Jazz 2017 Salary Cap Issues - Forcing Trades this Draft??

[mdalby]

I listened to the David Locke podcast this morning regarding the jazz and future salary cap. I knew we had contracts coming up but I guess I lost some perspective on the impact.

When I see teams like OKC and GS with so many players in max contracts and more tenured players AND hearing the cap was raising so much, I guess I just thought the Jazz would continue to be in great shape.

I threw the numbers in a spreadsheet. This has some assumptions in it that could be wrong and you know what assume means... I am not a capologist so be gentile with me here. This is just to start discussions.

• Locke suggested there may be some talks in the works this off-season to redo the contract for Favors. Favors is currently a Tier 1 player so if we did sign him to a max contract, it would only be for $22M.
• In 2017, Hayward exercises his player option.
• I have heard estimates that the cap in 2017 will be $108M
• The max amounts for the tiers is estimated since it uses projected BRI calculation for the tiers.
• This would have us just $1.4M below the cap. And this is not even taking into account any FAs we might need to sign.

With the projected salary cap being this tight in 2017, we may be forced to make some trades. Maybe we are forced to trade Favors or Hayward.

 

[Justys]

I listened to it aswell but I wanted to ask him... Why not move Hayward? Let's move Hood/12th for 3. But why not move Hayward for 3&16 or 3& rotation player. Seems to make more sense to me?

 

[stitches]

We can go over the cap for resigning our own players(Hayward) and we can use a slew of exceptions to sign additional players if we decide to add lower level players through FA. 2017 is not the problematic year. We will be alright in 2017. The big crunch will be in 2018 when we will probably have to choose between Exum and Hood, unless we want to go in the tax most probably. The tax would be at about 123 million if I'm not mistaken, so we still have some room to work with.

 

[Jazz and Utes]

I listened to it aswell but I wanted to ask him... Why not move Hayward? Let's move Hood/12th for 3. But why not move Hayward for 3&16 or 3& rotation player. Seems to make more sense to me?

It makes sense to you because you're high on crack.

 

[LoPo]

We should trade Hayward. I don't want to, but it is the smart move. Lyles is 2 years away. Exum is 2 years away. Hood and Gobert need another solid year or two to figure everything out. #12 will need time.

We are not built for 2017 relevance. By the time our pieces are relevant, Hayward leaves next summer or we pay him unfair wages. Trade him, get a piece to put with this 22 year old generation, and go all in for 2018 contention.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[LoPo]

We should do this:

Philly gets Favors, Avery Bradley, #3, #12, #16 and #23
Boston gets Hayward and Okafor
Jazz get Jerekbo, Landry, and #1

We get a potential super star and a couple expiring contracts. We go all in on a future of
Exum
Hood
Simmons
Lyles
Gobert


Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[green]

I've said this 1,000 times, but if we trade away Favors and Hayward, I want Brooklyn and Boston's picks 2017 picks.

 

[LoPo]

I've said this 1,000 times, but if we trade away Favors and Hayward, I want Brooklyn and Boston's picks 2017 picks.

You can't have both or maybe either. Boston gets the better of their pick or the Brooklyn pick. They have the right to pick the best one. I don't think they can trade it since it has that stipulation. I could be wrong though...

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

The reality is, once you max Favors, Hayward and Gobert, we're a bit stuck when it comes time to pay Hood the following year. This may also assume we unload Alec Burks along the way. We fill our cap with only 7 or 8 players. In the next year, someone may need to be moved, or we're going to lose that player anyway.

 

[Miggs]

Have faith in Dennis. If we can get Hayward at 28M in 2017 and Gobert at 21M (small hometown discounts in essence) and jettison Burke and Pleiss, that's about 15M in savings off of what was projected here. We'd have eight guys (Hayward, Burks, Favors, Gobert, Lyles, Exum, Hood, Neto) and be at about 91M and thus be 17M below the cap and 32M below the LT threshold. Add in a 2016 1st and 2017 1st and we're probably somewhere around 97M for 10 guys. And there's still a ton of wiggle room.

