What's new
By:

Would you trade Hayward+assets for John Wall??

Jamezz said:
How would you make the Jazz a real contender by moving forward with Hayward as our best player? I'm curious.
Click to expand...

No, I'd move forward with Wall as our best player and Hayward as our 2nd.

The point is to get as much top talent as possible and sacrifice the depth.
 
King Cy said:
Also, why in the **** would Wizards want Hayward when he is coming up on free agency? It would make very little sense for them to make that move. If they trade Wall, they going to want young talented players still on rookie deals and draft picks. The Jazz have both of those by the boatload.
Click to expand...

That is why the deal becomes a three way with Boston, Boston wants Hayward and believes they can retain him. Wizards get Boston's top 5 pick in the draft.
 
Washington isn't going to trade Wall. They'll finally fire the coach and make sure Wall is happy with whomever replaces him. Try again next year.
 
Jamezz said:
So who would you give up instead of Hayward?
Click to expand...

Can you just read the previous post where I explained my proposed deal?

Since you are lazy and inconsiderate, I will repost it.

Exum/Hood/Picks for Wall. That is right in line with how most trades for an all-star player who the team questions can be a "franchise" guy go. Young talent with high ceiling and picks. Utah gets better in the immediate future and Washington builds up assets to rebuild the team in a new direction. I even posted how Washington doesnt have a draft pick this year, so our pick would be even more valuable to them.

I agree with NAOS though that this purely hypothetical and I don't think Washington is considering trading Wall at all, but I do think it's a start of some tension in Washington that could lead to them wanting to do a deal in the future if the situation worsens.
 
mellow said:
That is why the deal becomes a three way with Boston, Boston wants Hayward and believes they can retain him. Wizards get Boston's top 5 pick in the draft.
Click to expand...

So Boston gives up a top 5 pick for a player they probably think they can outright sign in free agency? Genius!!!
 
I'm not saying my proposed deal of Exum/Hood/Picks is flawless, but that is the deal that seems to be the most realistic and the deal that is in line with previous deals of that nature (team looking to unload star). Rarely do star for star trades happen and no one is trading for Hayward in a contract year when he is going to be unrestricted, just way too risky.
 
King Cy said:
Really?

What star did we get for Dwill?

What star did Denver get for Carmello?

What star did OKC get for Harden?

What star did Minnesota get for Live?

What star did New Orleans get for Paul?

What star did Memphis get for Gadol?

In all cases it was high profile young talent on rookie deals and draft picks.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I did mention in one of my posts that a star on the last year of his contract that his current team doesn't think will re-sign is one that can be had without the inclusion of a star.

It can happen. Just don't think teams often trade their star player on a good long term contract for young pieces that have done absolutey nothing in the league.

Wall is a star in this league on a good long term contract. Hood is an ok player. Exum might suck and is coming off a bad injury.

I think Washington would laugh at that offer.

Agree to disagree I guess
 
King Cy said:
Hayward, no.

But I'd trade Exum/Burks/Assets.
Click to expand...

Agree with this, Hayward+ for Wall would be a lateral move IMO (although if we're going to lose him for nothing in a year, we'd be lucky to get a talent such as Wall in return). I don't know if WAS would be interested but I would definitely trade Exum/Burks/picks for Wall. With Hayward only having one more guaranteed year on his contract, we need to either trade him or add high-end talent around him.

Wall/Mack/Neto
Hood/?/Johnson
Hayward/Ingles
Favors/Lyles
Gobert/Whithey

I doubt WAS trades him (especially in a deal centered around a player coming off a serious injury), but that roster (with the right addition or 2) could be a serious contender & potentially convince Hayward to re-sign at a reasonable price as well as keep Wall reasonably content. As someone mentioned, due diligence on Wall would need to be done prior to any trade though.
 
fishonjazz said:
I did mention in one of my posts that a star on the last year of his contract that his current team doesn't think will re-sign is one that can be had without the inclusion of a star.

It can happen. Just don't think teams often trade their star player on a good long term contract for young pieces that have done absolutey nothing in the league.

Wall is a star in this league on a good long term contract. Hood is an ok player. Exum might suck and is coming off a bad injury.

I think Washington would laugh at that offer.

Agree to disagree I guess
Click to expand...
Hood is definitely better than OK.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
 
King Cy said:
Hood is definitely better than OK.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Back that ish up with his stats please.

I think ok is about what we would see if you show me stats.
 
