The AL Horford Dilemma

[D21]

There's no sense in continuing to try and paint Bazemore as a scapegoat either, his deal had zero to do with Horford's. They entered negotiations with Horford knowing full well whom they had tendered deals to. What stopped them was the amount for Horford, not anyone else.

Maybe they decided that the plan would be Howard-Horford-Bazemore, but in this case better trade Millsap before instead of have to wait for his trade in the summer because where we disagree is the implication of Bazemore regarding the Horford situation.
As soon as they agreed to this contract with Bazemore, and signed howard, there was not enough place for Horford cap hold, so they were actually unable to agree with him because offer would be invalid.
They needed to trade Millsap, or at least Splitter and filler to create room to just keep Horford cap hold and bird rights.

It's a situation you should always avoid, and they did it. It's just stupid, even if you have several plans.

And I meanwhile agree that keeping Horford at this money would not be ideal with Howard and Millsap here, because at this level of money, better be a go to guy with impressive stats to keep a high value for any trade.
I just have the feeling that the team would have get more option by keeping Horford at 28M than Bazemore 17M, even if I would have preferred any other option than these two options, by making trade sooner if you don't want to spend that kind of money on these players.

[MaceCase]

There's no sense in continuing to try and paint Bazemore as a scapegoat either, his deal had zero to do with Horford's. They entered negotiations with Horford knowing full well whom they had tendered deals to. What stopped them was the amount for Horford, not anyone else.

Maybe they decided that the plan would be Howard-Horford-Bazemore, but in this case better trade Millsap before instead of have to wait for his trade in the summer because where we disagree is the implication of Bazemore regarding the Horford situation.
As soon as they agreed to this contract with Bazemore, and signed howard, there was not enough place for Horford cap hold, so they were actually unable to agree with him because offer would be invalid.
They needed to trade Millsap, or at least Splitter and filler to create room to just keep Horford cap hold and bird rights.

It's a situation you should always avoid, and they did it. It's just stupid, even if you have several plans.

And I meanwhile agree that keeping Horford at this money would not be ideal with Howard and Millsap here, because at this level of money, better be a go to guy with impressive stats to keep a high value for any trade.
I just have the feeling that the team would have get more option by keeping Horford at 28M than Bazemore 17M, even if I would have preferred any other option than these two options, by making trade sooner if you don't want to spend that kind of money on these players.

No deals are official until after the moratorium so you're making another moot argument. By your logic Golden State would not have Durant. The Hawks would not enter into any max conversations with a player unless they had multiple avenues of actually accomplishing that i.e. Golden State. Again, Bazemore was not the issue, the cap hold was not the issue, the issue was the amount of money and years the Hawks were willing to offer. Plain and simple.

[D21]

No deals are official until after the moratorium so you're making another moot argument. By your logic Golden State would not have Durant. The Hawks would not enter into any max conversations with a player unless they had multiple avenues of actually accomplishing that i.e. Golden State. Again, Bazemore was not the issue, the cap hold was not the issue, the issue was the amount of money and years the Hawks were willing to offer. Plain and simple.

I'm not talking about the cap hold regarding the rule, and the moratorium, but that before or after the moratorium, a trade has to be made in the end to, at a moment, validate the offer to Horford, because the contract of Bazemore was for more than
his early bird offer, so it has to be with cap room.
You can wait for the moratorium if you want, but if you agree with Horford, at the moment it becomes official, his cap hold has to be there to use his bird rights, and if the cap hold was there, you don't have enough room to sign Howard and Bazemore at their offer.
Plain and simple like you said.

You can make the Horford contract official, you can make Howard official, but there is not enough room to make official the contract of Bazemore, so you say to Bazemore that you don't want to sign him anymore.
I'm not talking about the Bazemore offer making impossible to make an offer to Horford, I'm talking about making the offer to Bazemore and respect it to the point it become official, and in this sense, you can't have Bazemore and Horford and sign Howard without making trades.

And we come now to that :
- Horford is not supposed to be patient to wait for the trade
- BOS could have say him "you have three days to say OK or it's dead"

And to be clear, I'm not saying these two points are real for sure, but that you have to anticipate the possibility of it happening, and that they seem to not have work on that.

