (I'd feel differently he had signed for something in the 20 to 25 a year range, as that makes way more sense for what Horford is as a player).

What you think he's sir th and what the market thinks he's worth are different things. There were at least 2 other teams in the same ball park as the Cs in that free agency.

They signed Horford because they had cap space and he was a great fit in this system.

and those two other teams (i.e. Washington and Atlanta) should be thankful they didn't get hamstrung with Horford's contract over the next 2 seasons.  Just because other teams will pay something, doesn't mean you should pay it.

Atlanta is clearly better off, but that's more of an indictment of the overall state of their roster. They should have started their rebuild at least a year sooner. So obviously it would have been a waste for them to sign Horford.

But Washington would be in a much better place right now if Horford had chosen them over Boston. They'd be the team at the top of the standings, not the Celtics. It's likely they would be where the Celtics are now, and Boston wouldn't even be a playoff team this year.  Signing Horford would have been a major coup for them.

Washington wouldn't have been able to keep Porter though.  It just wouldn't have been financially doable.

Wiz would easily better.   One of the things the team is missing is good leadership.   The last time they had it was when Pierce was there.   


2nd, if they had Horford, do they waste money on Ian Mahinmi?  16 million a year for the next two seasons. 

And if they had to cut salary, the could have traded away Gortat.

Maybe they could have traded Gortat, maybe not.  You are right though they don't have Mahinmi.  I don't see them bringing back Porter if they signed Horford.  And I think Porter is far more likely to be on a true contending Washington team then Horford is.  And their payroll in the 19/20 once Wall's extension kicks in and with Horford, POrter, Beal, etc. would be close to 200 million.  that isn't sustainable.

[PhoSita]

except the Celtics easily could be better off had they not signed Horford.  Perhaps Ainge pulls the trigger on a Cousins, George, or Butler trade since he would still had room to sign a max level free agent like Hayward.  Maybe Boston still has the assets to acquire Irving.  Wouldn't having one of those players instead of Horford be a better position.

It's way, way, way too easy to simply say, "If they hadn't done Z, they could have done A-Y" because it's near to impossible to prove otherwise.

Could you be correct that, if they hadn't signed Horford and headed into that season without any major free agent additions, they could have later acquired Cousins, George, or Butler as well as trading for Kyrie and also signing Hayward?

I'm  sure you could write some compelling creative fiction about such a scenario.

Do I believe it would likely have happened?  No, not at all.



Let me make this very simple.


The Celtics are a very good team.  Not top of the league, but in a normal year they'd be a borderline contender.  That they have no realistic chance at a title is more a function of the conglomeration of talent at the top of the league right now than anything else.

Al Horford is a major, major part of the Celtics' success.  Throw out the basic box score stats.  Anybody who spends a significant amount of time regularly watching the Celtics who does not reach the conclusion that Al Horford is integral to their success on both ends, as well as off the court, does not know very much about basketball.

These two points are incontrovertible in my mind.

If you want to say that Horford is an excessive overpay (taking up 25.68% of the team's cap), especially in light of the fact that over half the roster is comprised of players either on their rookie deals or on veteran minimum contracts, that's your prerogative.

I don't think it's supported by facts or well reasoned analysis, but you can go ahead and think it nonetheless.

[Moranis]

except the Celtics easily could be better off had they not signed Horford.  Perhaps Ainge pulls the trigger on a Cousins, George, or Butler trade since he would still had room to sign a max level free agent like Hayward.  Maybe Boston still has the assets to acquire Irving.  Wouldn't having one of those players instead of Horford be a better position.

It's way, way, way too easy to simply say, "If they hadn't done Z, they could have done A-Y" because it's near to impossible to prove otherwise.

Could you be correct that, if they hadn't signed Horford and headed into that season without any major free agent additions, they could have later acquired Cousins, George, or Butler as well as trading for Kyrie and also signing Hayward?

