What's new
By:

Hayward has agreed to an offer with Hornets

Growlor said:
It may not ruin the team, but it certainly doesn't help the team.
We can't know what decisions later this summer (or in the next couple of years) will be negatively impacted by overpaying right now. People are acting like this deal is in isolation. Either we keep Hayward or we lose him. If he is NOT with the team that spot isn't empty... We will fill that spot with another player. The question is... can we A) get a player who will have a similar impact on the team for less money, or B) can we find someone who will make a greater difference tot he team for $16 mil? If the answer is NO to both questions we have to match... as much as I hate the idea.
(Personally I think the answer is Yes to A and possibly to B as well...)
Click to expand...

Well thought out post. I think the answer to the bottom two questions is no this year (looking at what is available). My only reservations are what will be available for us next year (and the year after that), but no one can project that with good accuracy.

My thing is really this... if we lock up hayward and then have the opportunity to draft a stud SF we will be able to trade Hayward (worst-case scenario a salary dump). If he plays well and we find something better we will be able to trade Hayward for quite a haul. I see nothing out there that gives us that much potential for our cap space this year and think we can regain the flexibility if we need to.
 
Growlor said:
It may not ruin the team, but it certainly doesn't help the team.
We can't know what decisions later this summer (or in the next couple of years) will be negatively impacted by overpaying right now. People are acting like this deal is in isolation. Either we keep Hayward or we lose him. If he is NOT with the team that spot isn't empty... We will fill that spot with another player. The question is... can we A) get a player who will have a similar impact on the team for less money, or B) can we find someone who will make a greater difference tot he team for $16 mil? If the answer is NO to both questions we have to match... as much as I hate the idea.
(Personally I think the answer is Yes to A and possibly to B as well...)
Click to expand...

Best post of the day. This deal is not done in isolation. You match it and you have $16M reasons to regret it in Years 3 and 4 when it hamstrings you from doing anything else, including possibly affording new deals for others. You regret it when the agents for Burks, Kanter and Gobert want HUGE deals based on the fact that their clients have shown POTENTIAL and the Jazz have cap space available right now.
 
fishonjazz said:
Sounds like you are talking about hayward.

stephenson is a couple of years younger than hayward btw
Click to expand...

The age is not the problem with Lance...
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Well thought out post. I think the answer to the bottom two questions is no this year (looking at what is available). My only reservations are what will be available for us next year (and the year after that), but no one can project that with good accuracy.

My thing is really this... if we lock up hayward and then have the opportunity to draft a stud SF we will be able to trade Hayward (worst-case scenario a salary dump). If he plays well and we find something better we will be able to trade Hayward for quite a haul. I see nothing out there that gives us that much potential for our cap space this year and think we can regain the flexibility if we need to.
Click to expand...
No, we won't. That's the toxic part of the trade kicker. Suddenly he's not just a max contract, but a max at 15% higher for the rest of his contract. How many HUGE contracts have been "dumped?" How many had trade kickers? What was GS' price for having us take on RJ and Biedrins. DO we want give up 1st's for having another team take a mistake off our hands?

Congrats, Lindsey has just entered Isaiah Tnomas territory by making those kinds of blunders as a GM.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
He asked who. I gave some options. Your response? Pure speculation. Maybe Deng would rather $9 M from utah than $6 M from a contender. Same for Ariza. Maybe you get the similarly talented Parsons for $12-13 M - still perhaps too much, but better than G-time's $16 M per.
Click to expand...

They should go after the similarly talented Parsons for $12-$13 M even if they match the Hayward offer sheet. Considering that Jodie Meeks just signed a deal for over $8 M per year, I have a hard time seeing Deng getting only $6-$9 million from anyone. I think that this is going to be a crazy offseason. Guys are going to get paid. There's just too much cap space floating around AND the salary cap is going to go up for next several years. Teams are going to have to adjust their thinking accordingly. In just a few short years, the salary cap alone is expected to reach the mark where the LT cap is now. And that doesn't even factor in the new TV contracts. I also think that the NBA should have compensation above and beyond just matching the contract for a RFA. Unprotected first round pick should have to accompany the deal, but that's a different conversation.

The Jazz can't get a LeBron James or Carmello Anthony outright in free agency. They have to draft that guy and then pay him every penny that he's worth when his contract comes due. Until then, they need to draft the best players that they can and keep them around as long as possible. That's why they're going to match this contract. DL and company know what their limitations as a small market team are and they have to play by those rules. If they were winning, some of the rules change. . . but they need to get to that point again first.
 
