RealGM

Mark Bradley wrote:Al Horford occupies the same space that Joe Johnson did in 2010: He’s essential to everything the Hawks do, but there’s no guarantee that keeping him will make them any better — or even as good...

In July 2010, the Hawks re-upped Johnson for $119 million over six seasons. It was immediately characterized as one of the worst NBA contracts ever. To keep Horford, the Hawks might have to pay $145 million over five seasons. When Johnson was re-signed, the plaint was, “How can you give that much money to a guy who’s not a superstar?” The same question applies now.

If he’s allowed to leave and no major free agent agrees to sign, the Hawks would take a giant step backward...If he stays, they still won’t be good enough — and in two years they’ll be trying to trade him.

Jeff Schultz wrote:AL HORFORD DECISION ISN’T EASY

Some fans aren’t convinced Horford is worth the money and will [instead] hamstring them in the future. They might be right.

Others are concerned letting Horford leave will set this team back. They might be right, too.

I like Horford. He’s a solid player, a good leader and low maintenance. But he’s not a superstar. Paul Millsap gets an edge on Horford because he’s a more consistent scorer. Horford is a power forward playing center. But Millsap is a power forward. So the only way keeping both works is if the Hawks acquire a great scorer for small forward... Otherwise, Horford (or Millsap) have to go, because the Hawks need more size. Cleveland’s size destroyed them in the series, particularly on the offensive boards...if they give him a max deal, they better have a plan to fix everything else. And if they let him go or deal him in a sign-and-trade, well they better have a plan to replace him AND fix everything else.

But I’m guessing he is back.

Chris Vivlamore wrote:Horford becomes an unrestricted free agent this summer and makes his first real foray into the business side of the NBA. One of the questions facing the Hawks is whether to give Horford a maximum contract. Based on a player with 7-9 years experience, they can offer him a five-year deal with annual increases of 7.5 percent of the first year’s salary. Another team can offer him a four-year deal with annual increases of 4.5 percent.

For his plans to improve his game, Horford said that while he has effectively added a 3-point shot to his repertoire, he would like to get better in the post.

jayu70 wrote:I don't like the premise of comparing Al and Joe for this reason - during the Joe era the cap bare nudged so the Hawks were hamstrung. I think i read that the cap jumped approx $7 mil total over the years we had Joe. The cap is jumping by $17 mil in just one year.
Paying Al the max will not limit the team from adding addt'l players. His cap hold is $18.

Think about this hypothetical - we let Al leave and sign Festuz Ezeli. How much are you paying him. If
the reports are true of him possibly getting $16 mil
It only gives us an additional $2 mil on savings to sign players from Al's caphold.

I prefer not to pay Al a 5yr/max, but it's more likely to happen than not.
So if thats a given what are the options for improving the team now and going forward. We have to upgrade the SG and SF positions AND the bench.

jayu70 wrote:Anyone heard the Zach Klein interview on 92.9 The Game? Said the Hawks want/prefer/will propose a 1+1 max deal to Al.
Edit: They will also make a pitch to Durant.

PandaKidd wrote:Would AL, who HAS had 2 brutal injuries , risk his health for a year? Something tells me he will take the max in terms of years. This is his BIG BIG payday. He wont get another one.

PandaKidd wrote:I just get the feeling they will work it out, whatever that is. 4 Years with a player option, 3 years with a player option, whatever.

Jamaaliver wrote:

PandaKidd wrote:I just get the feeling they will work it out, whatever that is. 4 Years with a player option, 3 years with a player option, whatever.

I like where your head's at!!!

Five year contract, $130 million

Player Option in Year 3.

Team Option in Year 5.