How long are we expecting Hayward and Horford to remain with the Celtics

[RJ87]

Last season was:
* The first time in Horford's career that he shot below 50% from the field (I'm not counting the 49.9% in his rookie year)

* The first time in Horford's career that he averaged below 7 rebounds per game

* His lowest scoring average (14.0 PPG) since his second year (2008/08 season at age 22)

 * The equal second lowest eFG% of his career after his rookie year (tied with his 2nd year)

* The second lowest TS% of his career after his rookie year

And he had just turned 30...it's not looking good.

The decline in Al Horford's shooting stats has more to do with him becoming more of a perimeter big and less to do with age. You have to remember, his first 8 years, he took a total of 65 3-pointers. Last year he shot 242 3-pointers - and had a career high in 3PA per game. In Atlanta, 95% of his shots were 2 pointers. With Boston, only 70% of his shots are 2 pointers.

[2short]

There are valid points/arguments either way on this one.

For me al could be used in a trade for Davis or simply resign with c's at discount from his current contract.  As he ages I can see him playing no center but his game is a perfect set up for aging (think Duncan)

Hayward could be a life long Hondo like Celtic.  His team game breaks down real nice.  The way the nba is going we could be looking at a future lineup of Irving, brown, Hayward and Tatum .  Tatum has size add some bulk and he's a pf

[SparzWizard]

I think Hayward will spend the remainder of his career with us.

Horford, I'm not too sure. I wouldn't be surprised if he stayed with us for cheap (hopefully) as a big off the bench, but if some other team throws him some considerable money I wouldn't be surprised if he left

I bet Horford will go to Golden State. He could shoot the 3 ball well and play the stretch 4.

[crimson_stallion]

Last season was:
* The first time in Horford's career that he shot below 50% from the field (I'm not counting the 49.9% in his rookie year)

* The first time in Horford's career that he averaged below 7 rebounds per game

* His lowest scoring average (14.0 PPG) since his second year (2008/08 season at age 22)

 * The equal second lowest eFG% of his career after his rookie year (tied with his 2nd year)

* The second lowest TS% of his career after his rookie year

And he had just turned 30...it's not looking good.

The decline in Al Horford's shooting stats has more to do with him becoming more of a perimeter big and less to do with age. You have to remember, his first 8 years, he took a total of 65 3-pointers. Last year he shot 242 3-pointers - and had a career high in 3PA per game. In Atlanta, 95% of his shots were 2 pointers. With Boston, only 70% of his shots are 2 pointers.

I disagree. 

In Horford's last season in Atlanta, he shot 55.7% on 2-pointers.  This season he shot only 52.7%.  That is a drop of 3 percentage points, which is conveniently exactly how much his FG% dropped by (from 50.5% to 47.3%). 

His 3PT% actually went up by 1 percentage point (34.4% to 35.5%) which should have offset the very slight increase in attempts (3.1 3PA vs 3.6 3PA) - so if anything his 3PT shooting should have had approximately zero impact on his FG%. 

Going from 2013/14 to 2014/15 his FG% dropped from a career high 56.7% to 53.8% - also a drop of about 3 percentage points.  This again had nothing to do with his 3PT attempts as he shot 0.4 3PA and 0.5 3PA, respectively, in those two seasons.

So while I don't deny that  the increase in three's has made some contribution to Horford's massive drop in FG% (from 57% to 47% over four seasons) - it certainly is not the only contributor, or even the BIGGEST contributor.  His 2PT FG% has dropped from 57.2% in 2013/14 to 52.4% in 2016/17 - a very significant drop of 5 percentage points. 

[liam]

Last season was:
* The first time in Horford's career that he shot below 50% from the field (I'm not counting the 49.9% in his rookie year)

* The first time in Horford's career that he averaged below 7 rebounds per game

* His lowest scoring average (14.0 PPG) since his second year (2008/08 season at age 22)

 * The equal second lowest eFG% of his career after his rookie year (tied with his 2nd year)

* The second lowest TS% of his career after his rookie year

And he had just turned 30...it's not looking good.

The decline in Al Horford's shooting stats has more to do with him becoming more of a perimeter big and less to do with age. You have to remember, his first 8 years, he took a total of 65 3-pointers. Last year he shot 242 3-pointers - and had a career high in 3PA per game. In Atlanta, 95% of his shots were 2 pointers. With Boston, only 70% of his shots are 2 pointers.

I disagree. 

In Horford's last season in Atlanta, he shot 55.7% on 2-pointers.  This season he shot only 52.7%.  That is a drop of 3 percentage points, which is conveniently exactly how much his FG% dropped by (from 50.5% to 47.3%). 

His 3PT% actually went up by 1 percentage point (34.4% to 35.5%) which should have offset the very slight increase in attempts (3.1 3PA vs 3.6 3PA) - so if anything his 3PT shooting should have had approximately zero impact on his FG%. 

Going from 2013/14 to 2014/15 his FG% dropped from a career high 56.7% to 53.8% - also a drop of about 3 percentage points.  This again had nothing to do with his 3PT attempts as he shot 0.4 3PA and 0.5 3PA, respectively, in those two seasons.

So while I don't deny that  the increase in three's has made some contribution to Horford's massive drop in FG% (from 57% to 47% over four seasons) - it certainly is not the only contributor, or even the BIGGEST contributor.  His 2PT FG% has dropped from 57.2% in 2013/14 to 52.4% in 2016/17 - a very significant drop of 5 percentage points.

I bet Horford's shooting percentages go up this year with the additions of Hayward and Kyrie. Al's going to get a lot of open looks and I think it will help if no one gives him a concussion in training camp, like happened last year. It looked like it took Al a long time to shake that off. I never so such a good player miss so many bunnies as Al did in the 1st half of the year.

[crimson_stallion]

Where do people see Horford after his contract is over? What do we see Hayward doing after year three when he has a player option? 

I could flip a coin with Horford on a cheaper contract.  Hayward, I have no clue.  Brown and Tatum, if they have become young stars would be in year 5 and 4, respectively, where do they fit?And Hayward will be looking for another big pay raise, so will the Celtics pay him or trade him?

Also, if the team wins a title in three years, how does that impact the scenarios?

I'd love to hear opinions.  All opinions are welcome, but please be respectful

I see Horford retired.

I can't see him remaining very effective by age 33-34 given how much he;s already declined the past 2-3 seasons. 

Hayward I feel will probably stick around.

You see Horford retired at age 33?

With guys like Udonis Halsem, Pau Gasol, David West, Nick Collison, and Zach Randolph all still playing? Who are all 35-37 years old.

Paul Gasol doesn't belong on that list because he was an elite two-way big and perennial all-star who also happens to also have elite size (7'0" / 250 lbs / 7'5 wingspan) that allows him to remain effective in the league for longer, since that size allows him to shoot right over guys, grab rebounds right over guys and affect shots on defence without having to get much elevation or movement.  Hence why a guy with elite size (like Gasol  or Howard) is more likely to last in the league.  Hence why he put up arguably better numbers last year at 36 then Horford did at 31..lol

Pau Gasol and Zach Randolph also happen to be the only guys on that list currently who aren't on the fringe of "completely useless". 

* Haslem averaged less than 2 pts, 2.5 reb and 10 mins over the past two seasons
* Collison averaged as above last season
* West was comparatively beastly, putting up 4.6 pts and 3 rebounds in his 12.6 mins year

Those guys may not be retired, but all three of them may as well have done so 3 seasons ago, because they aren't doing anything to help anybody on the court right now.

Zach Randolph is the only one on that list who has remained effective, and that has a lot to do with the fact that he has freakish length (allowing him to play bigger than he is) plus the fact that his game based mostly around power rather than finesse.  Unlike Hoford he stills bangs down low, and he still gets after rebounds - he doesn't try to be something he isn't and go chasing people around on the perimeter and popping up four threes a game.

Likewise Randolph didn't see a drop off in production starting at the age of 28 like Horford has.  The last time Horford saw a rise in statistical production was in 2013/14 when he was 27 years old.   Since then it's been a steady decline both statistically and physically - you can clearly see he's not as mobile/athletic as he was 2-3 years ago, and that mobility was a big part of what made him such a special player. 

Last season was:
* The first time in Horford's career that he shot below 50% from the field (I'm not counting the 49.9% in his rookie year)

* The first time in Horford's career that he averaged below 7 rebounds per game

* His lowest scoring average (14.0 PPG) since his second year (2008/08 season at age 22)

 * The equal second lowest eFG% of his career after his rookie year (tied with his 2nd year)

* The second lowest TS% of his career after his rookie year

And he had just turned 30...it's not looking good.

Literally none of those stats matter. It doesn’t matter that Haslam, West, and Collison aren’t producing anymore. It doesn’t matter that you think Gasol and Z Bo are better now than Horford will be at that age. The point is that they’re all still playing, and you think Horford will be retired by age 33-34, when all of those guys are still playing and they’re 4-6 years older than him. You’re timeline of NBA careers is seriously screwed up if you think Horford is retiring at the end of his current contract.

My point is that Horford will be of little (if any) use to the Celtics by the time his contract is up, based on the way his career is going so far.

In all my life of watching basketball, I struggle to think of many big men who have show signs of decline as early as 27-28 years of age.  Horford's game started to drop off slowly after around the 13/14 season when he was 27 years of age - and it has just kept dropping, and dropping, and dropping every season since. 

I don't think I've seen an NBA big drop off this fast since Josh Smith - who went from 19 / 10 / 4 / 46% FG (at age 26) to 12 / 6 / 3 / 42% FG (at age 29) in the space of 3 years.  Then he immediately after that he fell directly off a cliff, dropping to 6 / 4 / 2 / 36% FG the following year at the age of 30.  This type of 'drop of a cliff' decline (where somebody goes from being fairly productive to almost completely useless) is not uncommon in the NBA, but players usually don't experience it until they get to the 37 - 40 age range. Josh Smith made it there at age 30. 

Horford's drop certainly hasn't been AS dramatic as Josh Smith's, but he's gone from averaging  17 / 10 / 3 / 54% FG (age 26) to 14 / 7 / 5 / 47% FG (at age 30) in the space of four seasons.   Most NBA players through the age range of 27-30 are playing their best basketball and putting up the best numbers of their career.  Horford by age 30 has already gone through three seasons of decline.

You're comparing him to guys like Zach Randolph, Pau Gasol and David West, but Zach Randolph (20 / 12 / 50% FG), Pau Gasol (18 / 11 /3 / 54% FG) and David West (19 / 8 / 3 / 50% FG) were all peaking and putting up career numbers at age 29.  Horford, on the other hand, put up two of the least statistically productive seasons of his career at ages 28 and 29 - already showing signs of decline.   

You use these guys as examples, when neither of those guys actually show career progression anything like Horford. 

* Randolph didn't show his first signs of decline until he hit 31 (I don't count age 30, as he only played 8 games due to unjury)

* Gasol didn't show any real signs of decline until he hit age 31

* David West didn't show any real signs of decline until he hit age 31

By age 28 Horford was already showing signs of decline, some 2-3 years earlier then any of those guys did.  You have to understand, Hoford's early signs of decline are not a common thing in this league - you can't just assume he's going to last as long as other recent bigs have done.  By all means it is POSSIBLE he might - he may well retain his production from last year for the next 5 seasons for all I know.  But the patterns so far suggest that Horford is a guy who could just as easily "drop off the cliff" at 32 and be out of the league by 34. 

[crimson_stallion]

Last season was:
* The first time in Horford's career that he shot below 50% from the field (I'm not counting the 49.9% in his rookie year)

* The first time in Horford's career that he averaged below 7 rebounds per game

* His lowest scoring average (14.0 PPG) since his second year (2008/08 season at age 22)

 * The equal second lowest eFG% of his career after his rookie year (tied with his 2nd year)

* The second lowest TS% of his career after his rookie year

And he had just turned 30...it's not looking good.

The decline in Al Horford's shooting stats has more to do with him becoming more of a perimeter big and less to do with age. You have to remember, his first 8 years, he took a total of 65 3-pointers. Last year he shot 242 3-pointers - and had a career high in 3PA per game. In Atlanta, 95% of his shots were 2 pointers. With Boston, only 70% of his shots are 2 pointers.

I disagree. 

In Horford's last season in Atlanta, he shot 55.7% on 2-pointers.  This season he shot only 52.7%.  That is a drop of 3 percentage points, which is conveniently exactly how much his FG% dropped by (from 50.5% to 47.3%). 

His 3PT% actually went up by 1 percentage point (34.4% to 35.5%) which should have offset the very slight increase in attempts (3.1 3PA vs 3.6 3PA) - so if anything his 3PT shooting should have had approximately zero impact on his FG%. 

Going from 2013/14 to 2014/15 his FG% dropped from a career high 56.7% to 53.8% - also a drop of about 3 percentage points.  This again had nothing to do with his 3PT attempts as he shot 0.4 3PA and 0.5 3PA, respectively, in those two seasons.

So while I don't deny that  the increase in three's has made some contribution to Horford's massive drop in FG% (from 57% to 47% over four seasons) - it certainly is not the only contributor, or even the BIGGEST contributor.  His 2PT FG% has dropped from 57.2% in 2013/14 to 52.4% in 2016/17 - a very significant drop of 5 percentage points.

I bet Horford's shooting percentages go up this year with the additions of Hayward and Kyrie. Al's going to get a lot of open looks and I think it will help if no one gives him a concussion in training camp, like happened last year. It looked like it took Al a long time to shake that off. I never so such a good player miss so many bunnies as Al did in the 1st half of the year.

To be honest, I remember watching Horford play in his younger days, and the biggest change that I have noticed the past few years are his outright aggressiveness and athletiicsm.

When he was young, I remember him being one of the more aggressive and athletic big men in the game.  I remember him dominating the post, hustling for loose balls, fighting hard for every rebound, playing hard physical defence...

When I watch him play these days I feel like I am watching a different person.  He barely ever even TRIES to score in the post, even against soft defence - he tends to dribble once or twice and pass out.  When he does try to score he shows little in the way of mobility or fancy footwork - usually he just tries to shoot over the defender (with either a little hook shot or a fadeaway jumper) rather than attacking the basket / defender and being aggressive.  I often see him standing around staring during rebound/loose ball opportunities, and he rarely every tries to fight for position.  I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Horford box out, get perfect position, and lose the rebound because an opponent has simply jumped right over him and grabbed it from behind.  On defence he plays smart, but doesn't seem to show even a fraction of the aggressiveness or toughness he once did.

He just plays lazy, lethargic, lax.  He doesn't play like he truly wants it - he plays like he's there to collect his cheque and go home, and if he happens to grab a win or two along the way then all the better.  It seems like he takes the "play smarter, not harder" concept a little too far, as it seems 80% of the time he depends entirely on his skill and BBIQ to allow him to get by effectively with minimal effort.

That, to me, is not the Celtic way.  Half the time I preferred seeing Amir out there because as limited as he clearly is (by injuries, etc) at least you know he's always going to play hard and give it his 150% effort every time he steps on the court.  I can respect that. 

There are occasional games where I actually did see Horford play with some of the grit and effort/energy that he used to show, and during those game I was proud to have him on the team.  Unfortunately those games seemed to come something like one in five, which just isn't good enough.

I like Horford as a player, as he has a tremendous skill set and extremely high basketball IQ.  But his drop off in rebounding in particular is extremely concerning to me.  For a guy who used to average 9-10 rebounds a game to drop down to 6.8 RPG at the age of 29-30 is something I find worrying.  Rebounding is generally about IQ (timing) and effort rather than outright athleticism, and he obviously hasn't forgotten how to time rebounds - so the only answer that remains is that he simply isn't putting in the effort anymore...and that's something I find difficult to accept for a guy who we're paying $27M (almost 1/3 of our salary cap) to each year. 

[Bucketgetter]

Where do people see Horford after his contract is over? What do we see Hayward doing after year three when he has a player option? 

I could flip a coin with Horford on a cheaper contract.  Hayward, I have no clue.  Brown and Tatum, if they have become young stars would be in year 5 and 4, respectively, where do they fit?And Hayward will be looking for another big pay raise, so will the Celtics pay him or trade him?

Also, if the team wins a title in three years, how does that impact the scenarios?

I'd love to hear opinions.  All opinions are welcome, but please be respectful

I see Horford retired.

I can't see him remaining very effective by age 33-34 given how much he;s already declined the past 2-3 seasons. 

Hayward I feel will probably stick around.

You see Horford retired at age 33?

With guys like Udonis Halsem, Pau Gasol, David West, Nick Collison, and Zach Randolph all still playing? Who are all 35-37 years old.

Paul Gasol doesn't belong on that list because he was an elite two-way big and perennial all-star who also happens to also have elite size (7'0" / 250 lbs / 7'5 wingspan) that allows him to remain effective in the league for longer, since that size allows him to shoot right over guys, grab rebounds right over guys and affect shots on defence without having to get much elevation or movement.  Hence why a guy with elite size (like Gasol  or Howard) is more likely to last in the league.  Hence why he put up arguably better numbers last year at 36 then Horford did at 31..lol

Pau Gasol and Zach Randolph also happen to be the only guys on that list currently who aren't on the fringe of "completely useless". 

* Haslem averaged less than 2 pts, 2.5 reb and 10 mins over the past two seasons
* Collison averaged as above last season
* West was comparatively beastly, putting up 4.6 pts and 3 rebounds in his 12.6 mins year

Those guys may not be retired, but all three of them may as well have done so 3 seasons ago, because they aren't doing anything to help anybody on the court right now.

Zach Randolph is the only one on that list who has remained effective, and that has a lot to do with the fact that he has freakish length (allowing him to play bigger than he is) plus the fact that his game based mostly around power rather than finesse.  Unlike Hoford he stills bangs down low, and he still gets after rebounds - he doesn't try to be something he isn't and go chasing people around on the perimeter and popping up four threes a game.

Likewise Randolph didn't see a drop off in production starting at the age of 28 like Horford has.  The last time Horford saw a rise in statistical production was in 2013/14 when he was 27 years old.   Since then it's been a steady decline both statistically and physically - you can clearly see he's not as mobile/athletic as he was 2-3 years ago, and that mobility was a big part of what made him such a special player. 

Last season was:
* The first time in Horford's career that he shot below 50% from the field (I'm not counting the 49.9% in his rookie year)

* The first time in Horford's career that he averaged below 7 rebounds per game

* His lowest scoring average (14.0 PPG) since his second year (2008/08 season at age 22)

 * The equal second lowest eFG% of his career after his rookie year (tied with his 2nd year)

* The second lowest TS% of his career after his rookie year

And he had just turned 30...it's not looking good.

Literally none of those stats matter. It doesn’t matter that Haslam, West, and Collison aren’t producing anymore. It doesn’t matter that you think Gasol and Z Bo are better now than Horford will be at that age. The point is that they’re all still playing, and you think Horford will be retired by age 33-34, when all of those guys are still playing and they’re 4-6 years older than him. You’re timeline of NBA careers is seriously screwed up if you think Horford is retiring at the end of his current contract.

My point is that Horford will be of little (if any) use to the Celtics by the time his contract is up, based on the way his career is going so far.

In all my life of watching basketball, I struggle to think of many big men who have show signs of decline as early as 27-28 years of age.  Horford's game started to drop off slowly after around the 13/14 season when he was 27 years of age - and it has just kept dropping, and dropping, and dropping every season since. 

I don't think I've seen an NBA big drop off this fast since Josh Smith - who went from 19 / 10 / 4 / 46% FG (at age 26) to 12 / 6 / 3 / 42% FG (at age 29) in the space of 3 years.  Then he immediately after that he fell directly off a cliff, dropping to 6 / 4 / 2 / 36% FG the following year at the age of 30.  This type of 'drop of a cliff' decline (where somebody goes from being fairly productive to almost completely useless) is not uncommon in the NBA, but players usually don't experience it until they get to the 37 - 40 age range. Josh Smith made it there at age 30. 

Horford's drop certainly hasn't been AS dramatic as Josh Smith's, but he's gone from averaging  17 / 10 / 3 / 54% FG (age 26) to 14 / 7 / 5 / 47% FG (at age 30) in the space of four seasons.   Most NBA players through the age range of 27-30 are playing their best basketball and putting up the best numbers of their career.  Horford by age 30 has already gone through three seasons of decline.

You're comparing him to guys like Zach Randolph, Pau Gasol and David West, but Zach Randolph (20 / 12 / 50% FG), Pau Gasol (18 / 11 /3 / 54% FG) and David West (19 / 8 / 3 / 50% FG) were all peaking and putting up career numbers at age 29.  Horford, on the other hand, put up two of the least statistically productive seasons of his career at ages 28 and 29 - already showing signs of decline.   

You use these guys as examples, when neither of those guys actually show career progression anything like Horford. 

* Randolph didn't show his first signs of decline until he hit 31 (I don't count age 30, as he only played 8 games due to unjury)

* Gasol didn't show any real signs of decline until he hit age 31

* David West didn't show any real signs of decline until he hit age 31

By age 28 Horford was already showing signs of decline, some 2-3 years earlier then any of those guys did.  You have to understand, Hoford's early signs of decline are not a common thing in this league - you can't just assume he's going to last as long as other recent bigs have done.  By all means it is POSSIBLE he might - he may well retain his production from last year for the next 5 seasons for all I know.  But the patterns so far suggest that Horford is a guy who could just as easily "drop off the cliff" at 32 and be out of the league by 34.

Dude you are just not getting it. You said he would be retired by age 33-34. Stop talking about his decline, or these other guys declines. Everyone is obviously going to decline at some point. All you need to know is that I gave you a list of 5 guys who are 4-6 years older than Horford and still in the league. You can argue Gasol is better, or even West or Randolph, but Horford is better right now than Collison and Haslem ever were. And they’re still in the league at 36 and 37 years old. So please explain to me how Collison and Haslem can play in the NBA at 36 and 37, but Horford will be out of the league by 33. Thanks.

[crimson_stallion]

Where do people see Horford after his contract is over? What do we see Hayward doing after year three when he has a player option? 

I could flip a coin with Horford on a cheaper contract.  Hayward, I have no clue.  Brown and Tatum, if they have become young stars would be in year 5 and 4, respectively, where do they fit?And Hayward will be looking for another big pay raise, so will the Celtics pay him or trade him?

Also, if the team wins a title in three years, how does that impact the scenarios?

I'd love to hear opinions.  All opinions are welcome, but please be respectful

I see Horford retired.

I can't see him remaining very effective by age 33-34 given how much he;s already declined the past 2-3 seasons. 

Hayward I feel will probably stick around.

You see Horford retired at age 33?

With guys like Udonis Halsem, Pau Gasol, David West, Nick Collison, and Zach Randolph all still playing? Who are all 35-37 years old.

Paul Gasol doesn't belong on that list because he was an elite two-way big and perennial all-star who also happens to also have elite size (7'0" / 250 lbs / 7'5 wingspan) that allows him to remain effective in the league for longer, since that size allows him to shoot right over guys, grab rebounds right over guys and affect shots on defence without having to get much elevation or movement.  Hence why a guy with elite size (like Gasol  or Howard) is more likely to last in the league.  Hence why he put up arguably better numbers last year at 36 then Horford did at 31..lol

Pau Gasol and Zach Randolph also happen to be the only guys on that list currently who aren't on the fringe of "completely useless". 

* Haslem averaged less than 2 pts, 2.5 reb and 10 mins over the past two seasons
* Collison averaged as above last season
* West was comparatively beastly, putting up 4.6 pts and 3 rebounds in his 12.6 mins year

Those guys may not be retired, but all three of them may as well have done so 3 seasons ago, because they aren't doing anything to help anybody on the court right now.

Zach Randolph is the only one on that list who has remained effective, and that has a lot to do with the fact that he has freakish length (allowing him to play bigger than he is) plus the fact that his game based mostly around power rather than finesse.  Unlike Hoford he stills bangs down low, and he still gets after rebounds - he doesn't try to be something he isn't and go chasing people around on the perimeter and popping up four threes a game.

Likewise Randolph didn't see a drop off in production starting at the age of 28 like Horford has.  The last time Horford saw a rise in statistical production was in 2013/14 when he was 27 years old.   Since then it's been a steady decline both statistically and physically - you can clearly see he's not as mobile/athletic as he was 2-3 years ago, and that mobility was a big part of what made him such a special player. 

Last season was:
* The first time in Horford's career that he shot below 50% from the field (I'm not counting the 49.9% in his rookie year)

* The first time in Horford's career that he averaged below 7 rebounds per game

* His lowest scoring average (14.0 PPG) since his second year (2008/08 season at age 22)

 * The equal second lowest eFG% of his career after his rookie year (tied with his 2nd year)

* The second lowest TS% of his career after his rookie year

And he had just turned 30...it's not looking good.

