What's new
By:

Rumor: Jazz prepared to match 'any offer' for Hayward.

JAZZGASM said:
Locke's comments make me repeat (for confirmation) one of my prior questions. If, as he states, the jazz want a chance to match on their terms. Does that mean there are different ways a similar contract could be structured (frontloaded/backloaded?). And if not why would it matter if we just match another offer?
Click to expand...
Well, if it's not a MAX contract, then more of the money can be given to Gordon up front and then the salaries decreasing in the next 4 years. More salary flexibility when the Jazz need it. And GH should understand the time value of money. He could stick the bonus in an investment account and earn more than what the yearly % increase would be. Only idiots like Vernon Davis (I know...different sport) don't understand that a BONUS is intended to be part of your salary across the entire length of the contract, not just a big "Thank You" in Year #1.
 
//r00t 4 Jazz said:
Not that this really matters but on Sportscenter when talking about the Big3 FA contracts and how much they might agree to take and how much money the Heat would have in cap space, when discussing Wade you could see Hayward (under SG) and had his dollar figure showing $10.5M.
Click to expand...

I think $10.5 is a reasonable price even generous for Hayward. I would do that deal in a second but that isn't what Gordon wants.
 
I'd be shocked if he got less than $50 M over 4 years. It's simple supply and demand.
 
cowhide said:
Well so 2 out of 3 isn't very good and I could argue that the Jazz failed with Millsap. If the Jazz truly will match a MAX deal for Hayward then why didn't they just up their offer a little. According to reports they weren't that far apart, I think the reason why the Jazz allow Jazz FAs to go to market is they believe that they are asking for too much money. The Jazz front office idea of allowing the market to set the price has been proven wrong. They need better negotiators. That is why they lost Raja and Matthews. It is better to up your offer a little than allow some stupid GM to give a player more than he is worth. It is the chance you take but it seems like it doesn't work well that way considering the past examples.

If the Jazz wanted to pay him $11 million and Hayward wanted $12.5 why not meet in the middle and call it a day? You take a chance of having to deal with the possibility of a crazy offer and losing your player instead of paying a little more. So either the Jazz don't think Hayward will get a deal higher than they offered, or they don't want to keep him that badly or they suck as negotiators or they are hoping he doesn't get any offers that are better than they already offered. The last option seems like a big gamble to me. So in the end the Jazz can either lose him for nothing or pay too much to keep him and all they had to do is up their offer a little.
Click to expand...

Hard to say for sure lots of speculations and guessing as to what is or is not happening in the negotiations. However on the flip side of your argument (brought up for different reasons by people who don't want to resign Hayward for too much money) is AK's max contract, many people complained why not let the market decide how much he is worth.

So again just saying there is two sides, last year some people thought Favors got a little too much based on what he had shown offensively so far. So using that as an example I don't think the Jazz were trying to low ball Hayward and at some point you draw a line and say this is how much we will offer you as an early extension and other wise we will comeback next off season and see if we can agree and/or see what other teams will offer and will likely match.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I'd be shocked if he got less than $50 M over 4 years. It's simple supply and demand.
Click to expand...

I'm curious what he will get.

Somehow I think all these max stories are buzz by his agent, not actual truth.

Jazz saying they will match anything is also gamesmanship

gordonhayward20.com is an egotistical joke.

We will probably know this week.
 
cowhide said:
Well so 2 out of 3 isn't very good and I could argue that the Jazz failed with Millsap. If the Jazz truly will match a MAX deal for Hayward then why didn't they just up their offer a little. According to reports they weren't that far apart, I think the reason why the Jazz allow Jazz FA to go to market is they believe that they are asking for too much money. The Jazz front office idea of allowing the market to set the price has been proven wrong. They need better negotiators. That is why they lost Raja and Matthews. It is better to up your offer a little than allow some stupid GM to give a player more than he is worth. It is the chance you take but it seems like it doesn't work well that way considering the past examples.

If the Jazz wanted to pay him $11 million and Hayward wanted $12.5 why not meet in the middle and call it a day? You take a chance of having to deal with the possibility of a crazy offer and losing your player instead of paying a little more. So either the Jazz don't think Hayward will get a deal higher than they offered, or they don't want to keep him that badly or they suck as negotiators or they are hoping he doesn't get any offers and better than they already offered and he has to take less than they offered. The last option seems like a big gamble to me. So in the end the Jazz can either lose him for nothing or pay too much to keep him and all they had to do is up their offer.
Click to expand...

How do we know WHAT he was offered? Maybe he wanted MAX money. Actually, the reports I read said the sides were several million apart. What was never revealed is if that was per year or on the total value of the contract. Suppose the Jazz offered the same amount as Favors. Several million apart could mean Hayward wanted $14-15M/per year as opposed to $12M/per. So the Jazz just say, no problem, we'll give you a 5yr/$75M deal just to avoid you possibly getting offered 4/$63M next summer? No. They say, "tell you what, Gordon, if you think you're a MAX player, let's see it on the court. Take it to the next level and then we'll talk."

