Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

Zach Lowe was not a fan of the Hawks summer moves


615Hawk

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

I'm not sure what 'based on Horford's petty reaction' is referring to.   Are you saying we signed Baze and Howard based on that?   They were already signed.   I think we signed Howard, went to Horford to offer him a deal to play with Sap and Howard.  He said 'not enough money' even though he wanted to leave anyway.   We went back and said here's more money but we're trading Sap and he said 'i'm going to the C's'.   

No my comment on Horford's petty reaction is referring to my opinion that Horford had the intention going into the offseason to resign if given a fair value contract. Then when he received a contract that he didn't think was appropriate, he was unhappy and didn't feel valued, which led him to leave and quickly promote the Celtics' green.

I disagree with you that the Hawks planned to have Sap, Horford and Howard. If that were the case, then they really failed because who cares if you pay Horford a few extra $ that don't impact the cap that year since you are going all out for a championship. I agree with you that I think Horford may have not been happy if the Hawks were to trade Sap... Would you be happy going into your 30's, being two years from the ECF and your team wants to trades their best player (Sap) and recently traded its starting PG when you want to win a championship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

I think going into the offseason with a plan of signing Horford, who you can pay the most out of any team and who you can offer more years than anyone else, and failing on that plan when Horford never gave any indication that he wouldn't resign, can be classified as "horrible" execution. I think going from a 60 win team only two seasons ago and replacing 4 out of 5 starters with Prince and a 2019 1-10 protect first round pick can be classified as horrible management. Now, I understand they were somewhat unlucky (having to choose between Carroll and Millsap), but eventually they have to take some responsibility.

In regards to the "finger on the scale", I actually wasn't a big supporter of signing Horford to a 5-year max deal and I have actually defended FO's decision to resign Baze (I think the market somewhat justified it based on last year's performance)... But I just want some damn direction and a front office that is decisive/well-prepared for all scenarios. I think it is pretty clear that there is no real direction from our front office (signing Howard, not knowing what to do with Paul) right now and we don't even know if we have a final decision maker.

I think that's well put.   But I think there is a plan.   I think the decision was made to stay competitive this season with Dennis / Sap / Howard leading the way.   If it looks like there is potential then re-sign Sap.  If not then start the youth movement next year with Howard as the only old guy on the team.      The only deviation from this plan has been rumors of Sap trades but that was when we were in free fall and before we knew that the return was going to suck.   That was just smart to find out.  

Look at who we know will be on next year's team (barring trade):  Dennis - Baze - Howard - Delaney - Prince - Bembry.   That's it.   The rebuild has already started.   

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

I think going into the offseason with a plan of signing Horford, who you can pay the most out of any team and who you can offer more years than anyone else, and failing on that plan when Horford never gave any indication that he wouldn't resign, can be classified as "horrible" execution. I think going from a 60 win team only two seasons ago and replacing 4 out of 5 starters with Prince and a 2019 1-10 protect first round pick can be classified as horrible management. Now, I understand they were somewhat unlucky (having to choose between Carroll and Millsap), but eventually they have to take some responsibility.

In regards to the "finger on the scale", I actually wasn't a big supporter of signing Horford to a 5-year max deal and I have actually defended FO's decision to resign Baze (I think the market somewhat justified it based on last year's performance)... But I just want some damn direction and a front office that is decisive/well-prepared for all scenarios. I think it is pretty clear that there is no real direction from our front office (signing Howard, not knowing what to do with Paul) right now and we don't even know if we have a final decision maker.

It's called "free" agency.  Just because OKC could pay/offer KD the most years and money, it doesn't mean the decision wasn't ultimately Durant's to make.  That OKC lost him for nothing doesn't necessarily represent a failure on their part.  It was a gamble all 30 teams would've made.

In a cap-driven league, losing a free agent for nothing is part of the process.  Should we trade Sap now for Patrick Patterson and crap just to save face and say we "got something" for Sap?  We could trade him for Kelly Olynk just to make people feel better.

