Let's cut down some of the one liner pile on please.
I do think that the Horford signing would be a mistake in a hard cap league like the NFL, and maybe a bit of a premature waste of money in a no cap league like MLB. The way the NBA is stuctured, though, you have windows, usually very limited, to add top FA, and the Celtics happened to have that last year. That said, that is much more about the team's chance in the immediate future than it is about Al Horford's abilities. The point being, if signing Al Horford would preclude you from doing other moves you would rather do in the next couple years, there might be a point to the complaint. But, this is the NBA, where the cap only really matters for signing other team's FA, and the top ones don't come free very often, and the Celtics still have a chance at one this year. If you don't like this year's crop and are thinking about next year, the C's were going to blow up the cap anyway with Bradley, Smart, and IT all due for raises. Signing Horford matters almost zero other than to Wyc's bottom line.
As for Horford the player, we have this discussion all the time, but his shortcomings are enhanced by the system that the Celtics play...just as his strengths are. That you think Robin Lopez would be a better choice than Horford for this team shows that you don't really understand the way Stevens is running the offense. That Bradley and IT stepped up this year (when healthy) isn't just their own ability. Horford makes the starting unit better.
As for the draft comment, the Celtics did take Zizic. A lot of people thought they should have done so with 16 instead of 23 but they still did it The only big man drafted between Guerschon and Ante was Henry Ellenson, who only managed to get into 19 games this year for the Pistons, and is basically tops out as a shorter Olynyk. I guess you could argue they should have gone for Chriss instead of Brown, or that they should have packaged 16 and 23 to try and get up to draft Maker, Sabonis or Papagiannis?
I do think that the Horford signing would be a mistake in a hard cap league like the NFL, and maybe a bit of a premature waste of money in a no cap league like MLB. The way the NBA is stuctured, though, you have windows, usually very limited, to add top FA, and the Celtics happened to have that last year. That said, that is much more about the team's chance in the immediate future than it is about Al Horford's abilities. The point being, if signing Al Horford would preclude you from doing other moves you would rather do in the next couple years, there might be a point to the complaint. But, this is the NBA, where the cap only really matters for signing other team's FA, and the top ones don't come free very often, and the Celtics still have a chance at one this year. If you don't like this year's crop and are thinking about next year, the C's were going to blow up the cap anyway with Bradley, Smart, and IT all due for raises. Signing Horford matters almost zero other than to Wyc's bottom line.
As for Horford the player, we have this discussion all the time, but his shortcomings are enhanced by the system that the Celtics play...just as his strengths are. That you think Robin Lopez would be a better choice than Horford for this team shows that you don't really understand the way Stevens is running the offense. That Bradley and IT stepped up this year (when healthy) isn't just their own ability. Horford makes the starting unit better.
As for the draft comment, the Celtics did take Zizic. A lot of people thought they should have done so with 16 instead of 23 but they still did it The only big man drafted between Guerschon and Ante was Henry Ellenson, who only managed to get into 19 games this year for the Pistons, and is basically tops out as a shorter Olynyk. I guess you could argue they should have gone for Chriss instead of Brown, or that they should have packaged 16 and 23 to try and get up to draft Maker, Sabonis or Papagiannis?
Last edited: