Draft night 2017 might be the single biggest turning point in Utah Jazz history.

[LoPo]

Kind of shocking to me that we are freaking out over Hayward like this. Its not like the guy is Durant or LBJ. Losing him will hurt, but he's a solid all star. He's not a super star and never will be. For as many people as we have fretting over his possible departure, we would have as many complaining about him making $30+ in a couple years. I really hope he stays, but the sun will rise if he doesn't.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Kind of shocking to me that we are freaking out over Hayward like this. Its not like the guy is Durant or LBJ. Losing him will hurt, but he's a solid all star. He's not a super star and never will be. For as many people as we have fretting over his possible departure, we would have as many complaining about him making $30+ in a couple years. I really hope he stays, but the sun will rise if he doesn't.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

Losing a top 20 player who fits in with almost any kind of player for nothing is devastating especially when we can't use a similar salary to replace him. Would basically end this rebuild and the patience we've spent building this team would go for not.

 

[idiot]

I think most teams including Boston will be afraid to trade much for him since he will be a FA after next year and it sounds like he is going to LA.

I think he could be had for something like Hood, Lyle's, salary filler and maybe a current first and future first. I doubt any team would offer much more than that.

I think Jazz would have an outside chance of competing for a title next year. I also think PG likes Hill and Hayward. I think he would like playing with Gobert and like the system.

With all that I think if we made a good run and pushed GS in the playoffs or even won he might re-sign. I don't know what the odds are but it would be a huge risk. But I don't see any other chance of a title. Unless we can convince a big name FA to sign here and we keep Hayward. I would like to see the Jazz swing for the fences for once in their history.

Also going after PG13 will help us retain Hayward even if he leaves later. If it's a difference between Hayward leaving or not then it's definitely worth the risk.

Have been thinking about this for a long time now, and am still on the fence. But another "benefit" of something like this is that it would force us to make future salary/talent consolidation decisions that we'd need to make anyway. Plus, the luxury tax hurts most as a repeater effect. If Paul George were to just be here one year, that could help us stay out of the repeater category while at least attempting one big shot at things. (And if he wants to stay after one year because we do so well -- well, that's the kind of dilemma we would have gladly chosen to be in at any time over the past two decades.)

There are things that could go wrong, but I lean toward giving it a shot. (I'm not as confident that the price will be that low for PG, however; especially not at the draft, which is when we'd need to make the move. I think the Pacers likely feel that they can hold out a bit and see if something better comes along during FA period).

 

[karl malone]

I think most teams including Boston will be afraid to trade much for him since he will be a FA after next year and it sounds like he is going to LA.

I think he could be had for something like Hood, Lyle's, salary filler and maybe a current first and future first. I doubt any team would offer much more than that.

I think Jazz would have an outside chance of competing for a title next year. I also think PG likes Hill and Hayward. I think he would like playing with Gobert and like the system.

With all that I think if we made a good run and pushed GS in the playoffs or even won he might re-sign. I don't know what the odds are but it would be a huge risk. But I don't see any other chance of a title. Unless we can convince a big name FA to sign here and we keep Hayward. I would like to see the Jazz swing for the fences for once in their history.

Also going after PG13 will help us retain Hayward even if he leaves later. If it's a difference between Hayward leaving or not then it's definitely worth the risk.

I agree completely about hypothetically swinging for the fences but IMO an established superstar that isn't locked up long-term is the wrong pitch to currently be swinging at (unless there's some orginizational connection/unique circumstance that gives us a likelihood of retaining said star).

Personally, I would prefer to take multiple swings at potential superstars rather than be at the plate with a full-count, the game on the line, & in need of a grand slam. I think it's crucial that we swing for the fences, while still keeping an eye on the long-term.

 

[LoPo]

Losing a top 20 player who fits in with almost any kind of player for nothing is devastating especially when we can't use a similar salary to replace him. Would basically end this rebuild and the patience we've spent building this team would go for not.

It would suck for sure

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[karl malone]

I'd be surprised if Hood/Lyles/1st(s) is enough. IND is definitely in a difficult situation & unlikely to extract anywhere near full-value, but I'd be shocked if BOS wasn't willing to top that initial offer if PG's value is as low as you predict it to be.