Sure, I wish we could've traded Al for Paul George or something but we gotta understand the situation here.  It's deeper than, uh we lost 4 starters from the 60-win team and all we have are x, y, z.  What value did the 4 actually hold around the league?  What were their respective contract situations?  To look at the ends without discussing the process is incomplete IMHO.

It also raises another point.  Can we stop talking about that team like they were a breath away from a title.  Yes, they won 60.  Yes, they made it to the ECF.  But, let's be honest, they were at no point in danger of winning a title.  The players, from an individual talent perspective, weren't great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BigDog90 said:

I wouldn't expect a great return. NO didn't get a great return for CP3 but it put them in position to be worse to get AD that year rather than keeping CP3 until his deal was up and having a worse pick like ATL's that year to get Jenkins.

Nobody is going to give up a great pick for Millsap but keeping him definitely cost ATL a top 7 pick in this year's great draft. Watch Millsap leave for nothing and ATL have a non lottery pick after a 1st/2nd rd exit.

CP3 netted them former #7 pick Eric Gordon- 22 years at the time (do they received a young player with potential),  #10 unprotected pick, 2 2nds, Al-Farouch Aminu and Chris Kaman (salary). NOPs record was already bad enough with CP3 so it was easy for them to slide into the #1 pick.

What's buildable about Patterson, Ross and a late 20 something pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kg01 said:

It's called "free" agency.  Just because OKC could pay/offer KD the most years and money, it doesn't mean the decision wasn't ultimately Durant's to make.  That OKC lost him for nothing doesn't necessarily represent a failure on their part.  It was a gamble all 30 teams would've made.

In a cap-driven league, losing a free agent for nothing is part of the process.  Should we trade Sap now for Patrick Patterson and crap just to save face and say we "got something" for Sap?  We could trade him for Kelly Olynk just to make people feel better.

Sure, I wish we could've traded Al for Paul George or something but we gotta understand the situation here.  It's deeper than, uh we lost 4 starters from the 60-win team and all we have are x, y, z.  What value did the 4 actually hold around the league?  What were their respective contract situations?  To look at the ends without discussing the process is incomplete IMHO.

It also raises another point.  Can we stop talking about that team like they were a breath away from a title.  Yes, they won 60.  Yes, they made it to the ECF.  But, let's be honest, they were at no point in danger of winning a title.  The players, from an individual talent perspective, weren't great.

Sure I understand losing a free agent is a gamble, but OKC gave KD a full max offer and were fully committed to trying to keep him. Whereas, our front office, by all indicators that I have seen, lowballed Horford and lost. And in my opinion lowballing him contributed to him leaving, as he didn't feel valued by the front office. Horford was ours to lose in my opinion.

I am just saying I don't think the front office fully understands what they want to do and they just play the situation by ear in a sense... They weren't 100% committed to keeping Horford and they lost that. They signed Howard, but then ended up shopping him and Paul 4 months later... I mean c'mon... It doesn't take a genius to know that we won't be any better with Howard instead of Horford and no other meaningful additions.. So if you are even going to entertain the thought of rebuilding (which it seems they did recently), then why would you sign Howard and let Paul lose value by being closer to the end of his contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

No one low balled Horford. IIRC he was given a max deal for 4 years. He wanted the fifth year and the Hawks wisely did not give it to him. There have been a slew of interviews directly with Horford where he said several times he had several other teams on his wish list as a free agent. Not one of those teams was Atlanta. He had no intention of staying despite the team brining in Howard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

Sure I understand losing a free agent is a gamble, but OKC gave KD a full max offer and were fully committed to trying to keep him. Whereas, our front office, by all indicators that I have seen, lowballed Horford and lost. And in my opinion lowballing him contributed to him leaving, as he didn't feel valued by the front office. Horford was ours to lose in my opinion.

I am just saying I don't think the front office fully understands what they want to do and they just play the situation by ear in a sense... They weren't 100% committed to keeping Horford and they lost that. They signed Howard, but then ended up shopping him and Paul 4 months later... I mean c'mon... It doesn't take a genius to know that we won't be any better with Howard instead of Horford and no other meaningful additions.. So if you are even going to entertain the thought of rebuilding (which it seems they did recently), then why would you sign Howard and let Paul lose value by being closer to the end of his contract?