Literally none of those stats matter. It doesn’t matter that Haslam, West, and Collison aren’t producing anymore. It doesn’t matter that you think Gasol and Z Bo are better now than Horford will be at that age. The point is that they’re all still playing, and you think Horford will be retired by age 33-34, when all of those guys are still playing and they’re 4-6 years older than him. You’re timeline of NBA careers is seriously screwed up if you think Horford is retiring at the end of his current contract.

My point is that Horford will be of little (if any) use to the Celtics by the time his contract is up, based on the way his career is going so far.

In all my life of watching basketball, I struggle to think of many big men who have show signs of decline as early as 27-28 years of age.  Horford's game started to drop off slowly after around the 13/14 season when he was 27 years of age - and it has just kept dropping, and dropping, and dropping every season since. 

I don't think I've seen an NBA big drop off this fast since Josh Smith - who went from 19 / 10 / 4 / 46% FG (at age 26) to 12 / 6 / 3 / 42% FG (at age 29) in the space of 3 years.  Then he immediately after that he fell directly off a cliff, dropping to 6 / 4 / 2 / 36% FG the following year at the age of 30.  This type of 'drop of a cliff' decline (where somebody goes from being fairly productive to almost completely useless) is not uncommon in the NBA, but players usually don't experience it until they get to the 37 - 40 age range. Josh Smith made it there at age 30. 

Horford's drop certainly hasn't been AS dramatic as Josh Smith's, but he's gone from averaging  17 / 10 / 3 / 54% FG (age 26) to 14 / 7 / 5 / 47% FG (at age 30) in the space of four seasons.   Most NBA players through the age range of 27-30 are playing their best basketball and putting up the best numbers of their career.  Horford by age 30 has already gone through three seasons of decline.

You're comparing him to guys like Zach Randolph, Pau Gasol and David West, but Zach Randolph (20 / 12 / 50% FG), Pau Gasol (18 / 11 /3 / 54% FG) and David West (19 / 8 / 3 / 50% FG) were all peaking and putting up career numbers at age 29.  Horford, on the other hand, put up two of the least statistically productive seasons of his career at ages 28 and 29 - already showing signs of decline.   

You use these guys as examples, when neither of those guys actually show career progression anything like Horford. 

* Randolph didn't show his first signs of decline until he hit 31 (I don't count age 30, as he only played 8 games due to unjury)

* Gasol didn't show any real signs of decline until he hit age 31

* David West didn't show any real signs of decline until he hit age 31

By age 28 Horford was already showing signs of decline, some 2-3 years earlier then any of those guys did.  You have to understand, Hoford's early signs of decline are not a common thing in this league - you can't just assume he's going to last as long as other recent bigs have done.  By all means it is POSSIBLE he might - he may well retain his production from last year for the next 5 seasons for all I know.  But the patterns so far suggest that Horford is a guy who could just as easily "drop off the cliff" at 32 and be out of the league by 34.

Dude you are just not getting it. You said he would be retired by age 33-34. Stop talking about his decline, or these other guys declines. Everyone is obviously going to decline at some point. All you need to know is that I gave you a list of 5 guys who are 4-6 years older than Horford and still in the league. You can argue Gasol is better, or even West or Randolph, but Horford is better right now than Collison and Haslem ever were. And they’re still in the league at 36 and 37 years old. So please explain to me how Collison and Haslem can play in the NBA at 36 and 37, but Horford will be out of the league by 33. Thanks.

I just did, and it really is not that complicated. 

If you cannot understand why I have followed the fact that Horford started to decline 3 years sooner then all those players to the logical conclusion that Horford may potentially retire 3 years sooner than those players, then to be brutally honest, I really don't know what else to say here. 

I think it's pretty common knowledge that "I feel I can no longer produce at a competitive level" is probably one of the top 2 or 3 most common reasons for players deciding to retire from the game.

I also think it's pretty common logic that when a player starts showing obvious (and consistent) signs of decline for 2 or 3 seasons in a row, then it indicates that they are likely starting their gradual transition towards that point. 

Hence I don't think it's really THAT hard to understand why I would suggest that
1. Horford started to decline 2-3 years earlier then those other guys hence
2. Horford will likely reach the point hwere he can't contribut 2-3 years sooner than those guys hence
3. Horford may elect to retire 2-3 years sooner than those guys

Is the above really THAT hard to grasp?

I can understand if you disagree with me and if you believe (based on your own reasons / justifications) that he will last longer - I can totally appreciate and respect that opinion. 

But if you cannot grasp the logic that I am running with here then I can only conclude that you either:

(a) Are too lazy to bother paying attention
(b) Completely lack the ability to grasp basic human logic

In either case I really don't know how I can possibly state my reasoning in a way that is any more simplistic then what I have already have - so I'm just going to leave it where it is and say "lets agree to disagree" and move on.

My apologies if this comes across as rude or blunt as that's not my intention - I genuinely cannot think of a way to simplify my point any further.

[Vegas Green]

Horford actually strikes me as someone who would be willing to stay on a pay-cut after his contract ends ESPECIALLY if the C's are legitimately competing for banners then (ideally as the Warriors blow up in 2-3 years due to lux tax issues).

