Hayward & Jazz - not close to agreement (Hayward leaving 4/40 on the table)
- Thread starter udflyer
- Start date
No surprises there...
I'm liking Favors more and more after this Hayward shenanigan... Hayward could have just said to the agent "I'll accept Favors' Deal" and be done with it. What's he holding out for??
I think he would accept Favors deal.
From leaked reports, Jazz low balled him with 4/40
Yeah but you've also got to consider your team's chance of contending as well though and whether or not your skill level match that of the amount you're paid.
Don't you think the Jazz would have given him $2m more just to lock him up though?
I think he's holding out for somewhere between Favors' deal and Paul George's deal.
fufo
Well-Known Member
He looked a bit nervous to me.
I felt bad when he recieved the extention question and responded like:"ehehehe same story..."
GVC
Well-Known Member
Low-balled? That's a fantastic offer for Gordo's production/skillset.
b_line
Well-Known Member
He asked for 4/52million, and the Jazz offered 4/40. He is holding out to get closer to that 52 mil. He knows that he is not getting Paul George money.
I don't like 4/40 even if it is descending. That's a team killing contract for a 4th option. I'd rather give him a three year max extension and trade the final year off if necessary to get above the salary cap. 10 is too low for impact trading and too high for filler. But the Millers aren't the Buss's and can't do stupid **** like that.
Regarding the Thunder and Harden, I think their front office probably decided that they didn't want to tie all their cap up with perimeter players and that Harden and Westbrook didn't complement each other very well. Maybe it wasn't a smart move on their part, but I think they were trying to make a strategic decision to help the team overall. In retrospect, they should have amnestied Perkins, since he wasn't that difficult to replace, and they should have held on to Harden as an asset whose value wasn't likely to decline.
homeytennis
Well-Known Member
Justin Holiday was as good as Too Big Yo.
![[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]](/data/avatars/m/2/2497.jpg?1511131091){kind=avatar}
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
I disagree with the notion that Gordon's ceiling is a fourth option. He can be a GOOD third option on a GOOD/CONTENDING team. I'd be just fine with him at 4/40...too bad that doesn't appear to jive with his camp.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
I wish I could be a fly on the wall in these discussions so that I could hear first-hand if his agent is using monochromatic Al-fense against the FO. In other words, is he trying to use the wasted year as leverage?
Is he saying, Look, dudes, my guy was pretty great DESPITE....So, pay him?
From a certain perspective, I would sorta love that to be true.
Is he saying, Look, dudes, my guy was pretty great DESPITE....So, pay him?
From a certain perspective, I would sorta love that to be true.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
...cuz **** that wasted year.
Wasted two years?
Wasted two years?
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
Sorry... I'm on my phone... and I'm not being very clear.
The argument that he's worth more that 4/40 HAS TO INCLUDE an argument that he's more that just a good spot-up shooter. Well, are they making the argument that he is and always has been more that this, but that Al-fense kept him in this role? It'd be interesting to know.
The argument that he's worth more that 4/40 HAS TO INCLUDE an argument that he's more that just a good spot-up shooter. Well, are they making the argument that he is and always has been more that this, but that Al-fense kept him in this role? It'd be interesting to know.
GVC
Well-Known Member
What do you mean exactly (I've never found "option" number to be terribly descriptive of what role a player fills)? To me, ideally you have 1 or 2 guys on the court at all times who can play on-ball effectively. That is, if you have 3 effective on-ball players, you don't really need any more (only one ball on the court, diminishing returns, etc., etc...), and should focus on acquiring players who complement those players. Hayward is not one of these on-ball offensive hubs, and I think it's fairly unlikely he turns himself into one. With that said, he's already a terrific off-ball scorer, and could very easily be the #3 scorer on a contender. Think Memo without the defensive and transition warts. I think you can make an argument for him being worth about $10mm per year (this depends on your belief about the value of do-it-all off-ball players relative to players who fill high value roles- on-ball scorer/creator, rim protector, perimeter stopper). I agree that paying him more than that would likely be a mistake.