In the end, after playing with words on talking about the same thing with different POV, you will see that we come to the same conclusion, they don't have to put themselves in this situation
Anyone disagreeing with that is certainly Mr Wilcox or Mr Bud behind a different username

[MaceCase]

No deals are official until after the moratorium so you're making another moot argument. By your logic Golden State would not have Durant. The Hawks would not enter into any max conversations with a player unless they had multiple avenues of actually accomplishing that i.e. Golden State. Again, Bazemore was not the issue, the cap hold was not the issue, the issue was the amount of money and years the Hawks were willing to offer. Plain and simple.

I'm not talking about the cap hold regarding the rule, and the moratorium, but that before or after the moratorium, a trade has to be made in the end to, at a moment, validate the offer to Horford, because the contract of Bazemore was for more than
his early bird offer, so it has to be with cap room.
You can wait for the moratorium if you want, but if you agree with Horford, at the moment it becomes official, his cap hold has to be there to use his bird rights, and if the cap hold was there, you don't have enough room to sign Howard and Bazemore at their offer.
Plain and simple like you said.

Your knowledge of the CBA is overstated then. Nothing is official before the moratorium, there are no contracts, there are no holds because there's not even a cap. That is the whole purpose of the moratorium, it's for the NBA accountants to finalize what the cap is, it's why no official signings occur until it is over, it is why all deals are only in principal beforehand. It was reported that the Hawks had multiple trade offers already for Millsap at the time of negotiating with Horford, they easily could have constructed any number of deals dumping Splitter and anyone else into any number of teams. It is beyond ridiculous to believe that the Hawks were offering Horford a contract they could not even legally sign once the moratorium is over. There were zero reports that this was an issue and common sense would tell you that a NBA front office, a player, and an agent would not be beyond this stupid to engage in a moot discussion much like you are attempting.

[D21]

No deals are official until after the moratorium so you're making another moot argument. By your logic Golden State would not have Durant. The Hawks would not enter into any max conversations with a player unless they had multiple avenues of actually accomplishing that i.e. Golden State. Again, Bazemore was not the issue, the cap hold was not the issue, the issue was the amount of money and years the Hawks were willing to offer. Plain and simple.

I'm not talking about the cap hold regarding the rule, and the moratorium, but that before or after the moratorium, a trade has to be made in the end to, at a moment, validate the offer to Horford, because the contract of Bazemore was for more than
his early bird offer, so it has to be with cap room.
You can wait for the moratorium if you want, but if you agree with Horford, at the moment it becomes official, his cap hold has to be there to use his bird rights, and if the cap hold was there, you don't have enough room to sign Howard and Bazemore at their offer.
Plain and simple like you said.

Your knowledge of the CBA is overstated then. Nothing is official before the moratorium, there are no contracts, there are no holds because there's not even a cap. That is the whole purpose of the moratorium, it's for the NBA accountants to finalize what the cap is, it's why no official signings occur until it is over, it is why all deals are only in principal beforehand. It was reported that the Hawks had multiple trade offers already for Millsap at the time of negotiating with Horford, they easily could have constructed any number of deals dumping Splitter and anyone else into any number of teams. It is beyond ridiculous to believe that the Hawks were offering Horford a contract they could not even legally sign once the moratorium is over. There were zero reports that this was an issue and common sense would tell you that a NBA front office, a player, and an agent would not be beyond this stupid to engage in a moot discussion much like you are attempting.

OK, it's like you're playing with my words to make me say something I didn't say.

Once again, I'm talking about the rule, you want to go deep in the CBA, we can, but it has nothing to do with it here, it's not the point. The point is regardless of the moratorium where, you're a right and I never said you weren't, they could do anything they wanted, there was a situation, created by not making moves before, and that was a situation you want to avoid during the moratorium, because it doesn't help you in the negotiation at all, because you don't know how long you're best F.A. will wait or how he sees the situation. For example :
- ATL will need to make trade, adding to the fact they want to pay me 27M/year
- BOS doesn't need to do anything and they pay me 28M/year

I'm sorry, but the situation of BOS is more clear, and instead of being clear here too, and working only on 27M in BOS or 28M in ATL, you add a situation with more unknown things that BOS don't have. How can this be positive ?

