What's new
By:

Poll: Should the Jazz Match Hayward's $15.75 a year/4 year Contract?

Should They Match?

  • Total voters
    181
  • Poll closed .
JAZZGASM said:
Honestly, you can't blame Hayward for the woes of the Jazz last year.
Click to expand...

i agree.
But you also cant claim that he makes everyone else so much better either when he played more minutes than ever before and we were atrocious.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];866360 said:
Paying Hayward this much money is just bad business. I don't need to see the minutiae in the numbers. It's quite apparent already.
Click to expand...
This
 
Sirkickyass said:
I'm skeptical of the "this contract won't be so bad as the cap rises" argument. It's not like Eric Gordon's deal is getting more palatable as time goes on.

Isn't Luol Deng available at 75% of this cost?
Click to expand...
Yup.

Overpaid is overpaid
 
People forget that the cap space is inflating in the next several years and is expected to reach close to 80 million in 2 years time. So realistically Haywards 16-17 million in the last 2 years of his contract won't be as huge of a burden on the Jazz and we'd only need cap space to resign new players when the new hugely inflated cap space is expected to kick in, thus pretty much eliminating the fears that we won't be able to give Burks, Kanter and Burke nice deals in order to keep them.
 
fishonjazz said:
Lololol

System player. Did well. These are bot words i use to describe max players
Click to expand...

Might be true. At the same time, he is multi-talented. You don't let him just walk with no replacement. If we can get Parsons or someone else that can fit the role well, great. Hayward plays at a high level in the right system. Steve Nash is a great example. He played better in his later years after he lost athleticism because he found a good system. Nash was better than Hayward, but the same principle applies.

I think they'd be better off signing him and potentially regretting it than letting him go and regretting it.

Like the ******** Surfers said, it's better to regret something you did, than something you didn't do.
 
fishonjazz said:
Jefferson is better for next years tank though. (Which if we spend this much on hayward, is apparently what we are doing next year)
Click to expand...

I think that the opposite would be better for the tank. Hayward is clearly the better player.
 
As a fan, I look at the situation like this. The team is better with Hayward than without him. Period. Unless the GM can see a viable replacement option, losing him will be a step backwards for the team. I feel like I am making the same arguments when the Jazz had to make the decision with Matthews. Hell, many of you did not want Millsap matched.

I will eat my words if I am wrong, but the Jazz will regret it if they let him go.
 
Sirkickyass said:
I'm skeptical of the "this contract won't be so bad as the cap rises" argument. It's not like Eric Gordon's deal is getting more palatable as time goes on.

Isn't Luol Deng available at 75% of this cost?
Click to expand...


I have interpreted that line of reasoning more as it pertains to hamstringing the Jazz's overall cap situation vs. bad contract relative to the player.
 
Sirkickyass said:
I'm skeptical of the "this contract won't be so bad as the cap rises" argument. It's not like Eric Gordon's deal is getting more palatable as time goes on.

Isn't Luol Deng available at 75% of this cost?
Click to expand...
Yep, you can buy Luol Deng plus a good shooter or another need with the Gordo-Max. It's arguable that Deng himself only brings more things to the table than Hayward, especially defensively, plus we could use his veteran leadership.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];866387 said:
I'm sure it'll be a delicate negotiation. I don't think you go after very much, but you definitely walk away from this contract after grabbing something.
Click to expand...

If I am MJ, I read this as the Jazz want Hayward, or they don't. If I offer the guy a max contract (we all agree it is a ton of money) I am not giving up anything else for the guy. If the Jazz mention a S&T with Charlotte, it just weakens our position to show that they are willing to let him go.

They should not even contact the Hornets. Hopefully that will prompt the Hornets to offer something by getting them to think we are just going to match. I doubt it would work. Again, MJ is too competitive, and I think he is willing to gamble letting Hayward go. It won't cost him anything.
 
JAZZGASM said:
As a fan, I look at the situation like this. The team is better with Hayward than without him. Period. Unless the GM can see a viable replacement option, losing him will be a step backwards for the team. I feel like I am making the same arguments when the Jazz had to make the decision with Matthews. Hell, many of you did not want Millsap matched.

I will eat my words if I am wrong, but the Jazz will regret it if they let him go.
Click to expand...

"Fans" are also correct when they get concerned about the flexibility of their team and the tradability of its assets. It seems to me like you're over-simplifying the **** out of the situation.
 
The Thriller said:
Why do you think that DL wasn't just blowing smoke?

Have you ever played poker?
Click to expand...

Until proven otherwise, I will take DL at his word and Locke seems to think the Jazz will match, so until evidence to the contrary and for purposes of discussion, the original question still stands.

In my experience when I am pretty sure that a course of action is obvious, yet really smart and competent people disagree with me, than I take serious notice.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];866403 said:
"Fans" are also correct when they get concerned about the flexibility of their team and the tradability of its assets. It seems to me like you're over-simplifying the **** out of the situation.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. It is a ****load of money. The question becomes, what can the Jazz do to improve this team? Let one of your best players go with no viable replacement to give you flexibility in case someone better comes along down the road?
 
The Pearl said:
Until proven otherwise, I will take DL at his word and Locke seems to think the Jazz will match, so until evidence to the contrary and for purposes of discussion, the original question still stands.

In my experience when I am pretty sure that a course of action is obvious, yet really smart and competent people disagree with me, than I take serious notice.
Click to expand...

So you get steamrolled in negotiations on teh reg?

This whole drama is being played out on the negotiating table.
 
JAZZGASM said:
Might be true. At the same time, he is multi-talented. You don't let him just walk with no replacement. If we can get Parsons or someone else that can fit the role well, great. Hayward plays at a high level in the right system. Steve Nash is a great example. He played better in his later years after he lost athleticism because he found a good system. Nash was better than Hayward, but the same principle applies.

I think they'd be better off signing him and potentially regretting it than letting him go and regretting it.

Like the ******** Surfers said, it's better to regret something you did, than something you didn't do.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can say bitch but not bumhole? WTF.
 
Man this forum is a bunch of whiners against our own team.

Maybe Locke was right and we should root for our players.

I've been on the Hornets forum and they are so excited, some think overpaid a bit, but like him a lot and worth the risk.

Just pointing it out......
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];866412 said:
So you get steamrolled in negotiations on teh reg?

This whole drama is being played out on the negotiating table.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top