Doublea
Well-Known Member
And not be able to get any other players...
Jazz Officially Matched Hayward According to Woj
- Thread starter richgates
- Start date
And not be able to get any other players...
The problem with this contract is that it takes us out of asset collection mode. I feel we should have kept collecting assets till we found our star and then give them the max. All further cap space now will have to be used to keep our current players. Basically what we got is what we got, so we better have a star among us.
Hayward@7m=good asset
Hayward@9m=small asset
Hayward@11m=even
Hayward@13m=liability
Hayward@15m=Major liability
I guess if he still sucks we can give someone the GS 2017 1st round pick to take him and then start over on collecting assets. Hayward has a no trade kicker and he has the right to option out after 3 yrs(which I am guessing won't happen.
Hayward@7m=good asset
Hayward@9m=small asset
Hayward@11m=even
Hayward@13m=liability
Hayward@15m=Major liability
I guess if he still sucks we can give someone the GS 2017 1st round pick to take him and then start over on collecting assets. Hayward has a no trade kicker and he has the right to option out after 3 yrs(which I am guessing won't happen.
I wanted Jazz to keep Hayward. I want Jazz to keep Exum if he becomes a star. This contract won't keep them from keeping Exum 4 years from now. Jazz are overpaying for Hayward, but I don't care. They can't get Free Agents with anyway. I'd rather keep Hayward for 3-4 million extra than have the cap space and end up with a late draft pick and a year of Carlos Boozer coming off the bench or another equivalent salary dump move they would end up doing with the money.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Poor dancers with small *****?
How many times do we have to go through this? THEY ARE NOT ASIANS!
We better hope Exum, Hayward, Burkes, Kanter, or Burk, becomes a star for the Jazz. If none of these players are a star we just entered mediocrity for a long long time. We cannot start accumulating assets until Haywards contract is over in 4 yrs and even longer if we sign Burks and Kanter to long term contracts.
Why not let Memo test the market? I certainly agree with your comments. I was pissed when they extended Memo. It was obvious his body was breaking down.
I have to think that Hayward wll. 18-20 PPG, 5-6 rpg, 5-6 apg on 45/35/80 shooting. That's what I'm hoping for. We marginally ($2M - $3M/per) overpaid for him but I think if you put a gun to our heads, most of us on the board probably would have done the same thing.
My prediction is that Exum, Burks, Kanter, and Favors are part of our core long-term. I don't think Burke will be around past his rookie contract. Exum, Hayward and Favors will be our nucleus for the next 6-8 seasons (barring any miracle lottery luck/free agent signings/trades which I think we will need to become true contenders).
The long term goal of the any business organization is to:
1. Remain solvent
2. Remain profitable
3. And achieve a level of success to ensure #1 and #2.
In the Jazz case, you can add a 4th;
4. Consistent with the culture and process envisioned by the Miller family.
I think even the most diehard fans don't grasp the power of #4.
To a larger point, building a contender is difficult. You could probably go as far as to say damn near impossible, unless lady luck falls in your lap. By the time the Jazz really need to put the final pieces in place to reach "contender" status, this contract will be a non-factor.
I think this board drastically overrates the ability of GM's to move chess pieces around to make a contender magically appear. 90% of trades, free agents and various other moves are simply swapping interchangeable pieces.
If Gordon signed for 10 million a year for the next 4 years, it doesn't change the outcome down the road. Each team has to split the total salary between X number of roster spots. The pie is the pie, how it is divided up, at the end of the day is totally irrelevant.
So you are ok with sitting Hayward if he is bad. Do you know how big of idiots the Jazz front office would look like if this happened?
ijazz
Well-Known Member
Hayward will not sit for any length of time.
If he is having a bad game, not listening to what coach wants, he should see reduced minutes that game.
Doubt it will happen much, but should if necessary.
Gold Star.
Exum has to turn into a franchise player and Snyder has to be the next great coach. The angst about GW's contract, the mythical free agent that is going to change the tide looming out in the distance future, Kanter's pick and roll defense, or who the third string PG is going to be is nothing but noise.
