What's new
By:

Official We Don't Need Hayward; Trade him.

I'd trade Hayward for a top 2 pick. Let's say the pellies win the lotto. I'd trade them Hayward. Hayward is starting to remind me of Kevin Love in Minnesota. We all know he can't lead us to the promise land but... stats
 
Hayward's trade value decreases as time goes on. He is an UFA after next season. HE is in control. We should have had him locked up for 2 more years (not 1), but DL gambled when he was a RFA and lost.

Hayward has 1 more year left and he will leave, if he is as competitive as he says he is, how can he not go somewhere where he can regularly make the playoffs ?
 
fishonjazz said:
If he it's going to get another max contract that will be 25-30 million then I'm down with trading him for some good stuff
Click to expand...

This.

Best case realistic scenario is that Hayward opts out and signs with the Jazz for the max, even though he doesn't provide max value, causing us to not have enough money to have a contender. Though if Exum pans out quickly then we could have a contender regardless.

Worst case scenario, and a very likely scenario, is that Hayward opts out and sign with another team. Then we are left with nothing but a big hole to fill.
 
Thing about max contracts. The true top tier guys deserve WAY more than max. Guys like Hayward will get max, that's the market. But they barely deserve max, if that isn't actually a little bit of an overpay. Getting a LeBron, Curry or Durrant for max is a bargain. They will get you way more for your money than what it will cost you as far as cap space is concerned.

Giving Hayward max money will likely mean you have to give up the kind of players you need to put next to Hayward in order for the team to be great. But who do you blame? I mean, the owners pay these guys, they make the offers.
 
The only way the Jazz would trade Hayward is if they were guaranteed to pick up another Hayward "clone" in the draft! Are there any more Hayward clones in next years draft? I suspect there are some guys that have the mediocre jump shot and basketball IQ and skin tone, but would they have the same 42-42 impact our Hayward has? I have no idea whatsoever! You guys follow this kind of stuff more than I do! Give us your "expert" opinion/observation!
 
♪alt13 said:
I'd trade Hayward for a top 2 pick. Let's say the pellies win the lotto. I'd trade them Hayward. Hayward is starting to remind me of Kevin Love in Minnesota. We all know he can't lead us to the promise land but... stats
Click to expand...

lol.
 
1- if we offer mega max to Hayward he stays... We can offer him more money and one more year which for him has value. He drove a Honda Accord. He values money he won't turn it down.

2- this is a good basketball situation for him. Boston may be a bit better but he isn't turning down the money for a slightly better situation.

3- he's a great player and worth the max, especially considering the lack of wing talent and that he isn't a volume shooter that requires other unique players around him to work. He could fit in with literally every NBA team.

4- if he demanded a trade sure move him but it will be a huge step back and if you don't recognize that you are not watching the games... If you are you aren't getting it.
 
Also gtime is a better player than Hood. I think Hood is better at getting his own shot and could be our highest scorer in the future but he's not going to carry us on that end and will need help.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
1- if we offer mega max to Hayward he stays... We can offer him more money and one more year which for him has value. He drove a Honda Accord. He values money he won't turn it down.

2- this is a good basketball situation for him. Boston may be a bit better but he isn't turning down the money for a slightly better situation.

3- he's a great player and worth the max, especially considering the lack of wing talent and that he isn't a volume shooter that requires other unique players around him to work. He could fit in with literally every NBA team.

4- if he demanded a trade sure move him but it will be a huge step back and if you don't recognize that you are not watching the games... If you are you aren't getting it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The extra year is meaningless as he'll still be very young and will get an even BIGGER deal after 4 years. In fact, I could see him asking for a deal that gives him an opt out after the 3rd year so he would then have 10 yrs of experience and could sign a 35% contract. That's why he had the opt out in this contract (to get to 7 yrs/30%). Also, look at LBJ; he is doing short-term deals to take advantage of the different tiers and escalating cap numbers. Others have done the same.

When you're making $30M/per, the difference between 7.5% and 4.5% won't be the deciding factor. Sure, he gives up $2.7M over three years. But then he opts out and gets 35% wherever he goes. And we all assume Boston because of Stevens. I say Indiana is more likely. His entire family, including in-laws lives there. He stays there during the off-season. Can you imagine Gordon at the 3 and George at the 4? Or go with Gordon at the 2. IF he leaves, my money is on Indiana as his likely destination.

