Litany
Well-Known Member
Eh? It's immature for people in the workforce to be bothered when an inferior talent gets paid more than them?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkf
Cavs offer Gordo MAX deal (maybe)
- Thread starter Shad
- Start date
Eh? It's immature for people in the workforce to be bothered when an inferior talent gets paid more than them?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkf
He is the guy you want to place around your max players. I hope he stays on the team but not at 16 mil. I'd go 12 mil tops and that's pushing it.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Doing something like this is what a lot of people are advocating, but I still don't know what we do with the $25 - 30 million in cap space we would have left. It has to get spent somewhere. I don't think Parsons or Stephenson are realistic options. Parsons is staying in Houston. He didn't recruit Howard to change teams. The only reason Houston declined his option was so they could have more cap space to sign another player, then bring back Parson. Stephenson is fun to watch, but I wouldn't want him to be on my team once he's making great money.
b_line
Well-Known Member
Serious question: Do people really think that Kanter, and to a lesser extent, Burks, are as valuable as Hayward?
Burks is a decent 6th man, and Kanter is a headcase who is not figuring it out up to this point. Hayward has his flaws, but those two guys are clearly not as good as him or Favors.
Litany
Well-Known Member
I'd do 12. What's killing everyone is the thought of a max.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkf
If Houston gets Melo Parsons may have to go.
Also if that is what the Jazz do it singnals to me that its about player development and growth and not wins, aka tank 2.0. In that case you pull a deal like last year and get some future assets.
b_line
Well-Known Member
but they did go out of their way to acquire them. Of course, that couldn't matter either.
Why would it? They went out of their way to acquire what were universally known to be wholly negative assets to acquire positive ones and cost them 0 actual money and 0 committed years (beyond the one they were playing).
This is a closer case of two things actually being "in no way similar" to each other.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Is the extra $3 million a year really going to haunt the Jazz long-term?
Litany
Well-Known Member
Well, Hayward has no elite skills, shot 41% FG, 31% 3-pt, had a 16 PER, and is below average defensively (according for Pelton and Lowe) and he is apparently worth a max. So Burks who is elite at getting to the line, decent 3 pt shooter, 36% I believe, and is an average defender will expect a max from the jazz. Kanter is big and young so he will see Hayward and expect a max.
My point is Hayward isn't a standout talent and if gets a max they'll think they will get that or close. Max contracts all around boys.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkf
Litany
Well-Known Member
It's more like 4 a year plus the extra 2 in Burks deal as Kanters deal it will cost them so more like 8. So yeah it will. It means this is our team for four years. Apart from adding diante Garrett's this is it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkf
It depends on what they want to do long term. So yes it could. Not smart business to make a bad deal because it's only 1 bad deal. You try to make the best deal all the time.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Parsons made $925,000 last year. The Rockets 100% would not decline his option (as a very underpaid player) without his commitment to re-sign after they chase Carmelo in free agency. You can go over the cap to re-sign your own players, and Houston still has his rights.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
It's a little unfair to use the statistics from Hayward's worst shooting year under the worst coach and worst offensive team in the league.
When you might be paying three or four other guys that much more because of it? And $3 million in cap can be used in a lot of different ways.
That would be tampering.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Just because one player signs for a couple million over their "worth" doesn't mean every player on the team can/will do the same thing. Another team has to be willing to offer it to them. I can't think of ONE instance that a team "set a precedent" by overpaying someone and then being strong-armed into overpaying other players on the team. You're just making this BS up as you go along.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
How are we suddenly overpaying other players because of this? What 3 or 4 other guys are you talking about. I swear, one person pulls a BS point out of their &@@ and suddenly everyone buys into it.
You can all but guarantee that they will try. This is what agents do.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. "Chandler, we're declining your option because we want to improve the team in free agency. We really want you here and plan to make a very strong offer to you once we have other pieces in place. We hope you decide to stay with us."