King Cy said:
I'm not saying my proposed deal of Exum/Hood/Picks is flawless, but that is the deal that seems to be the most realistic and the deal that is in line with previous deals of that nature (team looking to unload star). Rarely do star for star trades happen and no one is trading for Hayward in a contract year when he is going to be unrestricted, just way too risky.
Click to expand...

I am not a big John Wall fan, but agree with the premise of Cy's trade idea. You have to pick a direction and go for it. If you are going to go young you move Hayward for picks, good young players, etc. If you are acquiring an all-star who is ready now... don't send out other ready now pieces... send young players and picks.

Wall for Hayward and stuff is a lateral reshuffling of deck chairs.

Also, it absolutely won't happen either way so carry on.
 
karl malone said:
Agree with this, Hayward+ for Wall would be a lateral move IMO (although if we're going to lose him for nothing in a year, we'd be lucky to get a talent such as Wall in return). I don't know if WAS would be interested but I would definitely trade Exum/Burks/picks for Wall. With Hayward only having one more guaranteed year on his contract, we need to either trade him or add high-end talent around him.

Wall/Mack/Neto
Hood/?/Johnson
Hayward/Ingles
Favors/Lyles
Gobert/Whithey

I doubt WAS trades him (especially in a deal centered around a player coming off a serious injury), but that roster (with the right addition or 2) could be a serious contender & potentially convince Hayward to re-sign at a reasonable price as well as keep Wall reasonably content. As someone mentioned, due diligence on Wall would need to be done prior to any trade though.
Click to expand...
It would have to be Hood, not Burks, for it to have any chance.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
 
King Cy said:
Hood is definitely better than OK.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Even if you are right, Washington still lol's. It ain't enough imo

Agree to disagree
 
King Cy said:
Can you just read the previous post where I explained my proposed deal?

Since you are lazy and inconsiderate, I will repost it.

Exum/Hood/Picks for Wall. That is right in line with how most trades for an all-star player who the team questions can be a "franchise" guy go. Young talent with high ceiling and picks. Utah gets better in the immediate future and Washington builds up assets to rebuild the team in a new direction. I even posted how Washington doesnt have a draft pick this year, so our pick would be even more valuable to them.

I agree with NAOS though that this purely hypothetical and I don't think Washington is considering trading Wall at all, but I do think it's a start of some tension in Washington that could lead to them wanting to do a deal in the future if the situation worsens.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't read your previous post, I'm busy and I'm just lurking during breaks. No I don't do that, do you know what we have in Exum yet? I don't think so.

As much as I like Wall you just don't give up on a player which you don't know what his ceiling could be yet. Hayward on the other hand seems to have reached it. I agree that the Wizards would be dumb to trade for Hayward since he's becoming a free agent though.
 
fishonjazz said:
Even if you are right, Washington still lol's. It ain't enough imo

Agree to disagree
Click to expand...
Look I said I doubt Washington is looking to move Wall.

The point is there is some issues going on in Washington. They could be resolved or they could get worse, who knows but it has taken a step in a bad direction. I don't think they would get a package substantially better than Hood/Exum/Lottery pick. Exam is obviously a risk, but so was Favors when we traded Swill and we never got a guaranteed starter like Hood in that deal.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
 
No way they take Hood instead of Hayward, Wizard fans would be furious...

They'd need to get a 20ppg scorer back like Hayward to even begin to PR the loss of Wall.. Also they'd need to make a big splash in Free agency.. they have lots of $$ coming off the books.

Salaries don't even match up if its Hood and Exum for Wall..

They'd definitely ask for a 2016 2nd round pick too. forgot to add that.
 
Jamezz said:
Sorry I didn't read your previous post, I'm busy and I'm just lurking during breaks. No I don't do that, do you know what we have in Exum yet? I don't think so.

As much as I like Wall you just don't give up on a player which you don't know what his ceiling could be yet. Hayward on the other hand seems to have reached it. I agree that the Wizards would be dumb to trade for Hayward since he's becoming a free agent though.
Click to expand...
My proposal is purely hypothetical and for conversation purposes of roster building, not a direct endorsement of anything.

My main point is I don't want to see a lateral move involving Hayward.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
 
karl malone said:
That would give me some pause as I don't love the spacing of a Wall/Burks/Hayward/Favors/Gobert lineup, but it's still worth considering.
Click to expand...
I would try to sign a Bazemore or Barnes. I'm ignorant to what our cap situation would be though. Might have to target a smaller fish like Allen Crabbe.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top