What's new
By:

Rumor: Jazz prepared to match 'any offer' for Hayward.

GVC said:
Oof. Do people actually think this way? The Jazz should be concerned with cost v. benefit of Gordo on the Jazz, not on the Cavs or any other team.
Click to expand...

I agree, but its cost benefit of Gordo vs. what else is out there.

My first preference... sign and trade for something good. My second preference... match the offer. If you let him walk you better have a damn good use for that money.
 
Lattimer said:
A guy that shot 41%FG, 31% 3-pt, had a 16 PER, is a below average defender (analysts have said this) and doesn't have one elite skill is going to get a max contract.


Vomit. The nba owners are tards. I hope they garner zero support in the lockout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


But, but ... The Market. It's not just dumbasses making dumb decisions, it's the mystical god-like Market declaring Gordy's worth.
 
Close your eyes and picture Hayward DOMINATING in Cleveland as they go on deep playoff runs every year and sports writers talk about what an awesome contract the Cavs have him on and how letting him go was the downfall of the Utah Jazz.


Ummmm....yeah. LOL


£¥£
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I agree, but its cost benefit of Gordo vs. what else is out there.

My first preference... sign and trade for something good. My second preference... match the offer. If you let him walk you better have a damn good use for that money.
Click to expand...

I think you're not thinking about the fact that the Jazz have to pay him every year of his contract, not just this year. This ties them down not just this summer, but the next summer, and the summer after that, and the summer after that.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I agree, but its cost benefit of Gordo vs. what else is out there.
Click to expand...
Right. If Gordo performs in Cleveland/Utah next season at a similar level as he did this past season, it may be hard to move him at $15-$16mm per year. If you can't move Gordo, this is the team the Jazz are locked into. Complete mediocrity. No thanks.

Letting him go for nothing is a risk, and it's hard to say what may come available over the next season+, but I'd rather strike out on trades/free agents taking a risk than settle for mediocrity.
 
I don't think matching a max deal for Gordon damages the jazz nearly as much as not matching a max offer damages the Jazz.

That's because the downside in matching is very low. It won't impact us signing our own free agents, the salary structure in the NBA is just changing upwards too rapidly for Gordon's contract to be a problem. It'll hamper us in signing other free agents, but, it's unlikely we'd be able to sign anyone better than Gordon anyway. So, not much loss there. The primary downside as I see it would be it could make it harder to do deals like we did with Golden State last year. But, in today's market there are a ton of teams with cap room, so the value of cap space to eat contracts is coming down a bit due to increased competition.

It's a pretty low downside. Most of it monetary (not going to hurt anyone but the Miller's pocketbook) and mental (fans won't like the concept).

But, realistically, it's a rather easy decision. You match because the downside is low and there is still decent upside. Even if Hayward never improves a bit, he and his contract will still be a very valuable trade chip 3 years down the road.

Jazz will match. Fans will gripe. And by summer league we will all have forgotten about Gordon's contract.
 
baka98 said:
Do you guys actually understand supply vs. demand? And BTW, there is a huge benefit of Hayward on the Jazz. He makes others better. Burks does not.
Click to expand...

Wait huh? Hayward makes others better?

Boy... I wonder how much worse big al, Millsap, favors, etc would have been without Gordon...
 
Only in sports can a player have what is perceived to be a down year and receive a 500% raise at work. Imagine your $40k desk job looking at spreadsheets suddenly offered you $200k even though you can't figure out how to make a decent looking pie graph in Excel without being wrong 60% of the time.
 
There are a limited number of good available SFs in the league. Having watched Hayward throughout his career, I see a lot of talent. Hell, I would have lost focus playing under Corbin's team last year. Who wouldn't? I see his play last year as a product of a failed system. I could see his frustration. Hell, I think we were all frustrated watching the product on the floor. This is the first year in over a dozen where I didn't watch every game. I just couldn't stand watching the crap Corbin put on the floor. Imagine trying to play in that system. If you are going to judge him, I hope you give him a pass for last year. I give the whole team a pass.


He is a good system player. He is a team player. He may not be a #1 option in the league, but he can still be a team anchor. If re-signing him would make it impossible to sign the rest of the core, then there is an argument to get rid of him. If we know there are other free agents we can get with more talent for equal or less money, then there is an argument to let him walk. I'm just not seeing it.

If we can S&T and get fair value in return that will have a greater net benefit to this team, then go for it. But letting one of our best players go when keeping him would not cause use to lose the rest of our core...why in Zod's name would a team do such a thing?

Just like Wes Matthews. Yeah, he got overpaid, and most of us regret losing him. He would be a great asset to this team. Losing hayward would (imo) have a larger impact.
 
As I always say in these scenarios: A bad deal is a bad deal. I recall everyone saying that ATL essentially had to give Joe Johnson the contract they gave him, because they had no other real options, and it wasn't like anyone else was going to sign with ATL. Smash cut to a year or two later and his contract was looked at as a joke. I'll say it again, a bad deal is a bad deal. You should never overpay a player. This should be simple as the elite players are always underpaid.
 
This Hayward rumor might just be a smoke screen to try to get LeBron to the negotiating table in Cleveland.

I wouldn't put it past Gilbert.
 
margodydek said:
As I always say in these scenarios: A bad deal is a bad deal. I recall everyone saying that ATL essentially had to give Joe Johnson the contract they gave him, because they had no other real options, and it wasn't like anyone else was going to sign with ATL. Smash cut to a year or two later and his contract was looked at as a joke. I'll say it again, a bad deal is a bad deal. You should never overpay a player. This should be simple as the elite players are always underpaid.
Click to expand...

And they were still able to move that deal for multiple first round picks while making playoff runs during his tenure. How bad of a deal was it...
 
So we either sign Hayward to Max Money or fall off the edge of the Earth? I'd rather see what the edge of the Earth looks like. I'll bet it looks a lot like Cleveland.
 
How can you not be excited of the prospect of the jazz without Hayward?

Unleash Burks. Give Hood and Exum tons of burn. Let Burke play pg, not Hayward.

This is gonna be awesome! Hayward homers, GTFO. Go to craptown to cheer on your boy!

GO JAZZ!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top