What's new
By:

Move On From Hayward?

#bern said:
Of course no one made as much as Hayward is going to make. The cap is going up!!

That's like saying that Jordan didn't make as much money as LeBron, so you shouldn't pay LeBron that much. Inflation is real.

And Gasol was better than Hayward is now, yes. But we're still young and improving, obviously, and I never said I don't want to add more free agents. But you're avoiding the question pretty deliberately. Granted, you also think we would better next year without Hayward, sooooo....
Click to expand...

A. I was talking about in relation to the cap obviously!

B. Avoiding the question? You asked about going the Memphis route. I said that I'm down with that but if hayward is our best player then I think we are a poor mans memphis.

So, ya.
 
Yeah, the NBA would be better off if Jordan never existed to take a fraction of what he was actually worth.

Get ****ing real.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Yeah, the NBA would be better off if Jordan never existed to take a fraction of what he was actually worth.

Get ****ing real.
Click to expand...
Nobody said that, but his salary demands did lead to leaguewide issues

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
 
LoPo said:
Nobody said that, but his salary demands did lead to leaguewide issues

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Jordan got paid less than he was worth and you're complaining about his greediness. Normies/sports fans are incredible.

Everybody ever tries to maximize their own situation, unless their sports people want to do the same, then they're monsters. ****ing incredible.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Jordan got paid less than he was worth and you're complaining about his greediness. Normies/sports fans are incredible.

Everybody ever tries to maximize their own situation, unless their sports people want to do the same, then they're monsters. ****ing incredible.
Click to expand...
Not the point. He screwed up the system.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
 
#bern said:
[MENTION=840]fishonjazz[/MENTION], where would you rank Hayward among SF's? Who are players on the same tier as him?
Click to expand...
I would look more at wings.
For small forwards I think obviously durant, lebron, kahwi. I put george and butler ahead of him. Then I have guys like wiggins and giannis that I think I would trade Hayward for. Then there are guys like pierce and carmelo who had better primes than I think Hayward will have.
Guys like rudy gay, gallinari, and Chandler parsons are right in Haywards range imo. (Hayward being better than them)

For shooting guards I would say derozan is a tiny bit better. Harden is better. And klay Thompson is better.
Dwayne wade had a better prime than Hayward will. CJ mccollum has a decent chance to be better imo.

reddick (only player to shoot 47% from three with over 5 attempts per game) is pretty good along with oladipo and chris middleton.

Then you have guys like carroll and matthews and green etc.

I definitely have Hayward as better than most of these guys.
The problem is that I think Hayward is closer to rudy gay, gallinari, parsons, reddick, middleton etc (the lower end guys) than he is to lebron, durant, kahwi, and klay (the upper end guys).
 
#bern said:
Finally, if his numbers were 22/5/4, would you consider him a better player?
Click to expand...
Depends on his efficiency and team record and if he puts fear into the opponent.
 
fishonjazz said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a great post.

Hayward is about as good of player can be without being great. If you had 5 players on a team as good as Hayward you would have a chance to win a title if things broke well for you. The problem is you can't afford to pay five players 25+ million. So if Gordon doesn't see the vision or understand his actual value and how a max contract kills any hope of being title contenders you trade him for future assets. In hope that you can either get one or two guys great enough to be worthy of the max or a roster full of 4 or 5 guys just good enough together for deep playoffs runs.
 
#bern said:
Same efficiency. If he has those numbers, do you view him as a better player than he is now? It's a simple yes or no question.
Click to expand...
Well if his efficiency is the exact same and his points and assists go up then yes I think he would be better with more points and assists than less points and assists (assuming his defense stays the same too)

Kind of a strange question.
 
fishonjazz said:
Well if his efficiency is the exact same and his points and assists go up then yes I think he would be better with more points and assists than less points and assists (assuming his defense stays the same too)

Kind of a strange question.
Click to expand...
I think that the point was that if Hayward maintained his efficiency at a faster pace and higher usage rate, then his numbers would be improved into the All Star tier. I'm assuming that the idea is that improved point guard play and internal improvement from other young players (Gobert, Hood and Exum in particular) would help him to get there.
 