This^^

[tarheelsxxiii]

Till he owes it to one to trade the other.

[GreenFaith1819]

Till he owes it to one to trade the other.

This - I fear - has more truth to it than most of us will admit.

[crimson_stallion]

Horford actually strikes me as someone who would be willing to stay on a pay-cut after his contract ends ESPECIALLY if the C's are legitimately competing for banners then (ideally as the Warriors blow up in 2-3 years due to lux tax issues).

This^^

I wouldn't hold your breath...

https://www.peachtreehoops.com/2016/7/2/12088974/atlanta-hawks-contract-offer-al-horford-boston-celtics

Sources: Tremendous momentum for Hawks in final hours, w/ Horford returning and giving Hawks chance. In end, Hawks, Horford $6M total apart

Hawks believed Horford's heart was with them, would accept last offer. Horford dropped demand of full 5-year max but sides never closed gap.

As noted by Wojnarowski, Horford appears to have simply drawn a line in the sand in terms of the negotiations, and Atlanta’s unwillingness to budge sent him packing for Boston.

On one hand, the Hawks deserve some level of “credit” for their financial restraint, but in the same breath, it will be hard for the fan base to swallow the pill of knowing Horford is playing for a rival over a difference of only $1.2 million per season.

So Horford basically left the Hawks team he had been with for his entire career over a measley  $1.2M a year, in order to come play for Boston (who could only give him 4 years instead of 5).  I remember reading somewhere that he was apparently offended that the Hawks wouldn't offer him a max - which I frankly do not blame them for in the slightest, since IMHO Horford is not a max salary guy and Boston overpaid out of desperation.   

[Bucketgetter]

Where do people see Horford after his contract is over? What do we see Hayward doing after year three when he has a player option? 

I could flip a coin with Horford on a cheaper contract.  Hayward, I have no clue.  Brown and Tatum, if they have become young stars would be in year 5 and 4, respectively, where do they fit?And Hayward will be looking for another big pay raise, so will the Celtics pay him or trade him?

Also, if the team wins a title in three years, how does that impact the scenarios?

I'd love to hear opinions.  All opinions are welcome, but please be respectful

I see Horford retired.

I can't see him remaining very effective by age 33-34 given how much he;s already declined the past 2-3 seasons. 

Hayward I feel will probably stick around.

You see Horford retired at age 33?

With guys like Udonis Halsem, Pau Gasol, David West, Nick Collison, and Zach Randolph all still playing? Who are all 35-37 years old.

Paul Gasol doesn't belong on that list because he was an elite two-way big and perennial all-star who also happens to also have elite size (7'0" / 250 lbs / 7'5 wingspan) that allows him to remain effective in the league for longer, since that size allows him to shoot right over guys, grab rebounds right over guys and affect shots on defence without having to get much elevation or movement.  Hence why a guy with elite size (like Gasol  or Howard) is more likely to last in the league.  Hence why he put up arguably better numbers last year at 36 then Horford did at 31..lol

Pau Gasol and Zach Randolph also happen to be the only guys on that list currently who aren't on the fringe of "completely useless". 

* Haslem averaged less than 2 pts, 2.5 reb and 10 mins over the past two seasons
* Collison averaged as above last season
* West was comparatively beastly, putting up 4.6 pts and 3 rebounds in his 12.6 mins year

Those guys may not be retired, but all three of them may as well have done so 3 seasons ago, because they aren't doing anything to help anybody on the court right now.

Zach Randolph is the only one on that list who has remained effective, and that has a lot to do with the fact that he has freakish length (allowing him to play bigger than he is) plus the fact that his game based mostly around power rather than finesse.  Unlike Hoford he stills bangs down low, and he still gets after rebounds - he doesn't try to be something he isn't and go chasing people around on the perimeter and popping up four threes a game.

Likewise Randolph didn't see a drop off in production starting at the age of 28 like Horford has.  The last time Horford saw a rise in statistical production was in 2013/14 when he was 27 years old.   Since then it's been a steady decline both statistically and physically - you can clearly see he's not as mobile/athletic as he was 2-3 years ago, and that mobility was a big part of what made him such a special player. 

Last season was:
* The first time in Horford's career that he shot below 50% from the field (I'm not counting the 49.9% in his rookie year)

* The first time in Horford's career that he averaged below 7 rebounds per game

* His lowest scoring average (14.0 PPG) since his second year (2008/08 season at age 22)

 * The equal second lowest eFG% of his career after his rookie year (tied with his 2nd year)

* The second lowest TS% of his career after his rookie year

And he had just turned 30...it's not looking good.

Literally none of those stats matter. It doesn’t matter that Haslam, West, and Collison aren’t producing anymore. It doesn’t matter that you think Gasol and Z Bo are better now than Horford will be at that age. The point is that they’re all still playing, and you think Horford will be retired by age 33-34, when all of those guys are still playing and they’re 4-6 years older than him. You’re timeline of NBA careers is seriously screwed up if you think Horford is retiring at the end of his current contract.

My point is that Horford will be of little (if any) use to the Celtics by the time his contract is up, based on the way his career is going so far.

