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

[mmmmm]

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.

How do you assign monetary value to a win-share based on BRI projections?

I'm leveraging (very roughly) work done by others here, but the back-of-the-envelope method is to simply calculate the cost of a win by dividing salary costs by dividing each team's costs by it's wins, figuring out the average cost for a win by team as well as for the league.  Then recognizing the BRI is just a little over twice salary, per the CBA.   There are variables around this, but that's the basic method that can get you to a reasonable estimate.

[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. 

[green_bballers13]

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.

[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. 

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Man I feel old for saying that.

[Diggles]

I can see AL and Hayward restricting their deals if we are winning.   

Can they do that? 

[GreenFaith1819]

Well, I love this Big Problem and glad he is manning the middle for BOS.

[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).

[green_bballers13]

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).

I think Danny (and other GMs) were afraid to trade for PG. Neither Butler nor Paul George were the big man that the Celtics needed.

Demarcus Cousins is talented, but has faced a decent amount of criticism for not playing hard. Horford has issues, but effort isn't one of them.

All three were decent options, but I don't think they would have worked for what Danny was looking for.

[kozlodoev]

I can see AL and Hayward restricting their deals if we are winning.   

Can they do that?

No.

[Celtics4ever]

20 points
8 rebounds
6 assists
1 block
+13 PER

Last night, so let us hear how washed up he was last night against the Wolves.

http://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400975720

[SHAQATTACK]

20 points
8 rebounds
6 assists
1 block
+13 PER

Last night, so let us hear how washed up he was last night against the Wolves.

http://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400975720

agree, he fits CBS system to a tee.  He produces exactly what i thought or more actually given his age.   I have no issues with him ...other than he s not a great inside scorer for a big man ....sometimes irks me.   There are only a few bigs who would make as much impact , and we are not getting them.  So ..for now Al is a good Celtic . 

[PAOBoston]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.