What's new
By:

Trade idea, Hayward to the Suns

#bern said:
Why does everybody wanna trade Haywars so bad?
Click to expand...
Because some of us believe that he is not worthy of a max contract. Therefore, if we don't trade him he either walks for nothing or the jazz max him (over pay him)
Some of us think that both of those options suck and think a trade is better than losing him for nothing and is also better than paying him max money.

I think you knew that already though.
 
fishonjazz said:
Because some of us believe that he is not worthy of a max contract. Therefore, if we don't trade him he either walks for nothing or the jazz max him (over pay him)
Some of us think that both of those options suck and think a trade is better than losing him for nothing and is also better than paying him max money.

I think you knew that already though.
Click to expand...

Is the idea that if we max him he won't be trade-able anymore because of his contract? I'm legitimately wondering, I haven't heard the opinion we shouldn't pay Hayward, just the worry he won't want the money and go elsewhere.
 
Justys said:
I've read a lot about people wanting to trade Hayward to Boston but what about Hayward to Phx for the # 4 pick and 13th pick? Would Phx just laugh? Would Utah want to make it a bigger trade? knight? Bledsoe? Just wanted to see what ya'll thought?
Click to expand...

If we get Devin Booker instead of the 13th pick, I'm all in.

Suns get:
Alec Burks
Gordon Hayward
#12

Jazz Get
#4 Pick
Devin Booker
Archie Goodwin


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
Because some of us believe that he is not worthy of a max contract. Therefore, if we don't trade him he either walks for nothing or the jazz max him (over pay him)
Some of us think that both of those options suck and think a trade is better than losing him for nothing and is also better than paying him max money.

I think you knew that already though.
Click to expand...

The argument that some fans don't think he's worthy of a max contract I think is just idiotic and shows some fans have no idea what the hell they are talking about. He would have got the Max with pretty much any time that has cap space. The market demanded he get the Max, the Jazz didn't over pay him. And if you want to say they did over pay him, haha, this new collective bargaining agreement is going to piss you off cause countless guys will get the Max and deserve it less than Hayward.

Fans need to change their mindset. Somehow they think getting the Max means these players are suppose to be on a Superstar level, but that isn't the case. The market dictated it. And next year he'll be in a bargain contract with how much the cap is gonna rise.

And in the name of transparency Fishon, when I say you I am referring to anyone who feels this way, not you in particular. Good Vibes.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
MDAV28 said:
Is the idea that if we max him he won't be trade-able anymore because of his contract? I'm legitimately wondering, I haven't heard the opinion we shouldn't pay Hayward, just the worry he won't want the money and go elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I don't ever like the idea of maxing a guy who isn't worth it. That's just me. As for simply being able to trade him later, we have no idea if we will be able to trade him later. Trades are not that simple to make. They take a lot of work to pull off.
I bet the jazz wanted to trade ak at times but the return from the other team might not have been enough or his salary might have been to big for another team to want.

Maybe Hayward gets a bad injury or simply doesn't improve anymore and in fact gets worse. Sure we might still be able to trade him, we would just have to find a team with lots of cap space and try to do a salary dump. We give them Hayward and some picks for taking his salary off our hands.


That's an extreme but my point is that simply saying "we can just trade him later if we decide he is overpaid or we need to pay a different player" makes is sound so easy and common to just get trades done whenever you want for whatever you want.
 
Another thing, if you think we overpaid him, what the hell does it matter, we had tons of cap space the entire time his contract was on the books. Who the hell else were we gonna spend it on? Durant? LeBron?... Wes Matthews coming off a torn Achilles which is the most debilitating injury for a basketball player? Jeff Teague? Haha. I mean come on. The whole argument is just stupid and not thought out.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
My previous post, post 28, is an elite post. Mods, can we please implement a function where we can like our own posts (I'm not a narcissist.)