The exact working of this period has nothing to do to justify what has been done last summer, I'm not saying "it work like that at this moment so they couldn't do it", just that being like they were during this period help other team think you're not in the best position, and you will loose something each time. I don't remember any team being in this situation getting out of the Free Agency with a A

And what message do you send when you announce at the start that you agree with Bazemore for 17M/year ?
If has to be done, better wait instead of announcing it first. No maybe it's because I hated this announcement because of the contract, I don't know, but first I don't like this situation, and then this offer.
All of that looked like panic move, or only based on making happy the fanbase (Bazemore a fanfavorite, Howard a hometown boy...) more than well build plan of improving the team that should have start with other moves months ago.

[Jamaaliver]

Again, Bazemore was not the issue, the cap hold was not the issue, the issue was the amount of money and years the Hawks were willing to offer. Plain and simple.

^You don't seriously believe this, do you?

That we lost Horford due to money and years on the contract Hawks offered?

[Geaux_Hawks]

Again, Bazemore was not the issue, the cap hold was not the issue, the issue was the amount of money and years the Hawks were willing to offer. Plain and simple.

^You don't seriously believe this, do you?

That we lost Horford due to money and years on the contract Hawks offered?

If we supposedly had offers for Sap, then yes I do believe it was a dispute over a few millions and years.

[MaceCase]

OK, it's like you're playing with my words to make me say something I didn't say.

Once again, I'm talking about the rule, you want to go deep in the CBA, we can, but it has nothing to do with it here, it's not the point. The point is regardless of the moratorium where, you're a right and I never said you weren't, they could do anything they wanted, there was a situation, created by not making moves before, and that was a situation you want to avoid during the moratorium, because it doesn't help you in the negotiation at all, because you don't know how long you're best F.A. will wait or how he sees the situation. For example :
- ATL will need to make trade, adding to the fact they want to pay me 27M/year
- BOS doesn't need to do anything and they pay me 28M/year

I'm sorry, but the situation of BOS is more clear, and instead of being clear here too, and working only on 27M in BOS or 28M in ATL, you add a situation with more unknown things that BOS don't have. How can this be positive ?

The exact working of this period has nothing to do to justify what has been done last summer, I'm not saying "it work like that at this moment so they couldn't do it", just that being like they were during this period help other team think you're not in the best position, and you will loose something each time. I don't remember any team being in this situation getting out of the Free Agency with a A

And what message do you send when you announce at the start that you agree with Bazemore for 17M/year ?
If has to be done, better wait instead of announcing it first. No maybe it's because I hated this announcement because of the contract, I don't know, but first I don't like this situation, and then this offer.
All of that looked like panic move, or only based on making happy the fanbase (Bazemore a fanfavorite, Howard a hometown boy...) more than well build plan of improving the team that should have start with other moves months ago.

Your entire argument is asinine. Why would a NBA team make a trade beforehand contingent on a player re-signing when that player has yet to re-sign? Why would a NBA front office full of accountants, capologists, and lawyers be offering 136 million dollars over 5 years when they know they can't? Why would a NBA player represented by an agent that happens to be a lawyer, that is part of sports agency armed with other lawyers, accountants and capologists well versed in contract negotiations be asking for 142 million over 5 years instead knowing that it's not possible? This is the most ludicrous argument there is, it assumes abject stupidity on the part of not one, not two, but three different parties. It is nearly the golden sombrero of incompetence. It is the brand of ineptitude that would have had every sports media outlet laughing at such comedy till this very day.

Yet..... there was no word of that. Every report is they walked away at the dollar amount. No word of there being an issue of a cap hold because that would make the entire 5th year offer impossible. Nope nada. No mention of Horford and his camp being reluctant to sign because of fear the Hawks might be unable to get a trade done. Nope, nada. Common sense would tell you that a team would have any number of teams willing to take on an expiring contract for an asset. Common sense will tell you that a player, his agent, and a NBA team would not be negotiating for hours until the last minute if they were hesitant on a deal being completed. Actual reports had it that there were even structured deals already in place for a potential Millsap trade should Horford return yet.... you want to be the one that thinks you are smarter than everyone and blame Bazemore. That's cool.

