Guerry Clegg: Hawks limited in what they could do

If the Atlanta Hawks had a better option than taking a flyer on someone who has been underachieving or overrated — or both — for his entire career, then signing Dwight Howard would be an expensive mistake.

I said “if.”

Consider their options when free agency began:

Re-sign Al Horford and go with the status quo, minus Jeff Teague? That’s a 45-win season, at best, and probably a first-round bounce from the playoffs.

Go all-in on Kevin Durant? Not happening.

Tear it all down and start over? Too long and too risky. What if they lose 60 games and still fail to get one of the top lottery choices?

The frustrating thing about the NBA is it takes a superstar to win a championship. There are only three ways to get that superstar — and two of them involve luck. One is to be horrendous enough to get one of the top two or three picks in the draft, like Cleveland did when LeBron James came out of high school. Another way is sign a superstar free agent like Miami did with James. The third way is to get exceedingly lucky that a great player can fall in the draft, as Kobe Bryant and Steph Curry did.

Agreeing to sign Howard, which will be done officially next week, is their own lottery ticket. The odds are stacked against them, especially with Horford leaving. But if Howard still can dominate Eastern Conference centers, if he has grown up some, and if they can add another shooting guard or small forward, and if Dennis Schröder is ready to run the offense full-time, then the Hawks have a chance. A much smaller chance with Horford gone, but a better chance than if they had neither one.

Again, if.

Let’s back up to the above options.

Option 1: The status quo. First of all, that wouldn’t have made sense even if they knew they would sign Horford. It’s somewhat like many years ago when they signed Moses Malone and Reggie Theus, a couple of aging stars. It didn’t work out, largely because the chemistry was terrible. But that was their only hope of beating Boston and Detroit.

Besides, the status quo might never have been an option. There were some reports that the Hawks knew they were going to lose Horford. so that heightened the urgency to take a chance on Howard. Makes sense.

Option 2: Sign Kevin Durant. Yyyeah.

Option 3: Tear it down and start over. That option is still available. Suppose they’re stuck in the NBA purgatory — just good enough to make the playoffs and miss out on the draft lottery. With only two years left on his contract, Howard could be tradeable if a team desperately needed a center. If they could move Joe Johnson’s con<FZ,1,1,21>tract, they can move Howard’s if they need to.

Then they could tear it down to the slab and rebuild.

Actually, signing Howard for $70.5 million over three years is less risky than signing Kent Bazemore for $70 million over four years. It’s more money per year, but the shorter term would make the contract easier to trade.

Howard isn’t as skilled offensively as Horford. But he’s better in some respects. He’s stronger and a better rebounder.

They will be better defensively with Howard and at least as good because he is better around the basket than Horford. Maybe that’s not enough to excite the masses. But it beats the alternatives.

This story was originally published July 2, 2016 at 2:19 PM with the headline "Guerry Clegg: Hawks limited in what they could do."