Not only would the addition of PG to BOS likely increase their potential of competing more so than his addition would for Utah, the damage to the C's collection of assets would be far less minimal than it would be to that of Utah.

Hood certainly has value to a rebuilding team, which IND would be in this scenario, but unless BOS/etc are completely unwilling to allocate any resources to a potential rental, I don't see how Boston doesn't easily outbid us.

Crowder would be made expendable by the acquisition of PG, although he's not an ideal centerpiece for a rebuilding franchise & may need to be flipped. Fultz (assuming they draft him) could/should make at least 1 of AB/Smart/Rozier available.

I doubt they would trade Brown or either BKN 1st without an extension in place but I would imagine the rest of their future picks would be on the table. They also have Zizic, who's likely off-the-table as the team is said to be very high on him, but Yabusele is another intruiging prospect.

I believe IND would more interested in a Crowder/Rozier/multiple future 1st's package. Yabusele may interest them as well & could potentially replace Crowder in the deal (although that may require an additional sweetener or 2) as, unfortunately, Hood's value is likely currently limited by his inconsistencies, injury history, & approaching RFA status.

 

[idiot]

I agree completely about hypothetically swinging for the fences but IMO an established superstar that isn't locked up long-term is the wrong pitch to currently be swinging at (unless there's some orginizational connection/unique circumstance that gives us a likelihood of retaining said star).

Personally, I would prefer to take multiple swings at potential superstars rather than be at the plate with a full-count, the game on the line, & in need of a grand slam. I think it's crucial that we swing for the fences, while still keeping an eye on the long-term.

I'm not quite sure what you have in mind here specifically. How are we going to swing for the fences with our collection of (non-Gobert) talent without some major risk? Nobody's giving us a star under a good contract for our collection of unproven/inconsistent/injured talent.

And isn't this what some seem to think Boston's strategy is? And isn't it why they're in some danger of not taking the next step?

 

[Mission Accomplished]

Kind of shocking to me that we are freaking out over Hayward like this. Its not like the guy is Durant or LBJ. Losing him will hurt, but he's a solid all star. He's not a super star and never will be. For as many people as we have fretting over his possible departure, we would have as many complaining about him making $30+ in a couple years. I really hope he stays, but the sun will rise if he doesn't.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

They are lost sheep that can only follow one Shepard off the cliff.


Sent from my SM-N920P using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Douchebag K]

You are welcome comrade, I give my analysis free but you must respond to this survey..

You're in you safe place when your

1) coloring
2) playing with your fidget spinner
3) shopping
4) cuddling with your boyfriend
5) singing the soundtrack to Frozen
6) respond to a different survey

People who live in the real world don't need safe spaces cupcake.

 

[Et tu Brute]

And I think Danny Green would make Hayward pause and reconsider if he's really on the way out.

You guys must be talking about the Aussie boxer.

Cause the Spurs version is a shell of his former self. (Still can defend though...)

 

[LoPo]

You guys must be talking about the Aussie boxer.

Cause the Spurs version is a shell of his former self. (Still can defend though...)

Lol. I honestly think Green would be a massive addition to our bench and a good addition to our starters. If we had a wing rotation of Hayward, Green, Hood, Jingles and Joe Johnson, that is really strong. Of course I'm assuming Burks provides nothing. If he comes back above average, even better.

If we could get Green draft night so SA can make a CP3 push, then we could also trade Hood while he has value also on draft night.

If Hayward knew we had Green, a better rookie to groom (Mitchell), and the money to retain JIngles and Hill, that's a good sell for Hayward to stay.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Sneakers]

He's def gone. I've already moved into the acceptance phase - I implore you all to preempt the stages of grief. The avalanche of news this week combined with zero pushback from Jazz employed media ... read the tea leaves. If it still was undecided there would be a much more aggressive pushback from the Jazz staff.

We'll bounce back. In like two years lol

 

[karl malone]

I'm not quite sure what you have in mind here specifically. How are we going to swing for the fences with our collection of (non-Gobert) talent without some major risk? Nobody's giving us a star under a good contract for our collection of unproven/inconsistent/injured talent.