[MaceCase]

Again, Bazemore was not the issue, the cap hold was not the issue, the issue was the amount of money and years the Hawks were willing to offer. Plain and simple.

^You don't seriously believe this, do you?

That we lost Horford due to money and years on the contract Hawks offered?

I'm not a Horford fanboy so I don't assume gumdrops, ponytails, and fairy tales being the alternative answer. You're a funny hypocrite, you'll find some article of a guy speculating on something and you'll take it for absolute truth but you see multiple sources reporting the Hawks and Horford disputing over a 5th year and then finally not seeing eye to eye on a total dollar amount and ask "you don't believe this, do you?"

[Jamaaliver]

I'm not a Horford fanboy so I don't assume gumdrops, ponytails, and fairy tales being the alternative answer. You're a funny hypocrite, you'll find some article of a guy speculating on something and you'll take it for absolute truth but you see multiple sources reporting the Hawks and Horford disputing over a 5th year and then finally not seeing eye to eye on a total dollar amount and ask "you don't believe this, do you?"

Ummm...speaking of hypocrites.

Again, Bazemore was not the issue, the cap hold was not the issue, the issue was the amount of money and years the Hawks were willing to offer. Plain and simple.

June 2017

1) Al Horford did not leave the Atlanta Hawks over money. This is revisionist history part 1. If you hear him tell it "Boston gave him the best chance at a championship"...

The money was a ruse, you do not get offered 20 million more than any other team to be secure through the age of 35 where you are heavily unlikely to recoup that money and then quibble over 6 million.

Jan 2017


It's really difficult to have a reasonable debate with you, when you change arguments 180 degrees whenever it suits you.

NOTE: This is why I asked. I wanted you to commit to a position. So you wouldn't be 'misquoted'. So there'd be no 'reading comprehension' issue.


Add'l NOTE: I'll let you argue with yourself, now.

[MaceCase]

I'm not a Horford fanboy so I don't assume gumdrops, ponytails, and fairy tales being the alternative answer. You're a funny hypocrite, you'll find some article of a guy speculating on something and you'll take it for absolute truth but you see multiple sources reporting the Hawks and Horford disputing over a 5th year and then finally not seeing eye to eye on a total dollar amount and ask "you don't believe this, do you?"

Ummm...speaking of hypocrites.

Again, Bazemore was not the issue, the cap hold was not the issue, the issue was the amount of money and years the Hawks were willing to offer. Plain and simple.

June 2017

1) Al Horford did not leave the Atlanta Hawks over money. This is revisionist history part 1. If you hear him tell it "Boston gave him the best chance at a championship"...

The money was a ruse, you do not get offered 20 million more than any other team to be secure through the age of 35 where you are heavily unlikely to recoup that money and then quibble over 6 million.

Jan 2017


It's really difficult to have a reasonable debate with you, when you change arguments 180 degrees whenever it suits you.

NOTE: This is why I asked. I wanted you to commit to a position. So you wouldn't be 'misquoted'. So there'd be no 'reading comprehension' issue.


Add'l NOTE: I'll let you argue with yourself, now.

Yes, it's a still a reading comprehension fail, you should have paid closer attention to this part:

you do not get offered 20 million more than any other team to be secure through the age of 35 where you are heavily unlikely to recoup that money and then quibble over 6 million

Al wanted to pimp the Hawks for every last cent they could offer him. They refused, played hard ball and stood firm. He tried to make the token gesture of coming off his "Max status" demand but in the end 6 million? Really? The onus is on the Hawks for not going up a token amount but not him not coming down a token amount? Perhaps that's because he was really losing out on 16 mil. That's not a token amount to quibble about.

[D21]

... you want to be the one that thinks you are smarter than everyone and blame Bazemore. That's cool.

You see that I want to be smarter than everyone and blame Bazemore, because you want to see it but don't want to see that I agree on pretty much all your argumentation, except I don't get the link between cap hold and the fifth year.
You just don't want to see that I think that this situation was not the best to convince him to stay and that there was possibility to make the situation better.