What?  We don't know what they offered or when.  Plus, how are you (a) against maxing out Horford (per your prior post) but (b) criticizing them for not maxing Horford?

The idea that Horford would've been back, but only if we 5-year maxed him, tells me they did the right thing.  A team with him on the roster as a max player is a team going nowhere.

KD was worth a max as he'd led his team to the Finals once and was on the verge of doing it again just last season.  They should get exec of the year votes for deciding not to max Horford.

There is no credible report that says they shopped Howard.  Again, this is you choosing to believe nonsense.

That they "shopped" Milsap was also the right thing to do based on his age/contract status.

It seems as if you're just dead set on criticizing the front office which is fine.  That's your decision to make.  All I'll say is you shouldn't speak as if these opinions (Hawks should've gotten more for the departed starters, Hawks shopped Howard/Milsap, Hawks failed to sign Horford, etc.) are facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AHF said:

The key with that is timing.  You deal during the offseason and are ready to be in the high lottery.  You deal at this point in the year and there is no AD type payoff because the team has already won too many games.  At this point, you need a solid return or you just finis your play.  Kind of pot committed right now.

That is true. Maybe get a future first like 2018, 2018 should be a good draft. Nobody expects the Hawks to win the title this year and they could go into the 2017-18 the way they should have this year except they'd have an additional 2018 1st. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, kg01 said:

What?  We don't know what they offered or when.  Plus, how are you (a) against maxing out Horford (per your prior post) but (b) criticizing them for not maxing Horford?

I think you're missing my point. I want a front office that is well-prepared and committed to what they want to do. Not one that is half-assing everything and not really sure what to do in the future. If you want to keep Horford, then don't lowball the guy and match a non-Bird rights max (it was obvious he was going to receive a non-Bird rights max). Me being against a full Birds right max for Horford doesn't have anything to do with this.

32 minutes ago, kg01 said:

The idea that Horford would've been back, but only if we 5-year maxed him, tells me they did the right thing.  A team with him on the roster as a max player is a team going nowhere.

KD was worth a max as he'd led his team to the Finals once and was on the verge of doing it again just last season.  They should get exec of the year votes for deciding not to max Horford.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that Horford would've been back only if we 5-year maxed him... I think he would have chosen ATL if we at least matched what any other team could have offered (matched a non-Birds right max). But who knows for sure.

Obviously KD was worth the max.... My point was just to show you that the KD and Horford comparison that you brought up was a poor comparison and different situations.

32 minutes ago, kg01 said:

There is no credible report that says they shopped Howard.  Again, this is you choosing to believe nonsense.

That they "shopped" Milsap was also the right thing to do based on his age/contract status.

It seems as if you're just dead set on criticizing the front office which is fine.  That's your decision to make.  All I'll say is you shouldn't speak as if these opinions (Hawks should've gotten more for the departed starters, Hawks shopped Howard/Milsap, Hawks failed to sign Horford, etc.) are facts.

Ehhh... I think most people find Zach Lowe credible. I'll agree "shopping" was a poor word choice though in regards to Howard.

I'm not dead set on criticizing the front office... I have defended them before multiple times and have even said numerous times that most people aren't realistic on this forum in regards to the value that our players have in a trade. I just don't think our front office has clear direction and that is causing us to lose value in our players because we never know what we are doing or think ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I hope we see some activity at the trade deadline.   I'm not sure who exactly we're thinking is going to be on our roster next year?  Our free agent choices are kind of slim unless we somehow land Gordon Hayward.   Trade seems to be our only option to continue to stay competitive.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

I think you're missing my point. I want a front office that is well-prepared and committed to what they want to do. Not one that is half-assing everything and not really sure what to do in the future. If you want to keep Horford, then don't lowball the guy and match a non-Bird rights max (it was obvious he was going to receive a non-Bird rights max). Me being against a full Birds right max for Horford doesn't have anything to do with this.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that Horford would've been back only if we 5-year maxed him... I think he would have chosen ATL if we at least matched what any other team could have offered (matched a non-Birds right max). But who knows for sure.