I'm  sure you could write some compelling creative fiction about such a scenario.

Do I believe it would likely have happened?  No, not at all.



Let me make this very simple.


The Celtics are a very good team.  Not top of the league, but in a normal year they'd be a borderline contender.  That they have no realistic chance at a title is more a function of the conglomeration of talent at the top of the league right now than anything else.

Al Horford is a major, major part of the Celtics' success.  Throw out the basic box score stats.  Anybody who spends a significant amount of time regularly watching the Celtics who does not reach the conclusion that Al Horford is integral to their success on both ends, as well as off the court, does not know very much about basketball.

These two points are incontrovertible in my mind.

If you want to say that Horford is an excessive overpay (taking up 25.68% of the team's cap), especially in light of the fact that over half the roster is comprised of players either on their rookie deals or on veteran minimum contracts, that's your prerogative.

I don't think it's supported by facts or well reasoned analysis, but you can go ahead and think it nonetheless.

I absolutely agree with you that Horford is a major component of Boston's success.  He was an incredibly important player last year and is this year as well.  I've never said other wise.  However, I do absolutely believe that once Durant said no, Horford's contract became a bad contract.  With Durant, Boston would have been a legitimate top level contender.  A team that could have legitimately challenged Cleveland, Golden State, Houston, San Antonio, etc. because Boston would have had a top 3 player in the league flanked by a couple of all stars.  This current team doesn't even have a top 10 player in the league on it and yet is paying its 3rd best player 26% of the cap.  It is a poor use of cap space given both the lack of truly elite talent and Horford's age and overall ability.  Horford is better than Otto Porter (who also makes less than Horford), but the Wizards are in a similar weird situation to the Celtics given their salary workings (and Beal and Wall are of a similar level to Irving and Hayward).  Now obviously Washington doesn't have Tatum, Brown, and that LA/SAC pick, but by the time those guys are ready, Horford will be off the team.  You can't give max dollars to your 3rd best player and not end up a true legitimate contender.  It is a poor use of money, and will cause players to be lost that would otherwise be valuable (with no Horford, Boston could still have Bradley as an example).

Additionally, Horford's contract took Boston completely out of the Cousins, George, and Butler sweepstakes because acquiring one of those guys (with Horford on the team) would have eliminated the team's ability to sign Hayward (which while Hayward isn't as good as those players, he was acquired without using any top level assets - just the change of Bradley to Morris).  The opportunity cost of Horford's contract is real and is large. 

[green_bballers13]

except the Celtics easily could be better off had they not signed Horford.  Perhaps Ainge pulls the trigger on a Cousins, George, or Butler trade since he would still had room to sign a max level free agent like Hayward.  Maybe Boston still has the assets to acquire Irving.  Wouldn't having one of those players instead of Horford be a better position.

It's way, way, way too easy to simply say, "If they hadn't done Z, they could have done A-Y" because it's near to impossible to prove otherwise.

Could you be correct that, if they hadn't signed Horford and headed into that season without any major free agent additions, they could have later acquired Cousins, George, or Butler as well as trading for Kyrie and also signing Hayward?

I'm  sure you could write some compelling creative fiction about such a scenario.

Do I believe it would likely have happened?  No, not at all.



Let me make this very simple.


The Celtics are a very good team.  Not top of the league, but in a normal year they'd be a borderline contender.  That they have no realistic chance at a title is more a function of the conglomeration of talent at the top of the league right now than anything else.

Al Horford is a major, major part of the Celtics' success.  Throw out the basic box score stats.  Anybody who spends a significant amount of time regularly watching the Celtics who does not reach the conclusion that Al Horford is integral to their success on both ends, as well as off the court, does not know very much about basketball.

These two points are incontrovertible in my mind.

If you want to say that Horford is an excessive overpay (taking up 25.68% of the team's cap), especially in light of the fact that over half the roster is comprised of players either on their rookie deals or on veteran minimum contracts, that's your prerogative.