Now, I have one question, what would have been your choice (signing and trading options) ?

[dms269]

Can I get a tldr version of this?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using RealGM mobile app

[MaceCase]

... you want to be the one that thinks you are smarter than everyone and blame Bazemore. That's cool.

You see that I want to be smarter than everyone and blame Bazemore, because you want to see it but don't want to see that I agree on pretty much all your argumentation, except I don't get the link between cap hold and the fifth year.
You just don't want to see that I think that this situation was not the best to convince him to stay and that there was possibility to make the situation better.

Now, I have one question, what would have been your choice (signing and trading options) ?

This is your problem, you want to continue to argue hypothetical situations.

This isn't anyone putting words in your mouth, inventing what they think should have happened, blaming other players, or questioning the competency of three parties.

The facts were the Hawks were at the table negotiating with Horford over 24 hours after they'd already secured verbal agreements with their other free agents and up until the very last minute before Horford made his free agency decision. It would appear to be clear that Horford was completely fine with the "situation" otherwise why narrow down your choices to include the Hawks? Why waste the time and effort negotiating fine contract details if the entire situation wasn't to his liking to begin with?

There are simply no comparable situations that logically fit where anyone is negotiating the finer points of payment for a product before they've assessed their appeal yet here you are. Your argument is equivalent to saying someone closing on a new home, while negotiating the financing only then decides to inspect the house for the first time. It's backwards.

[MaceCase]

Can I get a tldr version of this?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using RealGM mobile app

You want the cliff notes? In light of the Hawks current GM discussing not signing bad contracts in regards to Millsap, conspiracy theorists are still wondering why Horford is not a Hawk based on a recent wiretap:

The Hawks could have offered a five-year, $153 million max deal, but their best offer was a five-year, $136 million deal.

Horford decided to take less guaranteed money after the Hawks were unable to split the difference while having a new opportunity with the Celtics.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/246251/Al-Horford-Hawks-Were-Strikingly-Close-On-Contract-Terms

[tbhawksfan1]

Horf and Sap should have been traded for rebuildiing assets. Hawks FO fell asleep at the wheel or at least pretended to

[dms269]

Can I get a tldr version of this?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using RealGM mobile app

You want the cliff notes? In light of the Hawks current GM discussing not signing bad contracts in regards to Millsap, conspiracy theorists are still wondering why Horford is not a Hawk based on a recent wiretap:

The Hawks could have offered a five-year, $153 million max deal, but their best offer was a five-year, $136 million deal.

Horford decided to take less guaranteed money after the Hawks were unable to split the difference while having a new opportunity with the Celtics.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/246251/Al-Horford-Hawks-Were-Strikingly-Close-On-Contract-Terms

I want a summary of what the whole argument is. I tried reading it and am still confused.

To me, the Horford situation was about money. AL wanted more than what the Hawks were willing to give, so he took less money and walked. I never believed the whole "fit" mentality when it came to Al or how he didn't want to play with Dwight. For him it was about feeling "disrespected" and not getting that max.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using RealGM mobile app

[dms269]

Horf and Sap should have been traded for rebuildiing assets. Hawks FO fell asleep at the wheel or at least pretended to

While I don't disagree, this is much easier said than done. Teams aren't going to offer a ton for expiring talent that can walk.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using RealGM mobile app

[MaceCase]

I want a summary of what the whole argument is. I tried reading it and am still confused.

To me, the Horford situation was about money. AL wanted more than what the Hawks were willing to give, so he took less money and walked. I never believed the whole "fit" mentality when it came to Al or how he didn't want to play with Dwight. For him it was about feeling "disrespected" and not getting that max.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using RealGM mobile app

You just summarized the argument more than perfectly.

-A podcast rehashed the Horford situation.

-I made mention that in retrospect, paying Horford 20-30-40 million more than any other team could offer him would classify as a direct contradiction of Schlenk's stated strategy of a need to not have bad contracts, particularly given his quoted mention that he'd potentially offer Millsap less than what he could get elsewhere.

-Because Al is such a beloved player on this board the discussion quickly delved back into the same histrionics already debated ad infinitum a year earlier with little mention to the current context of Schlenk's stated strategy.