Trade Hayward Please ....
- Thread starter udflyer
- Start date
I think sitting was a good move. He was having one of his sad puppy games. Let him sit and watch the game, and make him come out in the 3rd with a bit more attitude from being benched.
He always looks that way. 8 minutes ?
Ty's getting minutes for Burks, which is fine, but also, Howard, Miles, we have too many.
Plus, like this article says, we do not want to invest in him anyway.
https://www.slcdunk.com/2012/2/17/2805670/what-is-an-okc-model
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Oh ****, Utah is winning in a blow out.
Somebody, quick, find something to bitch about!
Somebody, quick, find something to bitch about!
With as much time as we've wasted on Chucker James Miles, I think Hayward still deserves 4 more years to prove himself.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
While I agree that Hayward should be playing over Howard and CJ. He played like crap in his 8 first half minutes. What did, or has he done to show he should be played more when playing like that?
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
28 minutes is good, but just think, if we play him twice as much, he will develop twice as fast. I'm thinking 56 MPG sounds good. Obviously, we can't go to overtime every game, so Ty should make him shoot practice shots during time outs and half-time.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
It's amazing people don't get this. But what I also don't get is that this is a massively compressed season. If you get a chance to rest guys in a regular season game, you do it. Forget whether Hayward played good or bad. He got extra rest tonight. That's a win.
Jerry Lundegaard
Banned
I agree with the premise Ty is balancing the minutes across too many players, but completely disagree about trading Hayward. He's the future of our franchise. Give him at least 30 minutes a game.
spycam1
Well-Known Member
He's definitely PART of the future of this franchise, but Kanter and Favors are the real cornerstones.
fallenchicken
Well-Known Member
You better pray for a long life, fellas.
Believe it or not , no.
The reason he did so well at the end of the year last year is we ran the offense and plays through him regularly.
As the SLCDunk article states, most of the time they fling him out to the corner and he stands there.
Most of his points come in transition and backdoor cuts to the hoop.
He is not an integral part of the offense.
That's why I call them "token" starts.
He did not play like crap. His defense was spot on as normal. The offense really did not include him at all.
His only points was from a transition layup (He did miss a 3)
My point. I like Hayward as well and I think he "could be" a key to our future.
My point is we will not know if we don not run much more offense through him and see what happens (good or bad) as OKC did.
I like Evans too and his minutes have plummeted, feel bad for him.
My point is we have way too many young guys, with more coming, pick your guys and actually run the offense through them. We are going no where this year even if we do make the playoffs.
I would like to see Hayward, Burks, Kanter, Favors developed. Just my .02c.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
He did nothing to stand out. He stood in the corner. He did not attack, and he was not aggressive. Burks and Howard come in and they attack and are a part of the offense. If Hayward is not going to be aggressive on the offensive end then he should not automatically get minutes.
In 20 minutes he had 5 points 2 assists and 1 rebound. Pathetic stats for that amount of minutes. I want Hayward to play more only if he is going to be aggressive and actually make himself a part of the offense. You say the offense did not include him. That is his fault as much as anybody else's.
As for trading him. That is just stupid. He's a young player that has a lot of potential. He is one of the players this team needs to develop.