I don't think it's supported by facts or well reasoned analysis, but you can go ahead and think it nonetheless.

I absolutely agree with you that Horford is a major component of Boston's success.  He was an incredibly important player last year and is this year as well.  I've never said other wise.  However, I do absolutely believe that once Durant said no, Horford's contract became a bad contract.  With Durant, Boston would have been a legitimate top level contender.  A team that could have legitimately challenged Cleveland, Golden State, Houston, San Antonio, etc. because Boston would have had a top 3 player in the league flanked by a couple of all stars.  This current team doesn't even have a top 10 player in the league on it and yet is paying its 3rd best player 26% of the cap.  It is a poor use of cap space given both the lack of truly elite talent and Horford's age and overall ability.  Horford is better than Otto Porter (who also makes less than Horford), but the Wizards are in a similar weird situation to the Celtics given their salary workings (and Beal and Wall are of a similar level to Irving and Hayward).  Now obviously Washington doesn't have Tatum, Brown, and that LA/SAC pick, but by the time those guys are ready, Horford will be off the team.  You can't give max dollars to your 3rd best player and not end up a true legitimate contender.  It is a poor use of money, and will cause players to be lost that would otherwise be valuable (with no Horford, Boston could still have Bradley as an example).

Additionally, Horford's contract took Boston completely out of the Cousins, George, and Butler sweepstakes because acquiring one of those guys (with Horford on the team) would have eliminated the team's ability to sign Hayward (which while Hayward isn't as good as those players, he was acquired without using any top level assets - just the change of Bradley to Morris).  The opportunity cost of Horford's contract is real and is large.

We have the benefit of hindsight here. At the time, PG was expected to sign long term in LA. Jimmy Butler would have been a good signing, but I'm ok with Hayward/Brown instead. Demarcus Cousins is a polarizing player. Talented- yes. Able to will his team towards victory- has yet to be proven.

I would rather have Paul George and Jimmy Butler, but certainly not Cousins. Also, acquiring those wings wouldn't help out the front court. We would still need a big man.

We're also assuming that Danny think that this team is ready to win now. I don't believe they are, and I also believe Danny knows that this is a developing team, regardless of their record. By the time this team is ready to compete for a championship, Horford will be gone.

[Celtics4ever]

except the Celtics easily could be better off had they not signed Horford.  Perhaps Ainge pulls the trigger on a Cousins, George, or Butler trade since he would still had room to sign a max level free agent like Hayward.  Maybe Boston still has the assets to acquire Irving.  Wouldn't having one of those players instead of Horford be a better position.

You do realize that Horford is one of the reasons that people consider it more viable to come here.   We were exactly a free agent mecca prior to him coming. I know you have been here long enough to name the big free agent signings prior to Horford.  Name some of them?  I am not talking guys we traded for, but free agents that signed here.   Let's hear the list....

[Donoghus]

I find it pretty hard to see this team being in a better place (including last season's conference finals appearance) if they hadn't signed Horford.  The Celtics paid what they paid because that's what the market dictated.  They knew there was a chance that Durant wasn't going to come here but they still had to offer Horford what they did in order to get him to come to Boston to even worry about Phase II of getting Durant here.  If the Celtics strike out on both, I'm having a hard team seeing this organization in better shape that it is right now with Horford on the squad. Hell, they're 46-20, a 2 seed in the East, & have an excellent shot at an NBA Finals appearance and people want to complain about Horford?  Have fun with that "glass half empty" mentality.  Must be a joy at dinner parties.

[Evantime34]

I find it pretty hard to see this team being in a better place (including last season's conference finals appearance) if they hadn't signed Horford.  The Celtics paid what they paid because that's what the market dictated.  They knew there was a chance that Durant wasn't going to come here but they still had to offer Horford what they did in order to get him to come to Boston to even worry about Phase II of getting Durant here.  If the Celtics strike out on both, I'm having a hard team seeing this organization in better shape that it is right now with Horford on the squad. Hell, they're 46-20, a 2 seed in the East, & have an excellent shot at an NBA Finals appearance and people want to complain about Horford?  Have fun with that "glass half empty" mentality.  Must be a joy at dinner parties.