This is DWill all over again. Jazz knew DWill was homesick for Dallas and would probably sign there as a FA. Instead, he took some extra money from Prokhorov, coupled with the promise the billionaire was going to spend like never before to buy a title. So he stayed in Brooklyn after the trade.

Imagine if we could get another Favors and draft picks from Team X in a trade. Getting that kind of return is MUCH better than gambling that Hayward will stay n a bloated contract. At the time, DWill was a top-3 PG in the league. That is justification for a max contract. Gordon isn't even an all-star.

1. Option A. Utah overpays ($30M + 7.5% raises). In '18/'19, Jazz have to let go 1-2 other core players plus decimate the bench to fit a team under the tax threshold.

2. Option B. Gordon opts out and leaves, spurning a big offer from Utah to play with another team. Utah gets nothing in return.

3. Option C. Jazz sit down with Gordon like they did with DWill and sense there is just to much risk and uncertainty. Or decide $30M is more than his value. They trade him for a prospect and picks. AND with that $30M "savings" they can re-sign the rest of the core and then pick up a SF (if not obtained in this draft or 2017).
 
Last edited:
Lets say the only way for the Jazz to keep Hayward is to give him the super max next year. In 2017 the cap is projected to be 108M so the max for that year for him would be 30% of that and it would go up 7.5% every following year. So we are talking about: 32.4M in 2017, 34.8M in 2018, 37.2M in 2019 and 39.6M in 2020 and 42M in 2021. Or overall ~186M over 5 years or ~144M over 4 years.

Lets assume if we offer him that he's going to resign with 100% certainty. Now knowing that, would you rather us get him at that price or trade him and if we trade him what's the minimum pick you'd be looking to get? No.2? No. 3? No. 4? + filler? How far down would you be willing to go down?
 
Stifle Tower said:
I disagree. The extra year is meaningless as he'll still be very young and will get an even BIGGER deal after 4 years. In fact, I could see him asking for a deal that gives him an opt out after the 3rd year so he would then have 10 yrs of experience and could sign a 35% contract. That's why he had the opt out in this contract (to get to 7 yrs/30%). Also, look at LBJ; he is doing short-term deals to take advantage of the different tiers and escalating cap numbers. Others have done the same.

When you're making $30M/per, the difference between 7.5% and 4.5% won't be the deciding factor. Sure, he gives up $2.7M over three years. But then he opts out and gets 35% wherever he goes. And we all assume Boston because of Stevens. I say Indiana is more likely. His entire family, including in-laws lives there. He stays there during the off-season. Can you imagine Gordon at the 3 and George at the 4? Or go with Gordon at the 2. IF he leaves, my money is on Indiana as his likely destination.

This is DWill all over again. Jazz knew DWill was homesick for Dallas and would probably sign there as a FA. Instead, he took some extra money from Prokhorov, coupled with the promise the billionaire was going to spend like never before to buy a title. So he stayed in Brooklyn after the trade.

Imagine if we could get another Favors and draft picks from Team X in a trade. Getting that kind of return is MUCH better than gambling that Hayward will stay n a bloated contract. At the time, DWill was a top-3 PG in the league. That is justification for a max contract. Gordon isn't even an all-star.

1. Option A. Utah overpays ($30M + 7.5% raises). In '18/'19, Jazz have to let go 1-2 other core players plus decimate the bench to fit a team under the tax threshold.

2. Option B. Gordon opts out and leaves, spurning a big offer from Utah to play with another team. Utah gets nothing in return.

3. Option C. Jazz sit down with Gordon like they did with DWill and sense there is just to much risk and uncertainty. Or decide $30M is more than his value. They trade him for a prospect and picks. AND with that $30M "savings" they can re-sign the rest of the core and then pick up a SF (if not obtained in this draft or 2017).
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a very likely scenario. Players have shown that they value financial security a lot and practically nobody(LeBron being the notable exception) from the players that deserved max signed short-term deals in order to get the jump in pay after next year. I can't see Hayward refusing 5/max or even 4/max.
 
Stifle Tower said:
I disagree. The extra year is meaningless as he'll still be very young and will get an even BIGGER deal after 4 years. In fact, I could see him asking for a deal that gives him an opt out after the 3rd year so he would then have 10 yrs of experience and could sign a 35% contract. That's why he had the opt out in this contract (to get to 7 yrs/30%). Also, look at LBJ; he is doing short-term deals to take advantage of the different tiers and escalating cap numbers. Others have done the same.

