So here's my question, since it seems a lot of people want to move guys to get a potential star.
In my mind, the chances of us winning a championship with LeBron, Curry, Durant, Davis and eventually KAT around are pretty slim. So do we keep on selling players, hoping to get that next star and perennially being in the late lottery to 7-8th seed range, or do we try to go the Memphis route? If we're honest, Memphis never had more than a minuscule shot, but they were still a really good team.
I think I lean towards the Memphis route...cause honestly, unless Exum becomes a star, we're not a championship team. But we're still a damn good team. Is that good enough?
The memphis route even had players better than Hayward doe. So even if we go the Memphis route I think we trade Hayward for another shot at a player better than Hayward. Unless we want to be a poor mans version of memphis. I also don't think (But could be wrong) that any of memphis guys made as much as Hayward is likely to make on his next deal.
I don't think it's very likely at all that we ever draft a player as good as curry, lebron, or durant. (Definitely possible, but unlikely)
My argument has always been that Hayward is really good, but not good enough, so we should try to get someone better than Hayward. Not a top 3 guy necessarily but someone better than Hayward if we are going to give them that 5 year insane contact.
I think the likelihood of us getting a player who is better than Hayward is high. (Hell, we might already have one or two on the current roster when they reach their peak. I hope we will be able to play them with Hayward making 30 + million per year)
I think part of the issue in this discussion though is how good each person thinks Hayward is. I think he is a really good player but if he were to be traded or even walk next year our win/loss total wouldn't be that different.
He has been here for many years now. I have looked at his numbers often and watched him play every game of his career. My assessment after that is that he isn't as great as a lot of jazz fanz think he is and definitely would be a mistake to pay him the 5 year max. He just isn't an efficient enough and good enough scorer to be the best player on the team imo. And while he is a good defender I don't think he is a good enough defender to warrant that contract.
I mean he has no nba accolades at this point in his career (6 full seasons) whether offensively, defensively, or all around.
And yes he has some good all around numbers. He plays the most minutes on the team and has the biggest role and most opportunities. Someone has to get numbers on the team. This team is set up for Hayward to be that guy.
If you look at his per 36 stats you find that last season his points, rebounds, assists, 3 point%, and field goal% all went down from the year before. I think he has peaked. This is as good as he is going to get (a pretty good player)
His field goal percentage as a rookie was 48%... After that year it goes 46, 43, 41, 44, 43.
His 3 point percentage was 47 his rookie year (fantastic).... Then it goes 34, 41, 30, 36, 35.
Maybe with a better point guard his percentages will go up. They need to imo.
I just don't Hayward puts fear into opposing teams. I doubt that when we play other teams they are super worried about how in the world to stop Hayward from going off for 40 or 50 in a game. (I don't think he has ever scored 40 in his six seasons.) I don't think he has that in him.
I saw cy saying that he thinks Thompson and Hayward are on the same level (iirc he said he would rather have Hayward)
Someone else was brought up kyrie irving in the Hayward discussion in the context of asking me if I would want a player like him who is a ball hog with no defense who isn't good enough.
If people think Hayward is similar in value to klay and kyrie then the difference in Haywards perceived value is way too far apart for me to ever see eye to eye with the other side of the discussion.
