What's new
By:

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

So if all of you think this is too much to pay Hayward, I want to ask you the question that Locke asked today - who would you spend the $$ on??
Not a lot of better alternatives out there and with the cap increasing, this will not hurt us in the long run and we do have a threshold that we have to meet remember.

I just can't see us letting go a very good complimentary player who we've developed and invested in. We can still sign Burks (who I don't understand all the love for) and Kanter next year if we want to. So if we don't pay him, who do you pay for? I don't see anyone else out there I like.
 
It's too bad we can't front load the crap out of the contract. Cause that I could live with. It's not my money, so who cares. It's the cap that sucks.

I think the NBA needs to fix this. Players should be paid for what they are worth. I'd rather see guys like Lebron who actually have a huge impact, make the most money. It makes no sense that mid tier guys can get the max too.
 
Hack said:
It's too bad we can't front load the crap out of the contract. Cause that I could live with. It's not my money, so who cares. It's the cap that sucks.

I think the NBA needs to fix this. Players should be paid for what they are worth. I'd rather see guys like Lebron who actually have a huge impact, make the most money. It makes no sense that mid tier guys can get the max too.
Click to expand...
Hayward wasn't eligible for a 5/30% contract. His max is $15M. LBJ will get $23M or so, IINM.
Not a perfect world, but how do you set value? When the cap increases, teams have "found" money to spend and they'll do it.
 
billyshelby said:
It will be hilarious to match and then find out Burks is the better player.
Click to expand...

Then we have to pay him the max too... hell max contracts all around.
 
baka98 said:
I just can't see us letting go a very good complimentary player who we've developed and invested in. We can still sign Burks (who I don't understand all the love for) and Kanter next year if we want to. So if we don't pay him, who do you pay for? I don't see anyone else out there I like.
Click to expand...

See the sig.
 
baka98 said:
this will not hurt us in the long run and we do have a threshold that we have to meet remember.
Click to expand...
1. This could hurt, especially in making deals down the road.

2. There is no threshold the team has to meet in actual contracts.
 
baka98 said:
So if all of you think this is too much to pay Hayward, I want to ask you the question that Locke asked today - who would you spend the $$ on??
Click to expand...

A penny saved is a penny earned.

We could be patient (since we are not winning much next year anyway) and wait until there are better free agents or less teams with cap space..... or we could keep our financial flexibility to facilitate trades.

Or maybe burks blows up next year and actually DESERVES the max and then we would have to money to pay him without worrying about the cap
 
baka98 said:
So if all of you think this is too much to pay Hayward, I want to ask you the question that Locke asked today - who would you spend the $$ on??
Not a lot of better alternatives out there and with the cap increasing, this will not hurt us in the long run and we do have a threshold that we have to meet remember.

I just can't see us letting go a very good complimentary player who we've developed and invested in. We can still sign Burks (who I don't understand all the love for) and Kanter next year if we want to. So if we don't pay him, who do you pay for? I don't see anyone else out there I like.
Click to expand...

This is why Locke tweets about these decisions and doesn't actually execute them.

Are there better alternatives right now? Are we a better team next season without Gordon? Hell no. But we have a ton of young players (Favors, Kanter, Exum, Burke, Burks, Gobert, Hood) who have already been extended or will be deserving of lucrative extensions in the near future. It's the GM's job to think long-term and keep a team that can't afford the luxury tax out of salary cap hell. Capitalizing on our salary cap flexibility (Boozer contract, picking up extra first round picks, etc.) and keeping our home grown talent at reasonable contract rates is really the only formula for long-term success in a market like Utah.

I like GH, but he's not Durant, Westbrook, Duncan, Parker, Kevin Love, etc. (examples of other max guys in small markets). FO needs to think long and hard about this one.
 
Don't blame Hayward for this, but give props to an agent that was smart enough to gauge and project last year that salaries would go through the roof this year due to impending TV contracts and a lack of big names on the market.

Face it, there are too many teams with too much cap room and not enough premium players to fill it. Guys like Gordon who are $10 mil a year guys are going to bank $15 mil. If we don't pay it, someone else will. We have so much room that you can give GH and Marvin good contracts and still ample room to fill it with vets who ride the bench, get garbage minutes or play 10-15 a night at best.

Does it suck? Absolutely. But unless you have someone who can fill Gordon't role who's better at a cheaper price, you bring him back. Signing scrubs to friendly deals is only going to take you to the 8th seed at best.

If you want to swing for the fences, you're going to have to take the risk associated with it.
 
