What's new
By:

Move On From Hayward?

stitches said:
That's part of being efficient scorer.
Click to expand...

I agree. That is part of it.
imo three point shooting and field goal percentage is part of it too.

I think that getting to line is more about selling it to the refs (hayward is good at that)
 
fishonjazz said:
I guess i just look at the 43% from the field and 35% from three and dont like those numbers. Maybe i get too caught up on those numbers.

Again, (sounding like a broken record at this point) i have watched all of haywards games in his 6 years. I dont think he is good enough for 32-39 million dollars and i dont think he is good enough to be the best player on a great team. I fully admit that i could be wrong. I also have no problem with someone else who wants to disagree. I respect those peoples opinions.
Is that ok with everyone?
Click to expand...


He had about the same efficiency as Lillard and AD, higher efficiency than McCollum, Westbrook, Dirk, PG13, DeRozan, Wiggins, Cousins, Kyrie Irving.
 
stitches said:
He had about the same efficiency as Lillard, higher efficiency than AD, Westbrook, Dirk, PG13, DeRozan, Wiggins, Cousins, Kyrie Irving.
Click to expand...
Also, did you not notice this part of my post or you just ignored it?

fishonjazz said:
Again, (sounding like a broken record at this point) i have watched all of haywards games in his 6 years. I dont think he is good enough for 32-39 million dollars and i dont think he is good enough to be the best player on a great team. I fully admit that i could be wrong. I also have no problem with someone else who wants to disagree. I respect those peoples opinions.
Is that ok with everyone?
Click to expand...
 
King Cy said:
Cause no one watches Utah

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

i disagree. There are plenty of nba junkies and gms and nba employees, reporters, people who run websites, hell even people on this very site who watch plenty of jazz games and think that anthony davis, westbrook, lillard, paul george and irving are better than hayward.

Seriously though.... If you guys want to put hayward in the same category as those guys then that is fine but im not going to. Sorry.
 
fishonjazz said:
Also, did you not notice this part of my post or you just ignored it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw it... the problem with that reasoning is that you assume only first options should be getting this type of money. As I've explained earlier - this simply is not the case - every single contender has at least 2-3 max players. They just happen to have been signed when the cap was lower so the number was lower, but as % of the capspace the numbers are the same.
 
I can see that right now i have about 5 guys all arguing against me for some reason and there is no way that im going to make any of you think like me and you wont make me think like you so im done with this conversation for now. I have too much to do.
 
stitches said:
Yeah, I saw it... the problem with that reasoning is that you assume only first options should be getting this type of money.
Click to expand...

No i dont. I think hayward should not. Thats all. Feel free to disagree. Im ok with you thinking different. Can you be ok with me thinking different is the question. I hope you can.
 
fishonjazz said:
I can see that right now i have about 5 guys all arguing against me for some reason and there is no way that im going to make any of you think like me and you wont make me think like you so im done with this conversation for now. I have too much to do.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he's better than them, I said he is not worse efficiency-wise. I think he's better than some of them and worse than some of them. Don't take it personally, we are just talking. I hope you didn't feel like we are ganging up on you. It wasn't my intention.
 
Is anyone going to address the question of being okay with settling for a Memphis-esque team that is consistently in the playoffs but never a legitimate title contender? I'm genuinely curious because this seems to be the path we're currently on.
 
karl malone said:
Is anyone going to address the question of being okay with settling for a Memphis-esque team that is consistently in the playoffs but never a legitimate title contender? I'm genuinely curious because this seems to be the path we're currently on.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the system is set up for outliers (superstars) to win championships and there are very, very, very few of those guys to go around. To think that trading Hayward will give you one of those guys is foolish. The Jazz need to figure out a new formula that can beat the outliers.
 
karl malone said:
Is anyone going to address the question of being okay with settling for a Memphis-esque team that is consistently in the playoffs but never a legitimate title contender? I'm genuinely curious because this seems to be the path we're currently on.
Click to expand...

I think we are on that path but we have more depth and better all around talent. Our peak year with our current roster is a better starting 5 than those Memphis teams imo, we have a higher ceiling. I think it is a viable and great option for Utah to go that route. I think the best we can hope for is getting into the top 4 in the west maybe even 2 or 3 seed and hope that we play well or the chips fall the right way and we can make a run. Injuries happen, matchups change things and things can change. Even Memphis had a small chance at winning it all their best years if things worked out a little better. Timing is everything teams have won that were not a top 1 or 2 seed.
 
fishonjazz said:
i disagree. There are plenty of nba junkies and gms and nba employees, reporters, people who run websites, hell even people on this very site who watch plenty of jazz games and think that anthony davis, westbrook, lillard, paul george and irving are better than hayward.

Seriously though.... If you guys want to put hayward in the same category as those guys then that is fine but im not going to. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Some do and some dont. I dont think many people put Westbrook in the same category as Lillard either. He is head and shoulders above him. I would also put irving at a higher level and Davis. Everyone ranks people differently I think putting players in categories makes it easier and more people agree on those. Lillard might be better than Hayward I am not 100% sure. But this season they were in the same category their win totals were pretty much the same and they were pretty much the same category on offense. Hayward had a little more talented team but Lillard had a much more healthy team a more veteran team and a player scoring 20 points a game next to him to relive some pressure off him on offense.
 
karl malone said:
Is anyone going to address the question of being okay with settling for a Memphis-esque team that is consistently in the playoffs but never a legitimate title contender? I'm genuinely curious because this seems to be the path we're currently on.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with the assumption that this is what this team's ceiling is. Memphis never had the offensive firepower on the wings that we have. If Exum gets anywhere close to where Conley has been I think this team's ceiling is higher than what Memphis achieved. But even if you assume we max at Memphis level, I'd say I'd be OK with it, but would be looking to make a move to make the team better while getting to the playoffs every year and being competitive there.

If you are not OK with it and want superstars we should fire Lindsey and hire Hinkie. That's the best way to get a superstar or two for a small-market team.
 
Ellis269 said:
The problem is that the system is set up for outliers (superstars) to win championships and there are very, very, very few of those guys to go around. To think that trading Hayward will give you one of those guys is foolish. The Jazz need to figure out a new formula that can beat the outliers.
Click to expand...

You get what you get and you don't throw a fit. I'm not saying we should settle for being OK, but you play the cards you are dealt to the best of your ability. Our team says we should go for depth and build based off length and defense. Trading for a super-star is kind of stupid for Utah. Think about every team that has traded for a super-star. They end up sucking or being just ok, and the complaint ends up being "We need another super star but we have no assets to go out and trade for another one because we spent all our assets to get the first one". Some teams like Houston are big enough markets to attract another one in FA, like Dwight Howard, but even then that team still sucked. Utah wouldnt have that luxury unless we lucked out and got a top 5 player who convinced other top players to come to Utah (not happening).
 
Hayward isn't as good at making contested 30 footers as Lillard is. I think most people's problem with Hayward is that he can't score as well on bad shots, or when the defense is locked in, taking away all the options, and has to force smth.

A lot of it is what Cy said also. Jazz fans see more of Hayward than players from other teams. Every premier player looks bad on multiple possessions in every game.
 
LazyD said:
Hayward isn't as good at making contested 30 footers as Lillard is. I think most people's problem with Hayward is that he can't score as well on bad shots, or when the defense is locked in, taking away all the options, and has to force smth.

A lot of it is what Cy said also. Jazz fans see more of Hayward than players from other teams. Every premier player looks bad on multiple possessions in every game.
Click to expand...

What would Gordo and Trey bring us back in trade?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top