And isn't this what some seem to think Boston's strategy is? And isn't it why they're in some danger of not taking the next step?

There is always risk when swinging for the fences. Considering that Gobert & Hayward would be in/entering their primes + locked up long-term (assuming Hayward re-signs), acquiring a proven star would clearly be the least risky strategy. But the problem, aside from the fact tbat those caliber of players are rarely available, is that IMO we don't have nearly enough high-end assets to land a Butler type (or any current star on a long-term deal).

We may be able to piece together a good enough package to possibly rent PG for a season (especially if PG forces IND's hand). But, IMO, trading essentially all non-Hayward/Gobert assets for a non-guaranteed long-term core member is the biggest risk we could possibly take (of these options). I don't believe that having a big 3 for a single year is worth potentially/probably ending up with virtually zero talent/assets outside of Hayward & Rudy (unless your reasonably confident that the acquired star re-signs/propels us to a title in his lone season).

Unfortunately Utah would not have the fallback option of replacing said rental with a high-end FA. This is why my idea of swinging for the fences is to condense all assets other than Hayward/Gobert for draft picks &/or promising young talent in order have more chances to develop a star & time to evaluate the development. As well as more time to adjust to the leage, roster needs, new potential trends, etc.

TLDR: Swing for the fences options...

*Acquire star on long-term deal: likely not an option due to a lack of elite assets on our end

*Acquire star on expiring deal: high probability of cashing in majority of assets for a 1 yr rental/low probability of winning a championship in 2018 (especially if we have to gut the team to acquire the 3rd star)

*Acquire as many high-end draft picks/young talent: while the risk of prospects not developing is always high, the multiple opportunities, lack of immediate long-term substantial financial commitment, & extended time for internal assessment are all reasons I prefer to stay from rentals & target potential (since I don't believe option 1 is realistic).

 

[Utesnjazz]

If he doesn't want to be here that's fine with me. Honestly he is good but we have gotten about all we can out of him. I am excited to boo his *** off.

 

[infection]

Lol. I honestly think Green would be a massive addition to our bench and a good addition to our starters. If we had a wing rotation of Hayward, Green, Hood, Jingles and Joe Johnson, that is really strong. Of course I'm assuming Burks provides nothing. If he comes back above average, even better.

If we could get Green draft night so SA can make a CP3 push, then we could also trade Hood while he has value also on draft night.

If Hayward knew we had Green, a better rookie to groom (Mitchell), and the money to retain JIngles and Hill, that's a good sell for Hayward to stay.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

A few things here:

- I don't believe San Antonio would trade Green to shed salary until they had formalized agreement with Paul. However, Diaw's contract isn't guaranteed until July 15 so trading him for Green may be a possibility after the draft but I see it a lot less likely of Green being dealt on draft night.

- If we pick up Green then it compromises our ability to keep all three of Hayward, Hill and Ingles.

- Is Green an upgrade to Hood? I ask that because you insinuate at trading Hood and reference Hayward knowing we have Green as incentive to stay. That's a complicated question. Obviously he would have been better this playoffs because Hood was hot trash. But Green is a career 8.8 ppg scorer while Hood is 12.4 ppg. If Hood is at all healthy, at worst he should approximate his 14.5 ppg last year and at best has a much higher ceiling. Green is a better defender, more experienced and is more clutch, but I struggle seeing this as a move that really changes things, especially if Hood bounces back to any degree, which I am inclined to believe will happen. If we moved him for a good piece, though, then getting Green would be a good replacement and he would look good in our starting lineup.

 

[Stoked]

If he doesn't want to be here that's fine with me. Honestly he is good but we have gotten about all we can out of him. I am excited to boo his *** off.

What? This post is terrible top to bottom. There is no reason to believe that Hayward will not improve again. He is only 27 and has gotten better every year.

But eh, we don't need an all-star, 20+ppg scorer that plays D.

 

[idiot]

*Acquire as many high-end draft picks/young talent: while the risk of prospects not developing is always high, the multiple opportunities, lack of immediate long-term substantial financial commitment, & extended time for internal assessment are all reasons I prefer to stay from rentals & target potential (since I don't believe option 1 is realistic).

