Gordon on moving to Celtics

[stitches]

People thinking we won't miss Hayward are delusional IMO... Yeah, he wasn't a superstar but he was the closest we've had to it since Deron.

We know how much he will miss him on offense... I wonder if we wouldn't miss him defensively too:

https://public.tableau.com/shared/46C7GPS7T?:display_count=yes&:showVizHome=no

He was one of only 7 players in the league being positive defending against every single play type.

 

[Stoked]

People thinking we won't miss Hayward are delusional IMO... Yeah, he wasn't a superstar but he was the closest we've had to it since Deron.

We know how much he will miss him on offense... I wonder if we wouldn't miss him defensively too:

https://public.tableau.com/shared/46C7GPS7T?:display_count=yes&:showVizHome=no

He was one of only 7 players in the league being positive defending against every single play type.

I think DL has mitigated how much the team will miss Hayward on the defensive end when he signed a superior defender at the 3, Sefolosha.

Offensively is another matter entirely. Short of Exum and Hood taking big steps forward on that end it will be a problem. Favors could also offset this some if he returns to form.

 

[mellow]

The problem with AK is that he was played out of position. Pre-Boozer/when Boozer was injured, he played PF and his length/athleticism around the bucket was truly special. Once he got pushed to the wing and had to play on the perimeter, his impact fell off drastically.

Big, big Jerry Sloan fan but I always thought that was a big blunder.

I agree. AK at the pf was special, for the Jazz it was a move by necessity, but it was truly a move ahead of its time. Imagine prime Deron, Korver, Harpring, AK and Memo running out in today's spread and shoot NBA. The defense might be meh, but the offense could be fun. But Jerry and KOC were old school and Boozer fit the old model better than AK.

 

[JimLes]

Short lived for sure but that mother ****er was incredibly special at his peak.

Which is my point. Not that AK was amazing in the playoffs or that he had an amazing career or that Hayward will not most likely end up with more career accomplishments. It's that by any metric, for about 2 years, AK meant more to the Jazz and impacted the game so much more than Hayward did during any of his time here. I posted the advanced stats for 03/04. AK was affecting the game at MVP-candidate levels.

 

[cowhide]

Everyone unanimously wanted Hayward back at max money and now half the board echoes rubbish like that.

LOL. K.

I agree, it is funny how Hayward all of a sudden sucks. I wanted to re-sign him because he was an All-star and is very talented him. However, when people break up they always seem to discount the other persons looks or ability to make themselves feel better.

After finding out he didn't want to be in Utah, I won't miss him. I thought he mishandled the situation and comes across as being selfish. I understand he had the right to leave it is the way he left that irks me. I won't root for him and I highly doubt he wins a championship as the star of the team.

 

[cowhide]

I remember AK at his peak and people wanting the jazz to give AK all teh monies. Me included. I thought he was going to be a top 3 player in the league type of player. At his peak, dude was phenomenal. Short lived for sure but that mother ****er was incredibly special at his peak.

I was one of the few that didn't want to max AK. I think he has special skills but his offense didn't warrant it. Unfortunately, when he got his money AK believed he should be keys to the car when he wasn't the best driver.

 

[fishonjazz]

Which is my point. Not that AK was amazing in the playoffs or that he had an amazing career or that Hayward will not most likely end up with more career accomplishments. It's that by any metric, for about 2 years, AK meant more to the Jazz and impacted the game so much more than Hayward did during any of his time here. I posted the advanced stats for 03/04. AK was affecting the game at MVP-candidate levels.

Agreed

 

[JimLes]

I agree, it is funny how Hayward all of a sudden sucks. I wanted to re-sign him because he was an All-star and is very talented him. However, when people break up they always seem to discount the other persons looks or ability to make themselves feel better.

Or maybe when people break up and take off the rose-coloured glasses, they can actually see things clearly.

 

[Stoked]

Or maybe when people break up and take off the rose-coloured glasses, they can actually see things clearly.

Lmfao, he is a damn good player that any team would be lucky to have. The price of his contract is the market value.

Let's stop acting like he wasn't that good.

 

[JimLes]

Lmfao, he is a damn good player that any team would be lucky to have. The price of his contract is the market value.

Let's stop acting like he wasn't that good.

He was the second best player on our team. Let's stop acting like he was the best.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I remember AK at his peak and people wanting the jazz to give AK all teh monies. Me included. I thought he was going to be a top 3 player in the league type of player. At his peak, dude was phenomenal. Short lived for sure but that mother ****er was incredibly special at his peak.

I agree he should have been paid. Not many players are that good at 22. No one could have guessed that he would peak at 22 and go downhill from there.

I assumed he would continue to improve and earn good contract. I can't think of another player that didn't have major injuries that for worse every year after 22.

He could do some great things. Just never put it together in any significant way to impact a team winning. Which again I don't expect a 22 year old to help win that much. To bad he was lazy and weak mentally.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Hayward was the anti-AK

AK peaked early based off pure talent but couldn't really improve.

Hayward was a late bloomer who is still trending up and adds to his game every year.

I'd take Hayward. If you pick AK you are using a lot of "if" scenarios to justify it (which there are a lot of justifiable "if" scenarios revolving AK).

 

[Ron Mexico]

I agree. AK at the pf was special, for the Jazz it was a move by necessity, but it was truly a move ahead of its time. Imagine prime Deron, Korver, Harpring, AK and Memo running out in today's spread and shoot NBA. The defense might be meh, but the offense could be fun. But Jerry and KOC were old school and Boozer fit the old model better than AK.

Except ak can't stretch the floor he sucked at shooting. Boozer was a much better pf. So if you replaced boozer with ak we would have been worse. Boozer could also hit mid range shots way more reliably than AK.

 

[framer]

Lmfao, he is a damn good player that any team would be lucky to have. The price of his contract is the market value.

Let's stop acting like he wasn't that good.

Haywood's pretty good, but it remains to be seen if he is "one quarter of your salary cap" good. "Market Value" isn't always the best indicator of true value. I thought Haywood was a good player here, but i have my doubts that he is going to be what Boston thinks he is going to be. We joked about "White Lebron," but deep down knew that Haywood was the second best player on the team. He was never going to be the driving force on this team. I think he knew that and it chafed him.

He won't be that on the Celtics either, IT will. The difference is that IT will be the driving force with the ball in his hands and is an inferior player to Haywood. Do you really think that contract year IT is going to defer to "Coach's Pet?" Haywood seems pretty insular to me, and it will be interesting to see how he handles adversity in this new situation. With legendary history comes legendary expectations and needing to have 54 year old Joe Jesus come and bail you out in crunch time probably won't fly too well.

Over all, my feeling is that if you are paying a guy the max, he better be a lot better than the max, because that is the only true way to get value in the NBA. If your max player is just on the cusp of being worth the money, it really puts you in a bad spot meaning you will need some guys on rookie contracts carrying the load. That means they need to pan out on year 1 and not take seven years to develop. It is probably for the best that they don't play the same damn position as your maxed players. . .

It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[fishonjazz]

Except ak can't stretch the floor he sucked at shooting. Boozer was a much better pf. So if you replaced boozer with ak we would have been worse. Boozer could also hit mid range shots way more reliably than AK.

Who was a better defender out of boozer and AK in your opinion?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Haywood's pretty good, but it remains to be seen if he is "one quarter of your salary cap" good. "Market Value" isn't always the best indicator of true value. I thought Haywood was a good player here, but i have my doubts that he is going to be what Boston thinks he is going to be. We joked about "White Lebron," but deep down knew that Haywood was the second best player on the team. He was never going to be the driving force on this team. I think he knew that and it chafed him.

He won't be that on the Celtics either, IT will. The difference is that IT will be the driving force with the ball in his hands and is an inferior player to Haywood. Do you really think that contract year IT is going to defer to "Coach's Pet?" Haywood seems pretty insular to me, and it will be interesting to see how he handles adversity in this new situation. With legendary history comes legendary expectations and needing to have 54 year old Joe Jesus come and bail you out in crunch time probably won't fly too well.

Over all, my feeling is that if you are paying a guy the max, he better be a lot better than the max, because that is the only true way to get value in the NBA. If your max player is just on the cusp of being worth the money, it really puts you in a bad spot meaning you will need some guys on rookie contracts carrying the load. That means they need to pan out on year 1 and not take seven years to develop. It is probably for the best that they don't play the same damn position as your maxed players. . .

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Nah, that's the dumbest **** I've heard. If you can pay a guy like Hayward you do it. You would have to sign a ton of good bargain deals to make up the difference as a better way to spend that money, which isnt realistic. Next year will will probably be paying Hood+Ingles as much as Hayward is making (or very close to it). Paying Hayward one lump sum > than paying those 2 guys as much as Hayward. Paying a guy like Hayward will never put you in a bad spot. If you had to get off that contract, it would be simple.

And Hayward is a better player than IT.

Just like w/ Gobert/Hayward, just because someone is the better/more prolific scorer, it doesnt make them the best player on the team.

 

[Stoked]

He was the second best player on our team. Let's stop acting like he was the best.

The vast majority here already had him as second best. So who is pretending that he was our best?

 

[Diamond77]

I wish somebody would find the Jazz team's win-loss record when Kirilenko was missing games due to injuries.

It is undeniable the way he was impacting games, he was a game changer.

 

[framer]

Nah, that's the dumbest **** I've heard. If you can pay a guy like Hayward you do it. You would have to sign a ton of good bargain deals to make up the difference as a better way to spend that money, which isnt realistic. Next year will will probably be paying Hood+Ingles as much as Hayward is making (or very close to it). Paying Hayward one lump sum > than paying those 2 guys as much as Hayward. Paying a guy like Hayward will never put you in a bad spot. If you had to get off that contract, it would be simple.

And Hayward is a better player than IT.

Just like w/ Gobert/Hayward, just because someone is the better/more prolific scorer, it doesnt make them the best player on the team.

It is much easier to sign that deal when you have people outperforming their contracts. Utah has that in Gobert who would be worth more than his max limited contract in an open market. Boston has that right now in IT, but that situation is going to get fixed next year. Do you really believe that Boston has a championship opportunity with Hayward, Horford, and IT on Max or near max contracts? That is 70% of your capspace for 3 players who would not be all stars in the Western Conference. Each of those dudes may be "worth the max" but just barely. You are going to need someone on that team to completely blow up while at a bargain price to really take a step. I believe the Jazz have that in Donovan Mitchell.

Portland has a whole freaking team of "market value maxes." How did that work out for them?

 

[framer]

I also don't believe that Hood is going to be making 20 million + next year. he's going to get Nerlened.