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Batman said:
The argument that some fans don't think he's worthy of a max contract I think is just idiotic and shows some fans have no idea what the hell they are talking about. He would have got the Max with pretty much any time that has cap space. The market demanded he get the Max, the Jazz didn't over pay him. And if you want to say they did over pay him, haha, this new collective bargaining agreement is going to piss you off cause countless guys will get the Max and deserve it less than Hayward.

Fans need to change their mindset. Somehow they think getting the Max means these players are suppose to be on a Superstar level, but that isn't the case. The market dictated it. And next year he'll be in a bargain contract with how much the cap is gonna rise.

And in the name of transparency Fishon, when I say you I am referring to anyone who feels this way, not you in particular. Good Vibes.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
So you think that every player in the league is getting paid what they should? There are no bad contracts out there.
Andres beidrens got paid what he got paid so that made it a good contract that teams should be happy to get him on because the market said so.

If someone offered neto 12 million per year then we should match it cause market says so.

I disagree.

I think that just because a different team places a value on a player doesn't mean we have to value that player the exact same amount. I feel like we should be able to use our brains and determine a players value on our own instead of just letting another team place value and we just say ok.
 
MDAV28 said:
Is the idea that if we max him he won't be trade-able anymore because of his contract? I'm legitimately wondering, I haven't heard the opinion we shouldn't pay Hayward, just the worry he won't want the money and go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

There is some merit to max contract I regards to trade value. The lakers and knicks both willing to go over cap space and need a trade partner to make this work.

Question is not Hayward's inherent value but yet how to exploit it best
 
Batman said:
Another thing, if you think we overpaid him, what the hell does it matter, we had tons of cap space the entire time his contract was on the books. Who the hell else were we gonna spend it on? Durant? LeBron?... Wes Matthews coming off a torn Achilles which is the most debilitating injury for a basketball player? Jeff Teague? Haha. I mean come on. The whole argument is just stupid and not thought out.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
We can't see the future. We don't know who we can or can't spend it on.

Who the hell cares if we pay mack 20 million per year right? Who else we gonna spend it on? That doesn't make sense to me.
 
fishonjazz said:
I don't ever like the idea of maxing a guy who isn't worth it. That's just me. As for simply being able to trade him later, we have no idea if we will be able to trade him later. Trades are not that simple to make. They take a lot of work to pull off.
I bet the jazz wanted to trade ak at times but the return from the other team might not have been enough or his salary might have been to big for another team to want.

Maybe Hayward gets a bad injury or simply doesn't improve anymore and in fact gets worse. Sure we might still be able to trade him, we would just have to find a team with lots of cap space and try to do a salary dump. We give them Hayward and some picks for taking his salary off our hands.


That's an extreme but my point is that simply saying "we can just trade him later if we decide he is overpaid or we need to pay a different player" makes is sound so easy and common to just get trades done whenever you want for whatever you want.
Click to expand...

It's crazy to me to think that people, especially Jazz fans, believe Hayward is not worth a max but obviously that is just completely relative to opinion and we don't necessarily need to get into that discussion.

It makes sense what you're saying. Trades definitely are a process. I remember listening to a podcast a long time ago with some NBA front offices that explained that sometimes trades take a whole season or more. Max money contracts are even more complicated because you usually have to get close in salaries.

The Jazz number one priority should be to draft and keep their talent correct? You have gotta pay Hayward don't you? I think you are one of the more optimistic fans in where this team is headed. Is it really time to move a talent like Hayward?
 
fishonjazz said:
Because some of us believe that he is not worthy of a max contract. Therefore, if we don't trade him he either walks for nothing or the jazz max him (over pay him)
Some of us think that both of those options suck and think a trade is better than losing him for nothing and is also better than paying him max money.

I think you knew that already though.
Click to expand...

Half the people here think Bradley Beal is worth a max contract, but Gordon Hayward isn't? Makes sense guys.

And it's not like we have a bad team. 10th best point differential in the league, while missing our starting PG. We played bad at the end, ran into bad luck, but we're still a damn good team overall...and y'all wanna trade away our best player? Hayward is worth a max contract with the new cap rules. He's a damn good player, easily a top 5 SF in the league. You don't let him leave.