In all my life of watching basketball, I struggle to think of many big men who have show signs of decline as early as 27-28 years of age.  Horford's game started to drop off slowly after around the 13/14 season when he was 27 years of age - and it has just kept dropping, and dropping, and dropping every season since. 

I don't think I've seen an NBA big drop off this fast since Josh Smith - who went from 19 / 10 / 4 / 46% FG (at age 26) to 12 / 6 / 3 / 42% FG (at age 29) in the space of 3 years.  Then he immediately after that he fell directly off a cliff, dropping to 6 / 4 / 2 / 36% FG the following year at the age of 30.  This type of 'drop of a cliff' decline (where somebody goes from being fairly productive to almost completely useless) is not uncommon in the NBA, but players usually don't experience it until they get to the 37 - 40 age range. Josh Smith made it there at age 30. 

Horford's drop certainly hasn't been AS dramatic as Josh Smith's, but he's gone from averaging  17 / 10 / 3 / 54% FG (age 26) to 14 / 7 / 5 / 47% FG (at age 30) in the space of four seasons.   Most NBA players through the age range of 27-30 are playing their best basketball and putting up the best numbers of their career.  Horford by age 30 has already gone through three seasons of decline.

You're comparing him to guys like Zach Randolph, Pau Gasol and David West, but Zach Randolph (20 / 12 / 50% FG), Pau Gasol (18 / 11 /3 / 54% FG) and David West (19 / 8 / 3 / 50% FG) were all peaking and putting up career numbers at age 29.  Horford, on the other hand, put up two of the least statistically productive seasons of his career at ages 28 and 29 - already showing signs of decline.   

You use these guys as examples, when neither of those guys actually show career progression anything like Horford. 

* Randolph didn't show his first signs of decline until he hit 31 (I don't count age 30, as he only played 8 games due to unjury)

* Gasol didn't show any real signs of decline until he hit age 31

* David West didn't show any real signs of decline until he hit age 31

By age 28 Horford was already showing signs of decline, some 2-3 years earlier then any of those guys did.  You have to understand, Hoford's early signs of decline are not a common thing in this league - you can't just assume he's going to last as long as other recent bigs have done.  By all means it is POSSIBLE he might - he may well retain his production from last year for the next 5 seasons for all I know.  But the patterns so far suggest that Horford is a guy who could just as easily "drop off the cliff" at 32 and be out of the league by 34.

Dude you are just not getting it. You said he would be retired by age 33-34. Stop talking about his decline, or these other guys declines. Everyone is obviously going to decline at some point. All you need to know is that I gave you a list of 5 guys who are 4-6 years older than Horford and still in the league. You can argue Gasol is better, or even West or Randolph, but Horford is better right now than Collison and Haslem ever were. And they’re still in the league at 36 and 37 years old. So please explain to me how Collison and Haslem can play in the NBA at 36 and 37, but Horford will be out of the league by 33. Thanks.

I just did, and it really is not that complicated. 

If you cannot understand why I have followed the fact that Horford started to decline 3 years sooner then all those players to the logical conclusion that Horford may potentially retire 3 years sooner than those players, then to be brutally honest, I really don't know what else to say here. 

I think it's pretty common knowledge that "I feel I can no longer produce at a competitive level" is probably one of the top 2 or 3 most common reasons for players deciding to retire from the game.

I also think it's pretty common logic that when a player starts showing obvious (and consistent) signs of decline for 2 or 3 seasons in a row, then it indicates that they are likely starting their gradual transition towards that point. 

Hence I don't think it's really THAT hard to understand why I would suggest that
1. Horford started to decline 2-3 years earlier then those other guys hence
2. Horford will likely reach the point hwere he can't contribut 2-3 years sooner than those guys hence
3. Horford may elect to retire 2-3 years sooner than those guys

Is the above really THAT hard to grasp?

I can understand if you disagree with me and if you believe (based on your own reasons / justifications) that he will last longer - I can totally appreciate and respect that opinion. 

But if you cannot grasp the logic that I am running with here then I can only conclude that you either:

(a) Are too lazy to bother paying attention
(b) Completely lack the ability to grasp basic human logic

In either case I really don't know how I can possibly state my reasoning in a way that is any more simplistic then what I have already have - so I'm just going to leave it where it is and say "lets agree to disagree" and move on.

My apologies if this comes across as rude or blunt as that's not my intention - I genuinely cannot think of a way to simplify my point any further.

This must be difficult for you, as you seem very slow. I’ll keep it simple, ok lil buddy? Horford is better right now than Haslam or Collison ever were. In their prime, when they were 20, whenever. They were never as good as Horford is right now. Even with Horford’s decline. So you are just pointing out how good Horford still is, let alone in his prime. So even with this catastrophic decline you think Horford is in, the fact of the matter is that he was so good that even with a decline, he is still better than those 2 guys ever were. And they are still playing at 36 and 37. Seems obvious that if those type of big men can play until 36 and 37, Horford can obviously play until he’s 34. That’s as clear as I can put it, and I think you would be the only one on this blog who wouldn’t be able to understand it.

[Celtics4ever]

Guys this thread is getting a little rough, eh?