So Cy's plan, essentially? Well that's one way to run Gordon off (though I thought Cy was offering it as an option if it was already determined that Gordon is gone), and maybe Rudy in the long term, as well. I'm not sure why we seem to be thinking that one of the things that may be getting Gordon to question his commitment to the Jazz is the long-term process of re-building/losing, but that Rudy will be OK with selling the farm for a bunch of 19-21 year olds whose winning days are at least 4-5 years into the future (at best).

 

[LoPo]

A few things here:

- I don't believe San Antonio would trade Green to shed salary until they had formalized agreement with Paul. However, Diaw's contract isn't guaranteed until July 15 so trading him for Green may be a possibility after the draft but I see it a lot less likely of Green being dealt on draft night.

- If we pick up Green then it compromises our ability to keep all three of Hayward, Hill and Ingles.

- Is Green an upgrade to Hood? I ask that because you insinuate at trading Hood and reference Hayward knowing we have Green as incentive to stay. That's a complicated question. Obviously he would have been better this playoffs because Hood was hot trash. But Green is a career 8.8 ppg scorer while Hood is 12.4 ppg. If Hood is at all healthy, at worst he should approximate his 14.5 ppg last year and at best has a much higher ceiling. Green is a better defender, more experienced and is more clutch, but I struggle seeing this as a move that really changes things, especially if Hood bounces back to any degree, which I am inclined to believe will happen. If we moved him for a good piece, though, then getting Green would be a good replacement and he would look good in our starting lineup.

You're right, the timing of the Green trade would more than likely be after the start of new business in July because SA loves him and he loves SA. Would it happen before a Hayward decision? - probably not but who knows. He would fit well, but this all is highly unlikely unless CP3 to SA is inevitable and Hayward can weigh in on the impact of Green.

As for Green vs Hood, my whole thought process was Green+asset from Hood trade is better than just Hood. And this only makes sense if we think we're keeping Hayward and that Hayward doesn't feel that Hood is the biggest part of his decision.

 

[karl malone]

So Cy's plan, essentially? Well that's one way to run Gordon off (though I thought Cy was offering it as an option if it was already determined that Gordon is gone), and maybe Rudy in the long term, as well. I'm not sure why we seem to be thinking that one of the things that may be getting Gordon to question his commitment to the Jazz is the long-term process of re-building/losing, but that Rudy will be OK with selling the farm for a bunch of 19-21 year olds whose winning days are at least 4-5 years into the future (at best).

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. My suggestions were based on the assumption that we retain Hayward & are in search of that 3rd piece to pair with him & Rudy. I wouldn't make any significant moves until the Hayward situation is resolved (aside from an obvious win-now move that doesn't financially cripple us long-term).

*It's possible that I misunderstood the original conversation

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

Kind of shocking to me that we are freaking out over Hayward like this. Its not like the guy is Durant or LBJ. Losing him will hurt, but he's a solid all star. He's not a super star and never will be. For as many people as we have fretting over his possible departure, we would have as many complaining about him making $30+ in a couple years. I really hope he stays, but the sun will rise if he doesn't.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

This is a very accurate post, but here's why I think losing Hayward is a big deal for the Jazz:

Lindsay and this organization are really pushing the narrative that Utah doesn't need to apologize for being Utah when it comes to Free Agent recruiting. They're trying to implement a swagger that basically says "We're one of the most solid franchises in the NBA, we have title aspirations, and we are located in a city that actually has plenty of perks regardless of what type of lifestyle you're looking to live".

Problem is, it gets much harder to sell that idea when you can't hang on to one of your own. I think it's very important for the Jazz to be able to hold onto a guy that they've drafted, developed, and invested A TON of time and resources into. This is a franchise that have had multiple players refuse to come and play for AFTER they've already been traded for. It's a franchise that didn't dare wait for a decision from Deron Williams because they knew he was going to walk. It's a franchise that's never had a superstar player actually choose to come play for. Getting Hayward to choose Utah is a huge victory on several fronts.