News flash, we're probably not going to win a championship. It's ok. Maybe we should just enjoy having a good team rather than throwing it away every couple years so we can rebuild just to rebuild again and again.
 
[MENTION=2434]Batman[/MENTION]
Teams should always pay players the market value right? Never say no to any amount of money if another team would pay them that amount right?

So it would be a good thing if the jazz were paying melo 27.9 million in 2018 when he is 35 years old? That's the right move.

We really would love to be in the position to be paying 17.5 million per season to kanter right.

I would love to be paying pekovic (nearly 30 years old) 35.8 million over the next three years. But we could just trade him. It's so easy.

The market determined that omer asik was worth 5 years and 53 million. The market knows all.
 
#bern said:
Half the people here think Bradley Beal is worth a max contract, but Gordon Hayward isn't? Makes sense guys.

And it's not like we have a bad team. 10th best point differential in the league, while missing our starting PG. We played bad at the end, ran into bad luck, but we're still a damn good team overall...and y'all wanna trade away our best player? Hayward is worth a max contract with the new cap rules. He's a damn good player, easily a top 5 SF in the league. You don't let him leave.

News flash, we're probably not going to win a championship. It's ok. Maybe we should just enjoy having a good team rather than throwing it away every couple years so we can rebuild just to rebuild again and again.
Click to expand...
I don't claim that I, or others wanting to trade Hayward are right. There is no way to know.
You asked a question and I unanswered. We are not all going to agree.
 
#bern said:
News flash, we're probably not going to win a championship. It's ok. Maybe we should just enjoy having a good team rather than throwing it away every couple years so we can rebuild just to rebuild again and again.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I don't hate Hayward. Quite the opposite. If we don't trade him then I still think this team will be very good. If we did trade him I think this team would be very good. I just have a philosophy that max guys should be better than Hayward.
Wrong or right, that's my philosophy and my perogative.
 
#bern said:
Half the people here think Bradley Beal is worth a max contract, but Gordon Hayward isn't? Makes sense guys.

And it's not like we have a bad team. 10th best point differential in the league, while missing our starting PG. We played bad at the end, ran into bad luck, but we're still a damn good team overall...and y'all wanna trade away our best player? Hayward is worth a max contract with the new cap rules. He's a damn good player, easily a top 5 SF in the league. You don't let him leave.

News flash, we're probably not going to win a championship. It's ok. Maybe we should just enjoy having a good team rather than throwing it away every couple years so we can rebuild just to rebuild again and again.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say here, but important to note that not all max contracts are equal. Gtime's max will start around $31M per year... With raises it will be insane. It may be fair to question if he's worth the megamax. I think he is but the number is so high. Beal's max won't be close to that... Will start around $22M... I think it's fair to see those as comparable IF healthy.

If what we could get in trade is better than paying Gordon the megamax then it may be the right time to move him. I do think the Favors Hayward core has 2nd round of the playoffs potential... Ingram, hood, Gobert, Exum, lyles, etc may have a higher ceiling. It's a crossroads IMO, but I highly doubt we move Hayward or favors and push the window 3-5 years down the road. Prolly to risky in DL and the Millers minds.
 
MDAV28 said:
Is the idea that if we max him he won't be trade-able anymore because of his contract? I'm legitimately wondering, I haven't heard the opinion we shouldn't pay Hayward, just the worry he won't want the money and go elsewhere.
Click to expand...
There are tons of horrible contracts in the nba. I'm sure that the teams that signed the players to those contracts either thought it was a good idea at the time or felt that they had to sign them for whatever reason.

Google "worst contracts in the nba 2016"
Some of them are basically untradeable other than a salary dump where you have to give up pieces you want to keep just to get the other team to take your bad contract.

I'm not saying this would happen if we max hayward..... But those teams that signed these "bad" contracts didn't think it would happen to them either.

To act like who cares if it doesn't work out, we will just trade him then..... It's not always that easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top