It's almost comical how we are even discussing this.

Before the Horford signing, the prevailing notion on this board was that no big time free agents have ever or will ever sign with Boston. The idea that people think we could do better in free agency than Horford, when if the Horford signing hadn't happened everyone would have continued to think Boston couldn't lure a free agent, is funny to me.

If you were one of the ones who thought Boston could never sign a free agent, and you now think that we could have done better please think about how those two ideas oppose each other.

[Sophomore]

Additionally, Horford's contract took Boston completely out of the Cousins, George, and Butler sweepstakes because acquiring one of those guys (with Horford on the team) would have eliminated the team's ability to sign Hayward (which while Hayward isn't as good as those players, he was acquired without using any top level assets - just the change of Bradley to Morris).  The opportunity cost of Horford's contract is real and is large.

Obviously, losing out on Durant was a big deal; but even after that happened, I believe Danny put together a legitimate contender. The missing piece is Hayward -- looking at the way this team is playing, I don't have any trouble saying that if we had him at full strength we would be challenging for a title this year. Heck, we have an outside chance at the finals as-is.

You can't fault Danny's plan because we lost a key piece to injury - that wasn't predictable and can happen to any team. Those other paths had their own injury risks. Don't forget that Cousins had a season-ending injury this year, too. I would hate to think we gave up on Al and traded away draft picks to get Cousins, even if Cousins was healthy. To give all that up and then lose him to injury? Terrible.

[PhoSita]

I believe the Celts are better off not having traded for cousins or George given their contract situations. I would rather have Horford and Kyrie than Jimmy Butler. I don't think the Celts could have traded for Butler and still kept the assets to trade for Kyrie.

I disagree that the Celts don't have elite talent. Kyrie is a top talent in my estimation. Hayward is a great second star. Horford is a perfect third. Brown and Tatum have All Star potential.

I believe Horfords contract is a fair value regardless of the fact that the Celts didn't sign Durant.  He contributes to winning to an extent that is more than commensurate with his share of the cap.

Further, while the Celts aren't likely to win a title this year, I don't believe this means that it is a waste for them to pay a lot of money to a veteran star like horford, given how vital he is to everything the team is doing. If all he ever does is set the culture and help the team win a lot of regular season games plus a playoff series or two for several years in a row, that is great value.

[kozlodoev]

Before the Horford signing, the prevailing notion on this board was that no big time free agents have ever or will ever sign with Boston. The idea that people think we could do better in free agency than Horford, when if the Horford signing hadn't happened everyone would have continued to think Boston couldn't lure a free agent, is funny to me.

I don't think this was ever the prevailing notion on this board, where people have at least rudimentary understanding of roster building and salary cap issues. It might have been the prevailing notions of sports talk radio meatheads and pink hatters who tune into the NBA after football and baseball fold. Our board has always been a notch smarter than this.

[Moranis]

Before the Horford signing, the prevailing notion on this board was that no big time free agents have ever or will ever sign with Boston. The idea that people think we could do better in free agency than Horford, when if the Horford signing hadn't happened everyone would have continued to think Boston couldn't lure a free agent, is funny to me.

I don't think this was ever the prevailing notion on this board, where people have at least rudimentary understanding of roster building and salary cap issues. It might have been the prevailing notions of sports talk radio meatheads and pink hatters who tune into the NBA after football and baseball fold. Our board has always been a notch smarter than this.

Yep.  It really is as simple as Boston just didn't have cap room to be a player for top level free agents until two summers ago.  If you can't offer a max contract, you aren't going to sign a max level free agent.  It really is that simple.