GVC said:
Uh, no he's not.
Click to expand...

6 months a couple of years... what's the diff? Thanks I missed that.

Skill wise, potential wise, I get the Lance love. There are certain things for me that are deal breakers. I think Lance is one of the biggest head cases in the league. Unless you have a strong locker room that can corral the guy I don't think you consider him. I think we have a tough locker room situation to introduce Lance to. Young impressionable good guys.... I wouldn't want to potentially ruin that.

I also don't think the Jazz would ever consider the guy... just not our style. I hope Lance figures it out because he's fun to watch, but I'm not hopeful.
 
b_line said:
oh, really. Thats cool you are so clever. I was wondering if the offer exceeds the previous offer if they could do that. Anyone with actual knowledge of how the CBA works know this? I would assume that the Jazz still have the option to offer a 5 year deal, and don't have to match the 4 year deal if they want to lock him up longer term.

Also, I am not suggesting they should give him a five year max with 4.5% raises. Just a question.
Click to expand...
When a restricted free agent wants to sign with another team, the player and team sign an offer sheet, the principal terms of which the original team is given three days to match. The offer sheet must be for at least two seasons (not including option years). If the player's prior team also submitted a maximum qualifying offer, then the offer sheet must be for at least three seasons (not including option years). If the player's original team exercises its right of first refusal within three days, the player is then under contract to his original team, at the principal terms of the offer sheet (but not the non-principal terms). If the player's original team does not exercise its right of first refusal within three days (or provides written notice that it is declining its right of first refusal), the offer sheet becomes an official contract with the new team.

The principal terms of an offer sheet consist of the following. Any other terms of an offer are not considered to be principal terms, and the player's original team is not required to match:

  • The number of years, including option years.[SUP]3[/SUP]
  • The base salary
  • The amount of any signing bonus or deferred compensation, including the payment schedule
  • Certain bonuses -- those considered to be "likely" for both teams (see question number 73), and those based on generally recognized league honors[SUP]4[/SUP]
  • Any allowable amendments such as guarantees, options and trade bonuses


So, no, we can't change the principal terms of the offer sheet. If Charlotte threw in unlimited video game downloads, that wouldn't be a principal term and we wouldn't have to match that clause.
 
Core4 said:
No, we won't. That's the toxic part of the trade kicker. Suddenly he's not just a max contract, but a max at 15% higher for the rest of his contract. How many HUGE contracts have been "dumped?" How many had trade kickers? What was GS' price for having us take on RJ and Biedrins. DO we want give up 1st's for having another team take a mistake off our hands?

Congrats, Lindsey has just entered Isaiah Tnomas territory by making those kinds of blunders as a GM.
Click to expand...

We've already covered this... Literally every Huge contract can be dumped, and the ones that have (which were bigger and more toxic than Hayward's) have almost always yielded assets. DL is not Thomas
 
Like the part about taking the full 3 days to do so. If I was going to match an offer sheet and a team included little barbs aimed at me, like the trade kicker, I would wait till the last minute to meet the offer sheet to tie up that teams money and make them miss out on other targets.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
We've already covered this... Literally every Huge contract can be dumped, and the ones that have (which were bigger and more toxic than Hayward's) have almost always yielded assets. DL is not Thomas
Click to expand...

Assets for the team taking ON the contract. Whenever a team is trading a player whose value is LESS than what the contract is WORTH, they have to send other assets to entice the buyer. Give me an example of a team that dumped a contract, particularly one with a 15% trade kicker that also brought the seller additional assets.
 
Stoked said:
Like the part about taking the full 3 days to do so. If I was going to match an offer sheet and a team included little barbs aimed at me, like the trade kicker, I would wait till the last minute to meet the offer sheet to tie up that teams money and make them miss out on other targets.
Click to expand...

All teams do that, for that exact reason. It's the main reason why the waiting period was changed from 7 days to 3 days in the last CBA.
 
Core4 said:
Assets for the team taking ON the contract. Whenever a team is trading a player whose value is LESS than what the contract is WORTH, they have to send other assets to entice the buyer. Give me an example of a team that dumped a contract, particularly one with a 15% trade kicker that also brought the seller additional assets.
Click to expand...

We've already covered this... Atlanta's Joe Johnson, Bargnani were both dumped and Atlanta and Toronto (the dumpees) both got assets. I would compare Hayward's deal to Hibbert's... rather not have it as a max, but they could move him for cap space and assets tomorrow. Hayward is not as good as Hibbert, but Hayward fits with many more rosters than Hibbert does.