And how could you argue the Jazz failed with Millsap? He was great value for his contract. Jazz were hoping he'd come in on the low end of their range. They offered a contract, he and his uncle felt insulted so they went out and shopped around. The only "failure" was in the structure of the payout as they had to come up with a big bonus. Paul Allen was trying to be a bully, thinking those po-dunk car dealers down in Utahr couldn't raise the capital. But they did.
 
GH will get overpaid in free agency. It just is what it is. The good news is, there's no way to front or backload an offer sheet so it's too toxic to match (Wes Matthews, what up).

My prediction is 4yr/$56 million, so $14M per, and we match. If it's less than $13M I will be (very/pleasantly) surprised.

I personally think $14M/per is too high because I don't see his ceiling being much higher than where he is now, and he's not worth that kind of $ at the moment. But he's a good young player. And I like sending the message of taking care of our own.
 
Core4 said:
Not allowed.

2011 CBA: Five years with 7.5 percent raises for Bird free agents; four years with 4.5 percent raises for other players (including all sign-and-trade transactions). The maximum salaries are the same as the 2005 CBA, except players coming off their rookie scale contracts qualify for the 30 percent maximum if they meet certain criteria.
https://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one

Hayward doesn't meet the criteria for the 5/30% contract. So as I understand it, the cap is expected to increase to $63M, which would make a MAX contract for Hayward start at $15,750,000 (25%) and his salary could increase 4.5% per season for 4 years. GVC, Kenwood...is this correct?

I'd HATE to see Gordon playing for anything CLOSE to that amount, but honestly, it doesn't hurt us for a couple of years. And it could be traded. For example, if Phoenix offered Hayward the MAX and we matched, we could turn around and deal Hayward to Boston after 1 year.
Click to expand...
2 things:

1. This is more for Jazzgasm. The max refers to the first year salary on a new contract.

2. The starting salary on a max contract is less than that. Per Larry Coon's FAQ, the salary cap is calculated using 44.74% of BRI, while max contracts are calculated using 42.14% of BRI. Taking that 25% and scaling it by 42.14/44.74 should get you pretty close to the max starting salary for Hayward (although last year's number didn't quite match this calculation for some reason IIRC).

3. The 4.5%/7.5% raises on new contracts (for other team and own team free agents, respectively) also applies to annual decreases. That is, a player who signs with his own team starting at a salary of $10mm, could have a second year salary as low as $9.25mm or as high as $10.75mm.
 
Offer him $10 million per year.

If he insists, we'll throw in a girl from Cottonwood's 3rd ward Beehive Quorum.

No more no less.

Get it done DL!
 
Jeditiger said:
Here's a novel idea: it's the Miller's money. If they want to spend it, it's their prerogative. Stop worrying about how other people want to spend their money.
Click to expand...
***
 
Core4 said:
Well, if it's not a MAX contract, then more of the money can be given to Gordon up front and then the salaries decreasing in the next 4 years.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. The max amount refers to the first year salary. The most that can be given up front is the max. Teams can also offer a signing bonus.
 
Jeditiger said:
Here's a novel idea: it's the Miller's money. If they want to spend it, it's their prerogative. Stop worrying about how other people want to spend their money.
Click to expand...
It may be their money but it affects the team we watch and follow and affects their ability to sign other pieces. So there is nothing wrong with discussing player contracts.
 
Jeditiger said:
Here's a novel idea: it's the Miller's money. If they want to spend it, it's their prerogative. Stop worrying about how other people want to spend their money.
Click to expand...

Bahaha!

Yeah! Dem socialist commie librule Obama luvin socialists!

Don't tread on me! You lazy *** welfare queens, stop tellin the job creatin millers what to do, ya lazy *** socialists!

Freedom!

Murika!

So you'd be down with the jazz offering the max to Jefferson, marvelous, and JL3? I mean, it's da millers money, right?

Wait, aren't you the dumbass that constantly defended Corbin last year? Why the hell are you still here?
 
Core4 said:
Not allowed.

2011 CBA: Five years with 7.5 percent raises for Bird free agents; four years with 4.5 percent raises for other players (including all sign-and-trade transactions). The maximum salaries are the same as the 2005 CBA, except players coming off their rookie scale contracts qualify for the 30 percent maximum if they meet certain criteria.
https://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one

Hayward doesn't meet the criteria for the 5/30% contract. So as I understand it, the cap is expected to increase to $63M, which would make a MAX contract for Hayward start at $15,750,000 (25%) and his salary could increase 4.5% per season for 4 years. GVC, Kenwood...is this correct?

I'd HATE to see Gordon playing for anything CLOSE to that amount, but honestly, it doesn't hurt us for a couple of years. And it could be traded. For example, if Phoenix offered Hayward the MAX and we matched, we could turn around and deal Hayward to Boston after 1 year.
Click to expand...

cowhide said:
You are assuming that Boston would take him with that contract.
Click to expand...

Dumping a bad contract requires taking something bad back or giving up something good -- far better never to have signed the contract to begin with. If Hayward were a non-Jazz free agent, what value would we place on his talent after seeing how he performed last season? Would we really offer him a bigger contract than we gave Favors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top