Ellis269 said:
I think that the point was that if Hayward maintained his efficiency at a faster pace and higher usage rate, then his numbers would be improved into the All Star tier. I'm assuming that the idea is that improved point guard play and internal improvement from other young players (Gobert, Hood and Exum in particular) would help him to get there.
Click to expand...
Ya see I figured it wasn't a simple yes or no question like bern said it was. I figured there were other variables which is why I asked about efficiency.

He made it seem like everything is the exact same but Gordon just magically gets more points and assists. In that scenario I would take the guy who gets more points and assists over the guy getting less.

You add the variable of Hayward getting more shots and I think I have to now look at other variables as well. How is the team doing? Is Haywards body language still frustrated and moody most of the time? Is Hayward still getting his points in the most difficult and unsustainable ways possible? Is he now making the game look easy by blowing past guys or getting great elevation on his shot or does everything still look extremely difficult for him? Are defenses scared that Hayward might drop 40 points on them any given night? Is he getting chosen for the all star game? All defensive team? Are the jazz having playoff success?

I would watch all the jazz games (like I have for years and years) and see if with this new pace of play for Hayward seems different or better and go from there.

Who knows, maybe with a faster pace of play Haywards numbers would actually decline because maybe we wouldn't be force feeding him the ball as much.
Maybe that would make his efficiency better but lower his ppg and assists and maybe the team would play better at a faster place as whole and he would want to stay with the jazz and maybe we could get him for less than the 5 year max.

Lots of things could happen I guess if you change variables.
 
Last edited:
#bern said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is an important question & the answer will likely dictate, not only what we do with Hayward, but the future direction of this franchise. As currently constructed, outside of Exum developing into a top 10 player, the team appears destined to be perennial playoff contenders without much hope of championship contention.

The safe route (which is the route I fully expect us to take) would be to re-sign Hayward, keep the core intact, add role-players via the draft/FA, & settle for consistent playoff appearances. As an owner/GM, I fully understand this strategy. As a fan, there is no way I can support this approach.

You can argue that MEM always had the potential to get hot & go on a title run but, realistically, they never had a legitimate chance at winning a championship. The reality of the NBA is that very few teams actually have a legitimate chance at winning a title & those that do are the ones with the LeBrons, Currys, Durants, etc on their roster.

Personally I would prefer to see this team miss the playoffs 9 years in a row & win a championship in the 10th than to watch the team make the playoffs 10 years in a row & never win a championship. I understand that the Utah Jazz are a business but, as a fan, I would be very disappointed if my team essentially accepted the fact they were never going to win a championship & basically threw in the towel.

The frustrating part for me is that I honestly believe this team has the foundation of a championship caliber team. But as a small-market franchise, asset management & financial allocation has to be handled almost flawlessly to have a chance at a title.

OKC had Durant, Westbrook, & Harden yet have zero championships to show due to mismanaging the Harden situation. CLE had LeBron & couldn't win a title without him coming back after getting 3 #1 draft picks. Those examples prove there is a chance that we may never win a title regardless of what we do or who we draft but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

I know I'm probably in the minority but I would much rather continue to accumulate assets by trading Hayward & Favors, build around Exum/Hood/Lyles/Gobert, & hope to draft that next superstar than to ultimately settle for becoming the next Memphis Grizzlies.
 
fishonjazz said:
Well if his efficiency is the exact same and his points and assists go up then yes I think he would be better with more points and assists than less points and assists (assuming his defense stays the same too)

Kind of a strange question.
Click to expand...

Cool. That's exactly the player Hayward is, right now.

If you normalize our pace, those are his numbers. Numbers are deceiving, and overrated. We play at a slow pace, so Hayward and others score less. Doesn't mean they're worse than guys that play with a faster pace. Does that make sense?

And the stuff about Hayward acting moody, gets points in the most difficult way, yada yada yada...it's ********. If he scores at a good efficiency, why complain? Cause he doesn't do it fancy ways? Lol.

The idea of teammates getting mad bc he's shooting more is silly too...his usage rate would stay the same. For example, 18 shots on 90 possessions is the same as 20 shots on 100 possessions. Those two extra shots aren't going to piss off a teammate. You're looking for any possible excuse to discount that Hayward is better than you think. Leads team to a positive point differential with key players injured? Well, his stats don't say great player to me. Normalize stats for pace? Ok, those look good, but he doesn't score in fancy ways. Bah.

I'll get to you comparing him to players later when I'm not on my phone, but you clearly don't value defense very much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top