Obviously KD was worth the max.... My point was just to show you that the KD and Horford comparison that you brought up was a poor comparison and different situations.

Ehhh... I think most people find Zach Lowe credible. I'll agree "shopping" was a poor word choice though in regards to Howard.

I'm not dead set on criticizing the front office... I have defended them before multiple times and have even said numerous times that most people aren't realistic on this forum in regards to the value that our players have in a trade. I just don't think our front office has clear direction and that is causing us to lose value in our players because we never know what we are doing or think ahead.

How do you know they weren't well-prepared?  How do you know they were half-assing anything?  That's where I have an issue with what you're saying.  They offered Horford a deal that was amenable to the team, not to Horford.  He balked.  That doesn't speak to being ill-prepared.  You want to keep him at your price, not his.

Lastly, I don't think any of these so-called experts are credible, Zack Lowe included.  Why?  Because they don't have to be credible to be successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bankingitbig said:

Agreed, but they obviously didn't know what they were doing in regards to Horford and Millsap. They were being fickle on how much/how many years to offer Horford and he got annoyed with it and left. They should have had their minds made on if they were going to keep Horford or not well before the offseason and what they were going to do with Millsap.

I find Steve Koonin to be just as credible (more so actually) than these jack leg journalist wanna be's.  Koonin said the plan all along was to have Howard, Horford and Millsap as their starting front line. 

If you go back and read some of the articles, Horford didn't even name us as one of his primary considerations.  We had committed to Howard before Horford made his decision.  It was not a reactionary move. 

We know that we did not lose out on anything by not signing Horford (aka Mr. Jello).  Boston is now the proud beneficiary of being out-rebounded by 10 or 15 a game, rather than us.  Their fans are just as frustrated as we were.

Did we make all the right decisions?  Probably not, at least with respect to Bazemore, at least.  Is Howard the answer?  Perhaps not, but we already knew that Horford was not either.  If Howard plays well, along with the rest of the team, we can beat Cleveland, San Antonio, Toronto, etc., etc.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

I hope we see some activity at the trade deadline.   I'm not sure who exactly we're thinking is going to be on our roster next year?  Our free agent choices are kind of slim unless we somehow land Gordon Hayward.   Trade seems to be our only option to continue to stay competitive.   

The minute we decided to keep Sap, we became buyers at the deadline. If we are sellers then I have no clue what we are thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
26 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

I hope we see some activity at the trade deadline.   I'm not sure who exactly we're thinking is going to be on our roster next year?  Our free agent choices are kind of slim unless we somehow land Gordon Hayward.   Trade seems to be our only option to continue to stay competitive.   

Hayward is not leaving Utah. Let's be honest: that dude is a borderline All star who happens to be an American white guy. That is like the Holy Grail for Jazz fans. Utah knows this and they will cling to him like grim death. He'll get whatever max or supermax deal he qualifies for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Watchman said:

I find Steve Koonin to be just as credible (more so actually) than these jack leg journalist wanna be's.  Koonin said the plan all along was to have Howard, Horford and Millsap as their starting front line. 

If you go back and read some of the articles, Horford didn't even name us as one of his primary considerations.  We had committed to Howard before Horford made his decision.  It was not a reactionary move. 

 

If the plan was to have Howard, Horford and Millsap and go all out, then why not pay Horford the few extra millions to get it done? Who cares about the extra millions if we are fully committed to going all out with those three. Honestly, I would have been extremely happy if this were the case. I think this makes the only sense in regards to signing Howard. I think it would have been weird chemistry, but we could have made it work. Now, who knows maybe Horford didn't want to play with the Hawks at all under any circumstance, but I highly doubt that based on what he said and what was reported.

I know Howard agreed to sign first before Horford, so it wasn't a reactionary move, but why would we even want him if our "original plan" failed and we didn't get Horford? Doesn't make sense in regards to trying to win championships... Makes sense to try and draw more fans during a major marketing campaign though, which could be the case - who knows though...

