Losing Turner and Sullinger is addition by subtraction

[Moranis]

That would be me. I still stand by my opinion that Horford is not as much of an upgrade as people think, and losing Turner is underrated. Doesn't strike me as a particularly passive-aggressive stance, but to each their own.

I'd just like to point out that losing Turner has nothing to do with whether or not we're fine at SF -- it is about who initiates the offense when Thomas hits the bench. The plan is seemingly to use Rosier and perhaps Smart when he's back -- two players who haven't proven yet that they can handle this duty on a regular basis in the NBA. This approach will make the team brass look either very smart or very stupid when all is said and done.

This comment is disingenuous in that the writer knows very well my issue was with his rude comment regarding my basketball knowledge.

Someone who thinks Horford isn't much of an upgrade over Sullinger is questioning someone else's basketball knowledge.

Terry's name is spelled as Rozier, not Rosier.

only problem is he didn't say Horford wasn't an upgrade, he said he isn't as much of an upgrade as a lot of people make it out to be.  Frankly, I agree with him.  Horford is a much better all around player than Sullinger, but his strengths were already strengths on the team and his weaknesses are still weaknesses on the team, and the one area Sullinger was better was rebounding.  As we saw last night and even in the first game, Boston has a serious rebounding problem which Horford actually makes worse as compared to Sullinger.