Al Horford Contract Detail Signals Surprising Warriors Strategy
Al Horford Contract Detail Signals Surprising Warriors Strategy
Reading the tea leaves after Horford's surprising contract detailJoey Akeley|
In this story:
Golden State WarriorsBy now, any Golden State Warriors fan is aware that Al Horford declined his player option to re-sign with the Dubs.
And when it was announced he'd signed a two-year, $14 million deal, I assumed the second year would feature a mostly meaningless player option that he would be likely to decline when he retires after the 2026-27 season.
But surprisingly, there is no player option. Horford signed a fully guaranteed contract—or at least guaranteed to the extent that he'll get all of that money as long as he doesn't retire.
It is surprising that Horford seems to want to play two more seasons at 40 years old. It is almost as surprising that the Warriors didn't play hardball here and not give him a second year. If Horford suffers a major injury this season, Golden State will be stuck having to pay him in 2027-28.
But more than anything, it's surprising because of how the Warriors have treated their future cap sheet up until the Horford contract.
Warriors Might Not Be as Committed to Major Changes in 2027-28 as Previously Thought
Coming into Thursday, the Warriors had just two players with guaranteed contracts for the 2027-28 season. They were Moses Moody ($13.4 million) and Gui Santos ($5 million). Of course Yaxel Lendeborg will sign his rookie contract and add about $6.4 million to the 2027-28 tab.
But that's it.
When the Warriors were dangling Jonathan Kuminga at the 2026 trade deadline, there was a report that they didn't want to take back a long-term salary. I interpreted that as a strategy to have as much cap space as possible for the 2027 offseason.
The report that Draymond Green will opt in to his $27.7 million player option instead of signing a multiyear deal could have nothing to do with Golden State's future cap sheet, as Green might simply want to play on a bigger salary. But I wondered if Golden State's front office is actually pushing for Green to exercise the option as a way to prioritize the 2027 offseason over having more financial wiggle room this offseason.
Surely the Warriors will extend Stephen Curry's contract into the 2027-28 season, but the fact that Jimmy Butler's contract ends after the 2026-27 season seemed like an opportunity to reset one last time with their two-time MVP in the 2027 offseason.
But then Thursday's Horford contract details were revealed.
You might be thinking, "Does Horford's $7.2 million 2027-28 salary really change everything?"
Of course it's possible the Warriors indeed make major changes in the 2027 offseason, including getting much younger, while keeping Horford on the roster.
But it doesn't pass the sniff test.
Warriors' Strategy Could Be 2-Year Contention Window
It doesn't make sense to give Horford a two-year contract unless you're planning a two-year contention window.
Here are some things that feel more likely after Horford's two-year deal.
- Porzingis getting a two-year contract instead of a one-year deal
- Butler signing a new one-year deal after the 2026-27 season (probably for much less than this his current $56.8 salary)
- Green being back for the 2027-28 season one way or another
The last one seems the most precarious. The ideal position for Lendeborg and Santos is power forward, so bringing Green back for the 2027-28 season could eat into their playing time.
But if Curry, Butler, Porzingis and Horford are on the roster, you have to believe Green would come back for cheap if the Warriors want him.
In the Kerr contract negotiations earlier this offseason, it was reported that team governor Joe Lacob wanted to avoid a Last Dance feel to the 2026-27 season, which is why he wouldn't give Kerr a one-year deal.
Ironically, we might be heading for that anyway, just one year later, as Kerr is signed for just two seasons.
Published 19 hours ago
JOEY AKELEYJoey was a writer and editor at Bleacher Report for 13 years. He's a Bay Area sports expert and a huge NBA fan.
Follow jakeley_OnSIHome/News
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