And also... I don't know how credible Koonin is in this case. His whole job is to make sure the PR for the Hawks is positive. I think there has to be some reason why every major NBA journalist was reporting that we were shopping Millsap at the time.

Edited by Bankingitbig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

If the plan was to have Howard, Horford and Millsap and go all out, then why not pay Horford the few extra millions to get it done? Who cares about the extra millions if we are fully committed to going all out with those three. Honestly, I would have been extremely happy if this were the case. I think this makes the only sense in regards to signing Howard. I think it would have been weird chemistry, but we could have made it work. Now, who knows maybe Horford didn't want to play with the Hawks at all under any circumstance, but I highly doubt that based on what he said and what was reported.

I know Howard agreed to sign first before Horford, so it wasn't a reactionary move, but why would we even want him if our "original plan" failed and we didn't get Horford? Doesn't make sense in regards to trying to win championships... Makes sense to try and draw more fans during a major marketing campaign though, which could be the case - who knows though...

And also... I don't know how credible Koonin is in this case. His whole job is to make sure the PR for the Hawks is positive. I think there has to be some reason why every major NBA journalist was reporting that we were shopping Millsap at the time.

The final report had it that the "few extra millions" were over 5 years, not 4.  Where Horford would have been "shortchanged" was that his payment over 5 years would have been slightly less annually than the Boston offer for 4.  Initial reports indicated that the 5th year was both a huge desire for Horford to remain with the Hawks and a point that Hawks management were reluctant to acquiesce on initially. 

So no,

your point is rather exaggerated.

The Hawks could have gone all in to secure a potential contending role in the immediate future but they weighed that against the costly ramifications in the future after that.  Keep in mind that Howard is less than a year older than Horford and only signed for 3 years, management appeared fine committing to 4 years for Horford but would only grant the 5th year if they could lessen the monetary burden of the contract.  That doesn't appear to be half-assing, that appears to be a full-assed plan not to commit entirely to an aging core of players.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MaceCase said:

The final report had it that the "few extra millions" were over 5 years, not 4.  Where Horford would have been "shortchanged" was that his payment over 5 years would have been slightly less annually than the Boston offer for 4.  Initial reports indicated that the 5th year was both a huge desire for Horford to remain with the Hawks and a point that Hawks management were reluctant to acquiesce on initially. 

So no,

your point is rather exaggerated.

The Hawks could have gone all in to secure a potential contending role in the immediate future but they weighed that against the costly ramifications in the future after that.  Keep in mind that Howard is less than a year older than Horford and only signed for 3 years, management appeared fine committing to 4 years for Horford but would only grant the 5th year if they could lessen the monetary burden of the contract.  That doesn't appear to be half-assing, that appears to be a full-assed plan not to commit entirely to an aging core of players.

I am well aware that Horford wanted 5-years (another indication that he wanted to resign with the Hawks), whereas we only wanted to offer 4-years. I am also not of the belief that Horford chose the Celtics over the Hawks because of $. As I said earlier, in my opinion, I think the front office botched it by lowballing him, which pissed him off. They obviously didn't have a "full-assed plan not to commit entirely to an aging core of players" since the final reported offer from the Hawks was $136M/5years.

Also, keep in mind that Howard has played a total of 35,528 minutes in the NBA to Horford's 22,959 minutes (granted Howard came into the league at age 19, but still much more toll on the body). Also, keep in mind that Horford's game ages much better than Howard's... Either way, I don't want to turn this into a Howard vs. Horford thing, because that's not my point. In fact, I would much prefer Howard's contract and production in comparison to Horford. I just don't understand the direction of the front office at all and don't understand the signing of Howard when we didn't get Horford. Either commit to ACTUALLY contending (fully going after Horford to play with Millsap and Howard) or rebuild (don't sign Howard and trade Millsap).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

CP3 netted them former #7 pick Eric Gordon- 22 years at the time (do they received a young player with potential),  #10 unprotected pick, 2 2nds, Al-Farouch Aminu and Chris Kaman (salary). NOPs record was already bad enough with CP3 so it was easy for them to slide into the #1 pick.

What's buildable about Patterson, Ross and a late 20 something pick.

