For Al More Years trumps More Salary.

[Diesel]

I don't think Al is nowhere close to being a max player. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING:   If Atlanta could sign him to a 2 year deal for 58 Million (for instance).. would that be smarter for Al than a 4 year deal for 81.

First deal.. 2 year 58 Million dollars with PO after First year.

Second deal 4 year 93 Million with PO after 3rd year.

Which deal is better for Al?

Which deal is better for Atlanta?

First deal 2016 Salary = 28 Million.
Second deal 2016 Salary = 21 Million.

[Thomas]

Agree the max money is crazy but a while back it was posted Al mentioned the fifth year is part of the equation.

[Bankingitbig]

Right now Al is a 9 year veteran, so his max salary starts at 30% of the salary cap. Al could gamble on himself and do a 1+1 contract (player option in second year) in order to be considered a 10 year veteran, which would allow his max to be 35% of the salary cap. Theoretically, he would then opt out of the contract after that one year and sign his last contract, pushing for the 35% max. I don't see Al doing this due to his age and he has publically stated that he values the 5 year contract that the Hawks are able to provide (due to birds rights), while other teams can only offer 4 year contracts.

In your scenario - I think the 2nd deal is better for the Hawks, as at least two more guaranteed years of Al would be better than one (and not quite as bad as paying a 35 year old max money). But that contract will never happen. It's quite a bit below his max and he wouldn't sign only a 4 year deal I don't think. Most likely scenario is Al gets the 5-year contract, but negotiates to take a small paycut (not the full max). BUT the contract would still be worth more than what other teams could offer, just wouldn't be his full birds right max.

[cam1218]

What scares me about a short term deal is we get another year of Al playing like he is afraid to get hurt.

[BigDog90]

On 5/11/2016 at 11:46 AM, Diesel said:

I don't think Al is nowhere close to being a max player. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING:   If Atlanta could sign him to a 2 year deal for 58 Million (for instance).. would that be smarter for Al than a 4 year deal for 81.

First deal.. 2 year 58 Million dollars with PO after First year.

Second deal 4 year 93 Million with PO after 3rd year.

Which deal is better for Al?

Which deal is better for Atlanta?

First deal 2016 Salary = 28 Million.
Second deal 2016 Salary = 21 Million.

 

For both Al and ATL, the first deal.

No long term salary for the Hawks after next season so they can start fresh if they can't win with this group. Al gets max money and if he wants to leave the Hawks after next season he'd have more choices since the cap would rise even more. 

 

[BigDog90]

4 hours ago, cam1218 said:

What scares me about a short term deal is we get another year of Al playing like he is afraid to get hurt.

Yeah that's the thing I hate. IMO he's ATL's best option at center. There's not really a center in free agency this year who can shoot long twos and three pointers and a solid defender.

If he walks, I wouldn't be surprised if ATL goes with the next man up approach like they did when Carroll left and start Splitter. Who knows if Splitter can make it through a whole season at this point of his career.

[macdaddy]

1 minute ago, BigDog90 said:

Yeah that's the thing I hate. IMO he's ATL's best option at center. There's not really a center in free agency this year who can shoot long twos and three pointers and a solid defender.

If he walks, I wouldn't be surprised if ATL goes with the next man up approach like they did when Carroll left and start Splitter. Who knows if Splitter can make it through a whole pre-season at this point of his career.

corrected.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, BigDog90 said:

For both Al and ATL, the first deal.

No long term salary for the Hawks after next season so they can start fresh if they can't win with this group. Al gets max money and if he wants to leave the Hawks after next season he'd have more choices since the cap would rise even more. 

 

If he is signed for longer, he can also be traded.  The cap in 2017 is $109, higher the next year so the % of his salary with the higher cap will be lower.

[benhillboy]

30-35% of the cap for 21% usage.  Makes sense.  That man had the same number of And 1s this season as Dennis.

Al peaked long ago in 09-10 before the injuries.  It'll be socially irresponsible for him to be making 35 mil 5 years from now, let alone the clear admission that he doesn't want to win.  

The Hawks aren't the model franchise but they aren't the type you need to financially take advantage of because your agent fears they'll spend foolishly in FA (and make less commission of course).  I hope like hell he doesn't put himself in a position to be vilified by an awful sports town like Joe because his salary is accelerating while his game is doing the opposite.

You think Steph is gonna accept anything near his market value when his time comes?  Hell no.  All the excess he could/should be making will trickle down to a brand new set of 3 starter-quality players off the bench to keep the machine running.  And to think, he's a little bit better than Al.  Who at a max will continue the Hawks machine of bench players starting 

Edited May 12, 2016 by benhillboy

[BigDog90]

2 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

If he is signed for longer, he can also be traded.  The cap in 2017 is $109, higher the next year so the % of his salary with the higher cap will be lower.

 

That's true but seeing how the Hawks made it difficult for a team to acquire Al this past trade deadline, I can only imagine what they'd want from him down the line since he's likely to get more All-Star selections.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BigDog90 said:

That's true but seeing how the Hawks made it difficult for a team to acquire Al this past trade deadline, I can only imagine what they'd want from him down the line since he's likely to get more All-Star selections.

Good for us.

Teams didn't  want  to give up what we asked this trade deadline because Al was a free agent.  Easier if he's  locked in.

[Jody23]

2 hours ago, BigDog90 said:

That's true but seeing how the Hawks made it difficult for a team to acquire Al this past trade deadline, I can only imagine what they'd want from him down the line since he's likely to get more All-Star selections.

I wouldn't bank on that considering his game isn't trending in a positive direction.  And the only reason he made the All Star team this year was because Bosh was ill.

[pimp]

10 minutes ago, Jody23 said:

I wouldn't bank on that considering his game isn't trending in a positive direction.  And the only reason he made the All Star team this year was because Bosh was ill.

I think Jimmy Buttler and Pau Gasol were selected and unable to play as well.

[RedDawg#8]

We max Al to close to 30 mil a year and we aren't sniffing a championship for the next 10 years (duration of his contract plus rebuilding years after its over) . We are in a terrible position, the cap is rising and we wont be able to take advantage of it other than bringing back the same squad that has yet to prove that December 2014/January 2015 wasn't a fluke.

I'm all for bringing Al Horford back, but not for 25 million or more a year. Al Horford has EARNED no more than a 20 million dollar/year contract. That's still a freaking fortune. His numbers have gone down from the stats he put up to earn the 15/16 mil a year he has had. I don't know many players who can be injured every 3 years, put up less production, not get the team to the finals let alone a championship, allow his team to be swept out of the playoffs 4 out of 9 trips and they end up getting paid TWICE as much money on a new contract. Al wants a MAX deal, he should have given a MAX effort the past two seasons, not lollygag and play safe while his team needed someone to lead them. Al isn't going to take us to the promisedland so we shouldn't sell the farm just to keep him from leaving. Sorry, Bud ball is team ball, not Al ball.