What's new
By:

We need to trade Hayward now

Mission Accomplished said:
YOu are kidding right those teams don't have bad contracts and they might have made poor decisions in the past. But, in the new lower cap they are going to be moving players that they over paid for like Deng, I don't know who you think are on the other two teams that are Hayward type players.

The only team that made a decision like Hayward in the new cap times is Indiana over paying for Paul George and that guy is on another level than Hayward. He was leading his team while in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

I was reffering to Gallinari's and Eric Gordon's contract but i noticed saying Pelicans would be more appropriate instead of Clippers cause he get his new contract at New Orleans last year. It's better for a comprasion cause Pelicans also trying to build a good team for the future like Jazz. As i mentioned earlier they gave a guy with a well known injury history a 4 year/58 million deal. Not just George deal but also that kind of deals of wing players having influence on Hayward's extention talks and i think when you consider other deals in the NBA 4 year/40 million for Hayward is not overpaying.
 
CitizenofCapua said:
I was reffering to Gallinari's and Eric Gordon's contract but i noticed saying Pelicans would be more appropriate instead of Clippers cause he get his new contract at New Orleans last year. It's better for a comprasion cause Pelicans also trying to build a good team for the future like Jazz. As i mentioned earlier they gave a guy with a well known injury history a 4 year/58 million deal. Not just George deal but also that kind of deals of wing players having influence on Hayward's extention talks and i think when you consider other deals in the NBA 4 year/40 million for Hayward is not overpaying.
Click to expand...

Agreed but he said no to 4 years 40. Gordon might have injuries but he is a better player than Hayward. Anyways let the competition over spend while we build using the cap to our advantage not our detriment. I find it better to over pay bigs than wings unless they bring something next level we haven't seen enough but Burks might be a game changer as a wing.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
Don't mean to burst your bubble bro, but you're getting close to becoming 1 right now, the way you've been going.


Sorry for being blunt.
Click to expand...

Nah analytic thinking and nutcase don't mix that well. But your pseudo trolling isn't really helping you.
 
CitizenofCapua said:
I also think FO shouldnt rush to extend his contract but that song was for the people who think he doesnt worthy of an 40million/4 year just by looking at couple of games. If you compare other contract sheets in NBA for the guy who plays at the wing, you can see 40million $ deal got a huge potential to be a pretty fair deal.

OFC our expectations will be high for a guy who possibly will get 10-11 per year but it shouldn't be sky-high. We want him to be clutch, we want him to be consistent, we want him to be mentally and pysically ready for every game. But that worths much more than 10 million per year. Deng is getting 14 million per year and he is not more consistent than Harvey Dent. One night he has a great game other night he shots 13-4 and get lost in crunch time. And you know Hayward got a better durability than the guys like Gallinari(11 mil. per year) or Eric Gordon(14 mil. per year). You know that he higly likely will stay healthy (knock on woods) throughout his career. Also i dont think he got such a caracter who gets the contract and lie down and enjoy himself like Evans(11 mil. per year) and i simply believe he deserves slightly a better contract(9 mil per year) than Thaddeus Young has. I dont even need to mention other ridicolous contracts guys like Rudy Gay or G.Wallace have.

To put it shortly, like it or not thats the market. And when you look at the market that is a pretty fair deal and Hayward got every right to ask for that numbers on his contract, cause this is his first big contract and he wont get another one till he is 27-28. So its pretty important for him.
Click to expand...
If the info that has been reported was correct the Jazz offered at least $10 million and were possibly willing to go to $11. Hayward turned it down... so what was your point? Did you just wanted to reiterate that the team has to pay him what they already offered to pay him?
 
Mission Accomplished said:
That is the market set for uncompetitive teams. we live in an age where if we overspend we can't set ourselves up for the future. Giving Hayward more that 40 mil is overspending. And by the way all you cry babies who freak out about KOCgone well he isn't the main GM and Lindsey is clearly even now hands down the better GM.
Click to expand...
I'll bet you can't point to a single post that supports your claim that anybody (much less a bunch of people) on this site are crying about the KOC/Lindsay transition. You're just making stuff up.
 
ijazz said:
Here is my opinion on Favors/Hayward deals and no deals.

Favors - Jazz got a STEAL with his contract. Great bigs, even if defensive only are special. Favors would have easily been offered a Max. So while this is a good deal, how is Favors going to feel when he posts great numbers, realizes he is elite, then realizes underpaid.