Seriously, to panic now and just start selling players who have been the core of this cake bakking is beyond ****ing dumb. Foresight is important. I get it. But we really aren't that bad off. We don't even know what we have yet. But I think we have a 50+ win team this year. So let's see before we panic.

 

[LoPo]

To make an assumption that anyone is giving is a hometown discount is as naive as those of us who think we should trade Hayward before he just leaves.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Miggs]

To make an assumption that anyone is giving is a hometown discount is as naive as those of us who think we should trade Hayward before he just leaves.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

Fine, then we only dump Pleiss and Burke and are at 99M or about 106M (if you include our 2016 and 2017 1sts), still below the cap, for 10 guys.

The point is the sky isn't ****ing falling and to trade Hayward, Favors or anyone else of value on this team for 65 cents on the dollar (because that's basically what we'd get) is ****ing dumb because the chances are we will be able to finda way to keep this core ( as I see it) together. Burks can walk.

 

[MDAV28]

Fine, then we only dump Pleiss and Burke and are at 99M or about 106M (if you include our 2016 and 2017 1sts), still below the cap, for 10 guys.

The point is the sky isn't ****ing falling and to trade Hayward, Favors or anyone else of value on this team for 65 cents on the dollar (because that's basically what we'd get) is ****ing dumb because the chances are we will be able to finda way to keep this core ( as I see it) together. Burks can walk.

I agree with all that. Everybody assumes moving Hayward/Favors you get equal value. You don't. Best case is you get a CHANCE at getting equal value or better value and the chances are slim. I like Burks on this team but I would understand when numbers get tight if he isn't as much of a priority as the starting 5.

 

[LoPo]

Fine, then we only dump Pleiss and Burke and are at 99M or about 106M (if you include our 2016 and 2017 1sts), still below the cap, for 10 guys.

The point is the sky isn't ****ing falling and to trade Hayward, Favors or anyone else of value on this team for 65 cents on the dollar (because that's basically what we'd get) is ****ing dumb because the chances are we will be able to finda way to keep this core ( as I see it) together. Burks can walk.

Nobody said the sky was falling. I'm being opportunistic. We have a trade partner at #3 who wants Hayward. Hayward could walk next year. Our success depends on kids yet Hayward is in his prime. Its a safe play. Trading Hayward is actually a safer play than keeping him.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[mdalby]

I agree Favors and Hayward are in the elite company for their production so far in their careers.

Hayward: For players that average 19 Pts/5 Rebs/3 Assists, there are only 11 players, 10 if you don't include Griffin who didn't play many games.
Favors: For players that average 16 Pts/8 Rebs, there are only 12 players, 11 if you don't include Griffin who didn't play many games.

 

[framer]

Nobody said the sky was falling. I'm being opportunistic. We have a trade partner at #3 who wants Hayward. Hayward could walk next year. Our success depends on kids yet Hayward is in his prime. Its a safe play. Trading Hayward is actually a safer play than keeping him.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

There is little chance of the #3 pick in this draft becoming something better than Heyward. If he is disgruntled, you trade him at the deadline. You need a player for Heyward not a mediocre pick. If Boston wants him now, they will want him at the end of the deadline, and I would rather dip into Boston's 2017 pick stash anyway. . .

 

[LoPo]

The 2016 #3 is better than no player to start 2017. If we did trade with Boston, we would get something back. Maybe Bradley but at least Jerekbo.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Jazz and Utes]

I've said this 1000 times but I'll say it again, thank god no one on this board is our GM.

 

[MT Steve]

The 2016 #3 is better than no player to start 2017. If we did trade with Boston, we would get something back. Maybe Bradley but at least Jerekbo.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

Why are you assuming Hayward is going to leave?

 

[framer]

The 2016 #3 is better than no player to start 2017. If we did trade with Boston, we would get something back. Maybe Bradley but at least Jerekbo.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

That trade will be available in January as well.