You answered your own question. If Burks and Kanter both become studs, and Exum is a max level player, you just let Hayward walk and sign Exum.
Jazz have been in rebuild mode for the last few years. They could either let Hayward walk, and put themselves back at least 2 more years into their rebuild, or re-sign him and go all in with what they have (Exum/Burke, Hayward/Burks, Hood, Favors/Kanter, Gobert). If Exum becomes the superstar they are saying, then that isn't too bad of a team to go all in with for the next 4 years. Add in another mid/late lottery pick next year with that group as well. If things don't work out, they will be able to let Hayward walk in 2017, re-sign Exum, and try again with the GS pick and their own in 2017.
Sorry BigMike but haven't you been reading the comments. No most of Jazz fans would not have done this deal. The first mistake is not working out a deal BEFORE he went on the market. If you are willing to pay a guy max money why not give him what he wanted which was less than the Max. The Jazz draw a line in the sand last year and then crossed over it. What message does that send to the players and league? If this wasn't dumb enough but then you announce to the league you will match any offer. So MJ calls your bluff and screws the Jazz once again. Sorry this is the same crap the Jazz seem to find themselves in a lot when it comes to renegotiating contracts. Whether this turns out good or bad is anyone's guess but what it represents is bad business and it gives the appearance that the Jazz don't know what they are doing.
Even if Hayward plays better or comes close to being worth his contract, it is still a loss for the organization and a big gamble. Players should earn max contracts instead of just giving them away because you feel the need to spend more or for fear that you might lose a player that is replaceable. Malone waited a long time to get his max deal and Jazz fans were all pissy about it and blamed his contract for not being able to bring in FA. Well Malone earned every penny and the fact that he was severely underpaid most of his career seemed of little interest back then.
Just because Miami made a stupid move paying Bosh doesn't make the Hayward signing any better. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
You have to flip the switch some time. Developing a losing culture can be very bad as well, ask the Timberwolves who have found their superstar in Love, but are going to lose him next year because they haven't made the playoffs once.
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
People keep saying we should have used the cap space to absorb contracts and acquire picks...
I think a GSW trade like last year is going to be less likely for the next couple of years because so many teams have cap space.
Something we could possibly do now though is in a couple years trade Hayward to a contender, take back a similar but underperforming contract, and also receive an asset in the process. Obviously that requires a pretty specific scenario, but it is not out of the question at all.
I think people are really losing sight of the fact that Gordon Hayward is first and foremost a good basketball player and valuable to the team on the court, but also it is absurd to think he all of the sudden is some un tradable asset that is going to cost us numerous "cap rental" type of deals.
I didn't want us to match, but I'm also not gonna go full Artard and pretend like there isn't a lot of positives about keeping a young, really good player on our team.
I think a GSW trade like last year is going to be less likely for the next couple of years because so many teams have cap space.
Something we could possibly do now though is in a couple years trade Hayward to a contender, take back a similar but underperforming contract, and also receive an asset in the process. Obviously that requires a pretty specific scenario, but it is not out of the question at all.
I think people are really losing sight of the fact that Gordon Hayward is first and foremost a good basketball player and valuable to the team on the court, but also it is absurd to think he all of the sudden is some un tradable asset that is going to cost us numerous "cap rental" type of deals.
I didn't want us to match, but I'm also not gonna go full Artard and pretend like there isn't a lot of positives about keeping a young, really good player on our team.
I would bet a healthy sum of money that the chances of the Jazz and Hayward reaching an agreement last year was close to zero. There are people on this board that have a pretty impressive grasp on the salary cap, where team's stand, what free agents are available IN THE FUTURE, and where the chips are likely to fall, at least with a relatively high probability and they do it as a past time. The NBA GM's and agents do this for a living, every day. The thought that the Jazz got snookered is ridiculous. Hayward, regardless of offer, had no intention of signing it. There was no reason for him to because their was little downside.
Its also quite possible we can give someone a 2017 first round draft pick to take him off our hands in a couple years so we can clear cap room. Kind of like how we took on Richard Jefferson overpriced contract.