Hayward - Tough tough case. At Team USA GM's loved him. He gets no national exposure so that helped him a lot (with East coast teams). Jazz made the correct **business decision** not giving him more than the rumored 4/40 that was leaked.
With that said, I feel the Jazz made a poor decision overall on Hayward. I would have overpaid him up to 12.5 year. This shows confidence in him. He has grown every year, creates mismatches, is a two way player, very unique player. I would be more concerned if he had stopped developing already.

Anyway , there is more to business than numbers. While 12.5 is overpaying for Hayward, do we really feel that is too much for Hayward in 2 years ? That's the gamble. They basically told Hayward "We love ya kid, you the face .... BUT we want to see more". Again, callus solid business decision, but I think it will impact the Jazz in a negative way.

1. Hayward - RFA mode, he will easily get the 4/40 rumored by the Jazz to have offered. His only downside is injury.
2. Jazz - Now have a circus with teams maybe wanting a trade, etc..
3. Jazz - Someone may be crazy and offer a Max...yes Max....
4. Draft - Yes, Wiggins etc..... but no one knows what a player will be like in the NBA till hey get here. How durable ? Work ethic ? What happens when they get money ? They OK staying in Utah a Long time ?

Botton line - I actually think we make a mistake with both. Favors we took advantage of and Hayward we alienated (no matter what both sides say).

Oh well, millionaire problems so I certainly cannot relate.
Click to expand...
It would not be possible to field a competitive team without going far into luxury tax territory if the Jazz were following your contract advice. Of course it's easier in the short term to give more money to every player, but there are serious problems with that down the road. I think they've been doing a great job and that both offers were fair to both parties.
 
If the Jazz draft Wiggins/Parker and Burks continues to develop, Hayward could arguably be coming off the bench. Do you pay 12.5 for a bench player? Nope.

Not giving Hayward too much money was a good thing. If someone overpays, let him walk. He is a very, very nice player. But not essential.
 
green said:
If the Jazz draft Wiggins/Parker and Burks continues to develop, Hayward could arguably be coming off the bench. Do you pay 12.5 for a bench player? Nope.

Not giving Hayward too much money was a good thing. If someone overpays, let him walk. He is a very, very nice player. But not essential.
Click to expand...

I do not like the Wiggins/Parker argument against Hayward.

A meteor may hit us so I should build a bomb shelter...
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
If the info that has been reported was correct the Jazz offered at least $10 million and were possibly willing to go to $11. Hayward turned it down... so what was your point? Did you just wanted to reiterate that the team has to pay him what they already offered to pay him?
Click to expand...

My point was the money FO offered to him was pretty fair and it wouldnt affect Jazz future plans like some posters thinks if Hayward had accepted it. Cause i dont think it would be a bad contract when you consider what potentially can you get from him or untradable when you want to get rid of it.
 
Stoked said:
I do not like the Wiggins/Parker argument against Hayward.

A meteor may hit us so I should build a bomb shelter...
Click to expand...

My point was, you would be crazy to pay 12.5 for Hayward right now. Wait until the summer. If you don't get Wiggins/Parker, then maybe Hayward becomes worth 12.5. If he blows up and is an All-Star, then maybe he is worth 12.5. The problem is, if you pay him now, and he bombs, or you get Wiggins/Parker, then you now have a guy that is hurting you cap wise big time. And now you have to move him and you are now in the Al/Millsap position of the last two years, where you need to move him, only 2-3 teams want him/can take him and they all completely low ball you on what he is worth.

Not extending him at a high cost is a no brainer. You still have all your options open, including bringing him back.
 
I'm fine with waiting but basing it on anything but what Hayward shows us is foolish and not good policy.
 
green said:
My point was, you would be crazy to pay 12.5 for Hayward right now. Wait until the summer. If you don't get Wiggins/Parker, then maybe Hayward becomes worth 12.5. If he blows up and is an All-Star, then maybe he is worth 12.5. The problem is, if you pay him now, and he bombs, or you get Wiggins/Parker, then you now have a guy that is hurting you cap wise big time. And now you have to move him and you are now in the Al/Millsap position of the last two years, where you need to move him, only 2-3 teams want him/can take him and they all completely low ball you on what he is worth.

Not extending him at a high cost is a no brainer. You still have all your options open, including bringing him back.
Click to expand...

Whether or not we get Wiggins/Parker is irrelevant to extending Hayward at 12.5 IMO.


If he's worth it and we can get him at a bargain price of $12.5m then do it. If he's not (which I don't think he is ATM), then you don't pay him and wait it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top