Patterson is better than anyone Hawks could get in FA as a Millsap replacement. Matter of fact, with the PF FA market being weak, he'll be highly sought after. Hawks would own his bird rights. 

Ross is a shooter. A late 1st could be an asset to get a key role player like CLE did to get Korver. A late first probably could get you the PJ Tuckers etc. a proven vet vs. hoping (insert journeyman) becomes your next DeMarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

Also, keep in mind that Howard has played a total of 35,528 minutes in the NBA to Horford's 22,959 minutes (granted Howard came into the league at age 19, but still much more toll on the body). Also, keep in mind that Horford's game ages much better than Howard's... 

Yeah he may continue not grabbing rebounds until he is 70 :rofl:
lol I had to make this one

Edited by rd79
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

I am well aware that Horford wanted 5-years (another indication that he wanted to resign with the Hawks), whereas we only wanted to offer 4-years. I am also not of the belief that Horford chose the Celtics over the Hawks because of $. As I said earlier, in my opinion, I think the front office botched it by lowballing him, which pissed him off. They obviously didn't have a "full-assed plan not to commit entirely to an aging core of players" since the final reported offer from the Hawks was $136M/5years.

Also, keep in mind that Howard has played a total of 35,528 minutes in the NBA to Horford's 22,959 minutes (granted Howard came into the league at age 19, but still much more toll on the body). Also, keep in mind that Horford's game ages much better than Howard's... Either way, I don't want to turn this into a Howard vs. Horford thing, because that's not my point. In fact, I would much prefer Howard's contract and production in comparison to Horford. I just don't understand the direction of the front office at all and don't understand the signing of Howard when we didn't get Horford. Either commit to ACTUALLY contending (fully going after Horford to play with Millsap and Howard) or rebuild (don't sign Howard and trade Millsap).

You can't claim they "botched" negotiations  or "lowballed" Horford by refusing to go well above and beyond what any other team could offer him.  You also can't have the opinion that it wasn't about money but then chastise the front office for your belief that they "lowballed" him... that doesn't add up.  All I know and all the available evidence demonstrates is that they offered him his market value and the opportunity to be beside the type of player he'd spent many moons clamoring for and he balked, he wanted more or maybe perhaps something else entirely that we've all yet to glean.  You would think that that offer and that opportunity would have been enticing enough to secure a signature but no, it wasn't for some reason.  Perhaps it was an ego thing but when the Hawks compromised and came back with a lengthier offer Horford still claimed dissatisfaction that the word Max wasn't attached and left.

 

That isn't on the Hawks and the Hawks, and every other NBA team for that matter, don't operate underneath your myopic view that you either "contend or rebuild".  That view, quite frankly, is nonsense and doesn't take into account the myriad of factors of how the NBA operates.  You and anyone else cannot say with any guarantee that the pairing of a player that has proven and continues to prove to be woefully inadequate against the Cavaliers and a player that was considered to be damaged goods by the league elevates your team to contention so why then would a front office invest entirely in such an uncertainty?  That their final compromise was for 5 years in the end could be justified by the moral and monetary victory that it wasn't for $153 million and that $136 still offered them some flexibility but also they still had the potential of a Millsap trade in their back pocket to afford them even greater flexibility.  That's a full-assed plan.  That in the event that Horford left they'd still have a dynamic duo capable of matching previous seasons' success while shoring up the major weakness that they demonstrated against the Cavaliers is also a full-assed plan.  Full-assed plans have contingencies, that you can't comprehend their existence even as they are laid out before you is a failing on your part, not the front office's.  They can't be held accountable for your own black and white views of team building.

 

As to Horford aging better than Dwight?  I'd say it's debatable.  Dwight at his least is still a big body in the paint with length but his complete decline is countered by there being such a short investment in him.  Much of Horford's prowess stems from his quickness and agility on the perimeter on offense and especially on defense, those qualities tend to deteriorate the fastest as players age.  Lack of mobility for a big man that doesn't offer great interior presence could be a real detriment to a team in years 4 and 5 particularly when they are on the hook for $61 million but that's neither here nor there.....  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...