Avery said:
Don't blame Hayward for this, but give props to an agent that was smart enough to gauge and project last year that salaries would go through the roof this year due to impending TV contracts and a lack of big names on the market.

Face it, there are too many teams with too much cap room and not enough premium players to fill it. Guys like Gordon who are $10 mil a year guys are going to bank $15 mil. If we don't pay it, someone else will. We have so much room that you can give GH and Marvin good contracts and still ample room to fill it with vets who ride the bench, get garbage minutes or play 10-15 a night at best.

Does it suck? Absolutely. But unless you have someone who can fill Gordon't role who's better at a cheaper price, you bring him back. Signing scrubs to friendly deals is only going to take you to the 8th seed at best.

If you want to swing for the fences, you're going to have to take the risk associated with it.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of this.

I don't blame GH for a second. You have a finite timeframe as a professional athlete to cash out. Get your $, son!
 
This is why Locke tweets about these decisions and doesn't actually execute them.

Are there better alternatives right now? Are we a better team next season without Gordon? Hell no. But we have a ton of young players (Favors, Kanter, Exum, Burke, Burks, Gobert, Hood) who have already been extended or will be deserving of lucrative extensions in the near future. It's the GM's job to think long-term and keep a team that can't afford the luxury tax out of salary cap hell. Capitalizing on our salary cap flexibility (Boozer contract, picking up extra first round picks, etc.) and keeping our home grown talent at reasonable contract rates is really the only formula for long-term success in a market like Utah.

I like GH, but he's not Durant, Westbrook, Duncan, Parker, Kevin Love, etc. (examples of other max guys in small markets). FO needs to think long and hard about this one.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the cap is going up each year right? We still will have around $26M next year to spend. What would you do with the money then? Let it sit there?
We gotta do something to make the next step and I agree w/Avery's post. Gotta take a chance.
 
Avery said:
Don't blame Hayward for this, but give props to an agent that was smart enough to gauge and project last year that salaries would go through the roof this year due to impending TV contracts and a lack of big names on the market.

Face it, there are too many teams with too much cap room and not enough premium players to fill it. Guys like Gordon who are $10 mil a year guys are going to bank $15 mil. If we don't pay it, someone else will. We have so much room that you can give GH and Marvin good contracts and still ample room to fill it with vets who ride the bench, get garbage minutes or play 10-15 a night at best.

Does it suck? Absolutely. But unless you have someone who can fill Gordon't role who's better at a cheaper price, you bring him back. Signing scrubs to friendly deals is only going to take you to the 8th seed at best.

If you want to swing for the fences, you're going to have to take the risk associated with it.
Click to expand...

We need to hire his agent to run our team... He seriously killed it here.
 
baka98 said:
So if all of you think this is too much to pay Hayward, I want to ask you the question that Locke asked today - who would you spend the $$ on??
Not a lot of better alternatives out there and with the cap increasing, this will not hurt us in the long run and we do have a threshold that we have to meet remember.

I just can't see us letting go a very good complimentary player who we've developed and invested in. We can still sign Burks (who I don't understand all the love for) and Kanter next year if we want to. So if we don't pay him, who do you pay for? I don't see anyone else out there I like.
Click to expand...

The problem is you don't know who will be interested or available next year or two years from now. This is why smart spending never goes out of style. You may be able to add a big like Marc Gasol next year for example. Somebody who's much more deserving of a max deal than Hayward.
 
GVC said:
1. This could hurt, especially in making deals down the road.

2. There is no threshold the team has to meet in actual contracts.
Click to expand...

Each team must meet a minimum payroll:

Season Minimum Payroll Amount

2011-12 80% of the cap $46.435 million
2012-13 85% of the cap $49.337 million
2013-14 90% of the cap $52.811 million

If a team doesn't meet its minimum payroll it is surcharged at the end of the season for the shortfall. That money is distributed among the players on that team.


https://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q15
 
I wouldn't be surprised if Gordon doesn't even sign the offer sheet and ends up signing directly with the Jazz. According to Locke, and he's said this since before the draft, Gordon hates the city of Cleveland. Locke hinted that if Gordon had signed the extension then the draft trade for #1 would have probably been done - ie Cleveland loves Gordon.

However, if Locke is correct and Gordon hates Cleveland as much as Locke says, maybe Gordon won't risk ending up there and will sign a contract with the Jazz for just slightly less? If Stein is correct, and Gordon's asking for 13 per rather than the 12 per that Jazz were offering, then do it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top