I'm not sure of the CBA rules on the trade kicker... I heard the trade kicker was in the last year of the contract...

I do agree with the Zach Lowe article and I have been consistent with this... If we can sign and trade him (which we still can and this may have been Charlotte's motive in laying out the offer a day early) for Noah Vonleh or maybe MKG... or even Zeller and future pick or picks (maybe... I think Zeller may be a stiff) then I would probably do it. I think they are in win-now mode and might want to work with us.

I just think Hayward is too good of an asset to let walk for the opportunity to TRY and overpay someone else.... You clearly disagree....
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
A lot of angst might be saved if we all just recognized this simple truth: Being a MAX player in today's market doesn't mean some is a MAX PLAYER, it simply means someone is willing to pay him a maximum salary. In different market conditions, being a MAX player could well have a different meaning. For better or for worse, Hayward entered the market in an offseason where there is a butt load of money available together with slim pickings for quality FAs. His agent anticipated this and advised Hayward correctly. What annoys me is that the Jazz FO didn't anticipate this. If, as some reports indicate, the initial talks broke down because the Jazz wanted to pay $12 million, while Hayward wanted $13 million, then this is on the Jazz FO. They lacked the foresight to anticipate what the market would be (unlike Hayward's agent) and because they got all tightfisted over a relatively paltry amount, they are going to end up paying a lot more, or lose their valued asset. Very short sighted in my opinion. Should have just paid him the extra $1 million per year rather than be penny wise and pound foolish.
Click to expand...

Even max salary is a moving target. It is simply the max salary for a player coming off their rookie contract. I mean, obviously it's not chump change, but it's not LeBron or Kobe max salary either.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
A lot of angst might be saved if we all just recognized this simple truth: Being a MAX player in today's market doesn't mean some is a MAX PLAYER, it simply means someone is willing to pay him a maximum salary. In different market conditions, being a MAX player could well have a different meaning. For better or for worse, Hayward entered the market in an offseason where there is a butt load of money available together with slim pickings for quality FAs. His agent anticipated this and advised Hayward correctly. What annoys me is that the Jazz FO didn't anticipate this. If, as some reports indicate, the initial talks broke down because the Jazz wanted to pay $12 million, while Hayward wanted $13 million, then this is on the Jazz FO. They lacked the foresight to anticipate what the market would be (unlike Hayward's agent) and because they got all tightfisted over a relatively paltry amount, they are going to end up paying a lot more, or lose their valued asset. Very short sighted in my opinion. Should have just paid him the extra $1 million per year rather than be penny wise and pound foolish.
Click to expand...

This is the real issue... we bet $4 M against $12 M. This and we wiped Hayward out as an asset during draft time... supposedly Locke hinted that if we could send Hayward and 5 we could have got #1... We should have been able to predict this.

This oversight and the last two trades we've made (the good second rounder in a deep draft for a future second rounder in a few years and the Novak deal) have taken the shine off of DL for me. I still think he's a smart dude, but think he left a lot on the table with these two deals (even though they are small deals).
 
colton said:
All teams do that, for that exact reason. It's the main reason why the waiting period was changed from 7 days to 3 days in the last CBA.
Click to expand...

I'm not reading the full 30 million pages of the thread to find out the deets on the trade kicker.

Can anyone sum up what the trade kicker is and how that impacts the jazz if they match?

Sorry if you've gone over it already.

TIA
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
This is the real issue... we bet $4 M against $12 M. This and we wiped Hayward out as an asset during draft time... supposedly Locke hinted that if we could send Hayward and 5 we could have got #1... We should have been able to predict this.

This oversight and the last two trades we've made (the good second rounder in a deep draft for a future second rounder in a few years and the Novak deal) have taken the shine off of DL for me. I still think he's a smart dude, but think he left a lot on the table with these two deals (even though they are small deals).
Click to expand...
Can you imagine the uproar on this board had Lindsey signed Hayward to a MAX deal last summer. I don't think there was ONE person in favor of doing that. Hindsight is great, isn't it?

As for the 2nd-rounder, "meh." It was going to be a draft and stash. The Euros Lindsey liked were probably off the board already. So we gave up a decent 10th/11th guy on the bench for a similar pick next year. It's not that big a deal. And Novak, you're seriously criticizing Lindsey for not holding out for one more 2nd-rounder (I assume that's your problem with the deal)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top