When you're making $30M/per, the difference between 7.5% and 4.5% won't be the deciding factor. Sure, he gives up $2.7M over three years. But then he opts out and gets 35% wherever he goes. And we all assume Boston because of Stevens. I say Indiana is more likely. His entire family, including in-laws lives there. He stays there during the off-season. Can you imagine Gordon at the 3 and George at the 4? Or go with Gordon at the 2. IF he leaves, my money is on Indiana as his likely destination.

This is DWill all over again. Jazz knew DWill was homesick for Dallas and would probably sign there as a FA. Instead, he took some extra money from Prokhorov, coupled with the promise the billionaire was going to spend like never before to buy a title. So he stayed in Brooklyn after the trade.

Imagine if we could get another Favors and draft picks from Team X in a trade. Getting that kind of return is MUCH better than gambling that Hayward will stay n a bloated contract. At the time, DWill was a top-3 PG in the league. That is justification for a max contract. Gordon isn't even an all-star.

1. Option A. Utah overpays ($30M + 7.5% raises). In '18/'19, Jazz have to let go 1-2 other core players plus decimate the bench to fit a team under the tax threshold.

2. Option B. Gordon opts out and leaves, spurning a big offer from Utah to play with another team. Utah gets nothing in return.

3. Option C. Jazz sit down with Gordon like they did with DWill and sense there is just to much risk and uncertainty. Or decide $30M is more than his value. They trade him for a prospect and picks. AND with that $30M "savings" they can re-sign the rest of the core and then pick up a SF (if not obtained in this draft or 2017).
Click to expand...
Great post
 
stitches said:
Lets say the only way for the Jazz to keep Hayward is to give him the super max next year. In 2017 the cap is projected to be 108M so the max for that year for him would be 30% of that and it would go up 7.5% every following year. So we are talking about: 32.4M in 2017, 34.8M in 2018, 37.2M in 2019 and 39.6M in 2020 and 42M in 2021. Or overall ~186M over 5 years or ~144M over 4 years.
Click to expand...

**** that ****.
39.6 million for Hayward? I like him and all but hell no.
 
stitches said:
I don't think that's a very likely scenario. Players have shown that they value financial security a lot and practically nobody(LeBron being the notable exception) from the players that deserved max signed short-term deals in order to get the jump in pay after next year. I can't see Hayward refusing 5/max or even 4/max.
Click to expand...
Didn't hayward just sign a shorter deal with an early opt out though?
 
fishonjazz said:
Didn't hayward just sign a shorter deal with an early opt out though?
Click to expand...

He signed the longest possible deal with the best option to have as a player(player option in the last year).

In other words, if you offer him 3 max with player option or 4/max with player option in the 4th vs 5/max with player option in the 5th, he's always going to choose the longest term contract. At least IMO.
 
stitches said:
He signed the longest possible deal with the best option to have as a player(player option in the last year).

In other words, if you offer him 3 max with player option or 4/max with player option in the 4th vs 5/max with player option in the 5th, he's always going to choose the longest term contract. At least IMO.
Click to expand...

No, he won't necessarily. The best possible deal for him - after he opts out - is a new contract with an opt out in 3 seasons. The CBA sets the max at 30% for a 7 year player and then it jumps to 35% for a 10 yr player.

So ideally (for him) he signs a $30M/per deal in 2017 with an opt out in 2020 so he can then sign for 4 or 5 years at 35%. That's why Utah doesn't have a huge advantage. He'll want the ability to opt out of his next deal in order to sign an even bigger one. And that requires just 3 years to reach the next service level plateau.
 
Stifle Tower said:
No, he won't necessarily. The best possible deal for him - after he opts out - is a new contract with an opt out in 3 seasons. The CBA sets the max at 30% for a 7 year player and then it jumps to 35% for a 10 yr player.

So ideally (for him) he signs a $30M/per deal in 2017 with an opt out in 2020 so he can then sign for 4 or 5 years at 35%. That's why Utah doesn't have a huge advantage. He'll want the ability to opt out of his next deal in order to sign an even bigger one. And that requires just 3 years to reach the next service level plateau.
Click to expand...

But he's taking a risk. Injury, underperformance, change in the market. If he thinks he's just that much of a badass he'll probably take the risk, but I've heard-tell stories from his barber that the guy get's pretty ****ing anxious about this ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top