What's new
By:

Would Hayward take less than the max?

King Cy said:
Risk. If we are the 2nd best team in the West he could very well stay.

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

He could also very well leave.

I'd offer Hill, the GS 1st, the OKC 1st, and our own 2019 top 10 protected 1st.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I don't think this is correct. We can offer any contract up to the max, and we can offer up to 5 years because we have his Bird rights. There are restrictions on how much his pay can change (up or down) year to year.
Click to expand...
So we can offer 5 years 27 million per or 5 years 30 million per or 5 years 32 million per?

There is no minimum, only a maximum we can offer with the 5 years?
 
fishonjazz said:
So we can offer 5 years 27 million per or 5 years 30 million per or 5 years 32 million per?

There is no minimum, only a maximum we can offer with the 5 years?
Click to expand...

I believe so. BTP or GVC would know for sure but I'm pretty positive, yes.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
I believe so. BTP or GVC would know for sure but I'm pretty positive, yes.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a set percentage. Why does everyone keep talking about some random 30% number then? Is it just cause we expect him to get the biggest # possible and that would be the biggest amount?
 
Cunning Linguist said:
Your logic is flawed. In your case, the employee gets nothing else. You're considering only money. In Hayward's case, his sacrifice is for the team (him, the other players, and the coaching staff, NOT the FO) so that they can win a ring, something that really should be the goal for any competitive player.
Click to expand...
What are you babbling about? By staying within my plan, he stays with a team he says he wants to lead, he doesn't have to move his family, he gets more money here than anywhere else and he is on what many consider a very strong team.

He's not sacrificing more than $2 per year. If anything, his life is better by staying. If he demanded all of it, he's sacrificing a good guy opportunity and chances to build or keep the best roster around him so he can contend for a title.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
 
green said:
NO! And he shouldn't. Would you take less money in a company you have no stake in? Why should Hayward?
Click to expand...

People often take less money to work someplace that's a better environment, closer to family, provides better opportunities, with co-workers or bosses that they like, and so forth. It's not uncommon at all. I myself have done that on two different occasions that I can think of.

I agree that it's not likely Hayward will take less than the max, but it sort of saddens me that things like my previous sentence don't happen more often with the large amount of money that's available in professional sports.
 
colton said:
People often take less money to work someplace that's a better environment, closer to family, provides better opportunities, with co-workers or bosses that they like, and so forth. It's not uncommon at all. I myself have done that on two different occasions that I can think of.

I agree that it's not likely Hayward will take less than the max, but it sort of saddens me that things like my previous sentence don't happen more often with the large amount of money that's available in professional sports.
Click to expand...
Excellent post

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
 
King Cy said:
And the OKC pick is lotto protected. Why on Earth would they want that in a trade if they are tanking?

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

ROFL. So they wouldn't get their own pick if they are a bottom 14 team? Okay.
 
LoPo said:
What are you babbling about? By staying within my plan, he stays with a team he says he wants to lead, he doesn't have to move his family, he gets more money here than anywhere else and he is on what many consider a very strong team.

He's not sacrificing more than $2 per year. If anything, his life is better by staying. If he demanded all of it, he's sacrificing a good guy opportunity and chances to build or keep the best roster around him so he can contend for a title.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I think I misunderstand your post. You and I are on the same page.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
Because he's probably gonna leave anyway and 3 1sts and a solid pg isn't God awful.
Click to expand...

2 1st. 1 of them is just their own pick they would retain either way unless they miraculously make the playoffs without Westbrook or KD. Other teams are also trying to trade for Westbrook. You cant just lowball and expect to get him. You have to give up something of value.
 
King Cy said:
2 1st. 1 of them is just their own pick they would retain either way unless they miraculously make the playoffs without Westbrook or KD. Other teams are also trying to trade for Westbrook. You cant just lowball and expect to get him. You have to give up something of value.
Click to expand...

**** that. This was all posted before my "**** it. I want the 1 seed" thread anyway.
 
Boris said:
What are the terms? How are you going to prove all max deals are created equal? How can I prove they are not? Dollar figure divided by cap seems reasonable but this place proves to be unreasonable.

Do you agree to that term alone? Dollar figure / Cap. Including cap escalation? I.E. Parsons max not equivalent to Hayward 30% max next year?
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert in the cap. You claimed Hayward will not get a max deal. I'm saying teams will be willing to pay him what is essentially max money. Maybe if someone else chimes in with some max clarification, but bottom line, I'm saying that if the Jazz give him as much as or more than any other team could have given him then he essentially got the max, even if the Jazz could have given him more. And if the headlines are that Hayward got a max deal, then I'm calling that a max deal.

So not just a straight $/cap percentage most likely because teams could get creative. If over the life of the deal his $/cap/years is within a couple percentage points of the max I'd say I win.

Don't forget I'm taking all the injury risk here, so I want some wiggle room on what the max is.
 
kabenac said:
Missing the point. My point is Hayward doesn't deserve the max. Still angry as hell, I see. They have medicine for that. And shock therapy.
Click to expand...

I get your point. It's silly. 85% of the guys who get a max aren't deserving of it. And more often than not, it doesn't screw a team financially.
 
Gameface said:
I'm not an expert in the cap. You claimed Hayward will not get a max deal. I'm saying teams will be willing to pay him what is essentially max money. Maybe if someone else chimes in with some max clarification, but bottom line, I'm saying that if the Jazz give him as much as or more than any other team could have given him then he essentially got the max, even if the Jazz could have given him more. And if the headlines are that Hayward got a max deal, then I'm calling that a max deal.

So not just a straight $/cap percentage most likely because teams could get creative. If over the life of the deal his $/cap/years is within a couple percentage points of the max I'd say I win.

Don't forget I'm taking all the injury risk here, so I want some wiggle room on what the max is.
Click to expand...
Lol at boris actually putting money where his mouth is and actually paying up when he loses.
We all know that Hayward will be getting the max after seeing players who preformed much worse than Hayward (barnes) and players that were injured and not as good as hayward (parsons) get maxed.

It's obvious that Hayward will get a max deal. It's also obvious that boris is a troll who would never pay up.
Because we know he will never pay up you are definitely the one taking all the risk with the actual bet.... But then again there is no chance that Hayward doesn't get offered a max deal so there really isn't any risk for you I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top