What's new
By:

Official We Don't Need Hayward; Trade him.

green said:
I've told you guys this before, but the Jazz are all in on Exum. If they weren't, they would have traded for Teague or Hill. They believe Exum is the future and a future star. If we trade Hayward, it won't be for a PG...at least not until Exum plays a full year.

Another thing Hayward has to worry about is his numbers. When Exum comes back, our offense will change big time. The ball will go from Hayward's hands most of the time to Exum's and Hood's. Hayward will become the 3rd/4th option.
Click to expand...

lol
 
20/5/5 players don't grow on trees, but I'm also fine with trading him if he does not resign this summer, which is quite likely.
 
jjscap said:
20/5/5 players don't grow on trees, but I'm also fine with trading him if he does not resign this summer, which is quite likely.
Click to expand...

You create them by running your offense through them. Hood and now Lyles can certainly put up numbers. Without Hayward it means more balls to go around.


Should be stickied.
 
Mission Accomplished said:
Should be stickied it is official. If we win without Hayward tonight some of you might start to open your eyes to the truth.
Click to expand...

Then we certainly need to trade Gobert, Favors, Exum and Burks as well. Jazz won games without all of them and are looking like they will make the playoffs and all of them have missed extended time this season.

Only 2 worth keeping are Hood and Lyles tbh.
 
Stoked said:
Then we certainly need to trade Gobert, Favors, Exum and Burks as well. Jazz won games without all of them and are looking like they will make the playoffs and all of them have missed extended time this season.

Only 2 worth keeping are Hood and Lyles tbh.
Click to expand...

What if I'm right? I know that Hayward holds a special place in your hearts. But, tonight if he doesn't play we might have to start saying just maybe Mission Accomplished is clairvoyant. But, like I have said before I will wait in the shadows until I will be accepted for the truths which I speak.
 
Mission Accomplished said:
What if I'm right? I know that Hayward holds a special place in your hearts. But, tonight if he doesn't play we might have to start saying just maybe Mission Accomplished is clairvoyant. But, like I have said before I will wait in the shadows until I will be accepted for the truths which I speak.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on saying that a player who performs well and gets points despite being the #1 focus of the opposing team's defense is worthless? No other player on our team faces a defensive scheme designed specifically to stop them. Yet Hayward continues to perform at a very high level.
 
Mission Accomplished said:
Chuckers goin' chuck. I'm saying what if he is not the #1 focus of the defense?
Click to expand...

Then we'll be even better as a team.

But no one else on the team has proven that they can perform at a high level if other teams develop a defensive scheme to stop them. Only Hayward. So to act like there's someone or even that there are multiple people on the team more capable of handling that than Hayward is straight ********.
 
Mission Accomplished said:
What if I'm right? I know that Hayward holds a special place in your hearts. But, tonight if he doesn't play we might have to start saying just maybe Mission Accomplished is clairvoyant. But, like I have said before I will wait in the shadows until I will be accepted for the truths which I speak.
Click to expand...

I don't think he will play tonight. Or Gobert, favors, hood, mack, lyles, neto, burke, withey, cj, Booker, or ingles.

you're not clairvoyant
 
You are saying that if he was on the Warriors he would be a 2nd options?

What about on the Spurs?

What about on the Cavs?

What about on the Thunder?

I don't think he would be the 2nd option on any contending team.
 
Mission Accomplished said:
You are saying that if he was on the Warriors he would be a 2nd options?

What about on the Spurs?

What about on the Cavs?

What about on the Thunder?

I don't think he would be the 2nd option on any contending team.
Click to expand...

Spurs and Cavs yes. Thunder no. Warriors maybe.
 
Hayward would probably be second/third option on the Warriors, third option on the Thunder and could possibly be first option on the Spurs, but that's because their offensive load is very widely distributed among all players on the floor.

That doesn't tell you anything though. For example in order to get him on the Warriors you need to remove somebody to make salaries work... Who are you removing? Thompson? Curry? If you remove Thompson, he'd be second option. If you remove Curry, he'd be the first option.
 
stitches said:
The problem is nobody knows what will happen in 3 years time - injuries, decline in performance, change of the market. Too much uncertainty. Again - every single player with the exception of LeBron who has more power than anybody in the league chose the long-tern sure thing deal, even when they could wait for the cap to jump. A jump from 67M to 92M or to 108M in cap limit(35-45%) has much bigger effect on salary than the 5% increase he can get when he's becomes a 10 year vet, and players still took the long-term security...
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood. When he opts out after next season, he's eligible for a 30% contract with either 4.5% or 7.5% raises. The raises do not compound. However, once he hits 10 years, he's eligible for a 35% contract based off whatever the cap (well, BRI technically) is at that time. So, yes, he'll want another opt out after 3 years to boost his pay at least another 5%.

Sure there is risk, but he can sign a 4 yr deal with the team of his choice, with the player opt out. I'm sure he could buy an injury insurance policy with Lloyds for any injury that would hinder another contract after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top