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

[Miranda-Kerr]

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.

No need to be a Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. about it

Besides Al's rebounding numbers(which everyone on here knew he wasn't great to begin with) basically everything about his game has grown from 3pt attempts to assists and even his FG%

In fact simply going by his playoff games he almost had career best numbers with us

So according to you Horford will play 1 more season with the C's then be out of the league by 33

[mmmmm]

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%). 

That data comparison is not very useful without looking into the shot profile for those 2PTers.

In his last year in ATL he took 30% of his shots within 3 ft of the basket.

In his first year in BOS he took only 21.3% of his shots within 3 ft of the basket.

He did drop in his efficiency on those 'at rim' shots slightly, from 74.5% down to 70.8%, but it was still within the noise of his career average of 72.6% on shots within 3 ft.   That slight drop combined with the drop in 'at rim' frequency is what dropped his overall 2PT%.

Al shot better last year than he did in his last year in ATL and than his career averages in all the 'jump shot ranges' except for long 2s (16 ft to the arc).   But he reduced his share of the latter type shot down to just 13.6% (from 23.1%).

Range    '16    '17
0-3     .745   .708
3-10    .385   .472
10-16   .355   .392
16-arc  .492   .450
3PT     .344   .355

In the span of just a couple of seasons, Al has transitioned from shooting just 3.7% of his shots from outside the arc in 2014-15 all the way up to 30.2% of his shots being outside the arc this last year.   That's a pretty dramatic change in his shot profile, as he is transforming himself into a thoroughly modern 'stretch big' who can handle the ball, create plays for others and shoot from deep.    And he's doing it successfully.

[mmmmm]

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. 

So... you are using the fact that his production dropped ... right after he had the second of his two corrective pectoral surgeries, as a sign of decline at age 27-28?

He then posted seasons of 8.7 WS & 9.4 WS after that.   Yes he only accrued 6.3 last year, but his total minutes were down because he missed so much time early in the season.

Barring some other odd injury, I see no reason to not pencil him in for 7-ish WS each of the next 3 seasons.

[PhoSita]

Probably about the same amount of time Isaiah was on the team.

Maybe longer in Hayward's case, if Kyrie and Brad both stick around.

[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.

No need to be a **** about it

Besides Al's rebounding numbers(which everyone on here knew he wasn't great to begin with) basically everything about his game has grown from 3pt attempts to assists and even his FG%

In fact simply going by his playoff games he almost had career best numbers with us

So according to you Horford will play 1 more season with the C's then be out of the league by 33

No that’s according to him.