Al Horford occupies the same space that Joe Johnson did in 2010: He’s essential to everything the Hawks do, but there’s no guarantee that keeping him will make them any better than — or even as good as — they’ve already been.
In July 2010, the Hawks re-upped Johnson for $119 million over six seasons. It was immediately characterized as one of the worst NBA contracts ever. (This from the franchise that brought you Jon Koncak.) When Danny Ferry became general manager in 2012, Job 1 was to offload the rest of that oppressive outlay. Somehow he did.
To keep Horford, the Hawks might have to pay $145 million over five seasons. When Johnson was re-signed, the plaint was, “How can you give that much money to a guy who’s not a superstar?” The same question applies now.
At worst, Horford is the Hawks’ second-best player. (He was their second-best in 2010, too.) He’ll be 30 in June. Johnson had just turned 29 when he signed his massive contract. And if you’re saying, “The Hawks are in a much better place today than in 2010” … are they really?
The Hawks in the summer of 2010 were coming off a 53-29 season. They’d been the East’s No. 3 seed. They were swept in Round 2 by Orlando. The aggregate margin of defeat was 101 points. Those blowouts were the reason management fired Mike Woodson and, in a move bizarre even by Atlanta Spirit standards, promoted chief assistant Larry Drew.
These Hawks went 48-34 and were the East’s No. 3 seed. They were swept in Round 2 by Cleveland. The aggregate margin of defeat was 50 points. (Only half as bad as in 2010!) Here, though, is the difference: The average age of the Hawks’ starters at the end of the 2010 season was a rounded-up 26; the average age of the usual Hawks’ starters today is a rounded-up 30.
Keeping Johnson, who was their leading scorer coming off four consecutive All-Star seasons, was seen as vital to Retaining The Core. That refrain is sounding again, this time in reference to Horford, also a four-time All-Star. But we note that the precious core of 2010 was the one that, only two years later, Ferry moved heaven and earth to disassemble. He inherited a team that wasn’t quite good enough and never would be.
Hmm. Doesn’t that describe the Hawks today?
If the Hawks pay max money to keep Horford, would there be enough left to lure the long-sought True Center – Andre Drummond or Hassan Whiteside or Dwight Howard? Would any of those fit Mike Budenholzer’s pace-and-space offense? (The same offense, we note, that spit the bit this season.)
If Horford’s future is to be what Kevin Love is to Cleveland – a big man who shoots 3-pointers – who’ll be the Hawks’ Tristan Thompson underneath? If Horford becomes a power forward, Paul Millsap shifts to small forward: Is moving your best player in any way ideal?
There’s thought that the Hawks will simply keep Horford and Kent Bazemore and seek to roll semi-merrily on. That would be a mistake. There are dozens of Bazemores; he’s not worth mega-money. The bigger question – the biggest question the Hawks have faced in six years – is whether Horford is truly indispensable.
If he’s allowed to leave and no major free agent agrees to sign, the Hawks would take a giant step backward. Even if Drummond/Whiteside/Howard could be persuaded to come here, the new guy mightn’t fit half as well. But when yours is an aging roster that keeps getting swept by LeBron’s team, don’t you have to get younger and different?
Let’s assume that Kyle Korver is done as a starter and Jeff Teague will be traded. That still leaves the matter of Horford. Now as in 2010, there’s no right answer. If he departs, the Hawks could lose whatever traction they have. If he stays, they still won’t be good enough — and in two years they’ll be trying to trade him.
About the Author
Keep Reading
The Latest
Featured
