What type of asset is Hayward?

[Ellipse]

This. DL has said several times Hayward will be back regardless of ANY offer. But actually think he does balk at a max offer. 12 million would easily be matched. The only way its not is if we get Wiggins. Case closed.

DL has to say that he will match any offer in order to scare off potential offers. A GM would have to want Hayward pretty bad to tie up his cap space for several days while calling DL's bluff.

 

[ljnapoli]

definately contra-asset...

 

[b_line]

I disagree. We are in a completely different set of circumstances than San Antonio. San Antonio is trying to win a title now. We are trying to lose. If San Antonio wants Hayward for 11 per because he can increase their wins by 5 games, fantastic. By the same token, if we are going to "tank" again next year, wouldn't Hayward at 11 per, +5 wins really hurt the Jazz?

There is no way in hell the jazz would tank again next year. We are moving into Charlie sheen " winning" mode

 

[b_line]

If we get wiggins, a three player wing rotation of wiggins, Hayward and burks would be awesome. If we get Jabari, Hayward would really shine because he would be a clear cut second option on offense, and would not have to be the focus of all the defensive attention. If we get embiid, randle or gordon, we sure as hell better keep Hayward because we need him as a starting wing.

There is no situation where the jazz are better off basketball wise by not having Hayward. Money wise, it is not that big of a deal either, because there is no way he is getting the five year max like Paul George, and the mini max does not really affect our cap situation in the next four years all that much. By the time we need to extend our draft pick this year, he will be coming off the books.

 

[da ThRONe]

If we get wiggins, a three player wing rotation of wiggins, Hayward and burks would be awesome. If we get Jabari, Hayward would really shine because he would be a clear cut second option on offense, and would not have to be the focus of all the defensive attention. If we get embiid, randle or gordon, we sure as hell better keep Hayward because we need him as a starting wing.

There is no situation where the jazz are better off basketball wise by not having Hayward. Money wise, it is not that big of a deal either, because there is no way he is getting the five year max like Paul George, and the mini max does not really affect our cap situation in the next four years all that much. By the time we need to extend our draft pick this year, he will be coming off the books.

I agree with this on a bases of pure on court talent any team is better with Hayward. This season just showed you what he is and what he isn't. What he is is a utility type of guy who can do a lot of things at an acceptable NBA level. What he is not is a #1 option for a contending team. However where I disagree with is the ideal that you can pay a guy who at his max potential is a #2 guy like he's a #1 guy.

 

[green]

If we get wiggins, a three player wing rotation of wiggins, Hayward and burks would be awesome. If we get Jabari, Hayward would really shine because he would be a clear cut second option on offense, and would not have to be the focus of all the defensive attention. If we get embiid, randle or gordon, we sure as hell better keep Hayward because we need him as a starting wing.

There is no situation where the jazz are better off basketball wise by not having Hayward. Money wise, it is not that big of a deal either, because there is no way he is getting the five year max like Paul George, and the mini max does not really affect our cap situation in the next four years all that much. By the time we need to extend our draft pick this year, he will be coming off the books.

I agree with what you said, BUT, what if we don't get Parker or Wiggins? Then it doesn't matter who we sign, we aren't making the playoffs next year. Heck, we might not even make it with Wiggins or Parker.

So, if you get Gordon, and you know you aren't making the playoffs, what good does Hayward give you? He isn't an amazing leader. He can't carry the team. You will overpay him. And if he gets you five worthless wins, did he help you? Nope.

People are ignoring the fact that LeBron couldn't make a Cleveland team, in the east, a playoff team his first year. Yet, some seem to believe an inferior rookie, on an equivalent team, in a harder conference, will magically make the playoffs.

It's not going to happen.

 

[green]

So, if you aren't going to make the playoffs, what good does overpaying a player that will end up getting you the 10th pick instead of the fifth pick?

 

[b_line]

I agree with this on a bases of pure on court talent any team is better with Hayward. This season just showed you what he is and what he isn't. What he is is a utility type of guy who can do a lot of things at an acceptable NBA level. What he is not is a #1 option for a contending team. However where I disagree with is the ideal that you can pay a guy who at his max potential is a #2 guy like he's a #1 guy.

But that is where you are wrong. The four year mini max is not for number one options. We are not going to give him the five years and 80 mil that Paul George and John wall got. He will, at most get the four year max, which is what number two type options get. I would be more comfortable with him at around 11-12 mil per, but the thing people are not mentioning is that starting at 12 mil per year is almost the mini max. I think the most the mini max starts at is like 13.25, with annual raises.

 

[b_line]

I agree with what you said, BUT, what if we don't get Parker or Wiggins? Then it doesn't matter who we sign, we aren't making the playoffs next year. Heck, we might not even make it with Wiggins or Parker.

So, if you get Gordon, and you know you aren't making the playoffs, what good does Hayward give you? He isn't an amazing leader. He can't carry the team. You will overpay him. And if he gets you five worthless wins, did he help you? Nope.

People are ignoring the fact that LeBron couldn't make a Cleveland team, in the east, a playoff team his first year. Yet, some seem to believe an inferior rookie, on an equivalent team, in a harder conference, will magically make the playoffs.

It's not going to happen.

This jazz team has infinitely more talent than the cave squad that lebron went into.

 

[The Thriller]

So.... Burks should have played like 60 minutes per game?

Yes. Because that was exactly what I was saying. Thank you

 

[green]

This jazz team has infinitely more talent than the cave squad that lebron went into.

You are wrong beyond belief. Or a homer.

LeBron's squad had Boozer who is better than any big we have (15 pts, 11 rebs). They had ilgauskas, who is better than any big we have (18 pts, 11 reb). Heck, Ricky Davis May had been better than Hayward (15 pts 5 rebs). Plus that team had LeBron James.

 

[akirac73]

^^^This.

 

[b_line]

Yes. Because that was exactly what I was saying. Thank you

So by saying that burks should take Hayward's minutes, what exactly did you mean? I mean, you have, as you stated, watched more basketball than all of us, so you should know that a player who plays around 30 minutes a game can't really play that much more. So when you say burks should get Hayward's minutes, do you hunk burks is some kind of superman and can play more minutes than actually exist in a game? I mean, how many triple overtime games have you seen in your huge sample size if basketball games?

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

I disagree. We are in a completely different set of circumstances than San Antonio. San Antonio is trying to win a title now. We are trying to lose. If San Antonio wants Hayward for 11 per because he can increase their wins by 5 games, fantastic. By the same token, if we are going to "tank" again next year, wouldn't Hayward at 11 per, +5 wins really hurt the Jazz?

you snort too much coke. Take a ****ing nap.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

So, if you aren't going to make the playoffs, what good does overpaying a player that will end up getting you the 10th pick instead of the fifth pick?

dude, you've got to start establishing a winning tradition at some point. Almost half our team will be composed of top10 picks. It's time to bust a nut on the floor and start winning some games next year.

 

[green]

dude, you've got to start establishing a winning tradition at some point. Almost half our team will be composed of top10 picks. It's time to bust a nut on the floor and start winning some games next year.

Huh. Establish a winning tradition? What 25 years of playoffs didn't do that? Anyways, I'll establish that tradition with players that can win me a title, not just get me to the playoffs.

 

[b_line]

Huh. Establish a winning tradition? What 25 years of playoffs didn't do that? Anyways, I'll establish that tradition with players that can win me a title, not just get me to the playoffs.

So is your plan to keep tanking and trading for draft picks until the next lebron falls into our laps?

 

[The Thriller]

So is your plan to keep tanking and trading for draft picks until the next lebron falls into our laps?

sigh.

I'm getting really tired of this black and white posting of some members here. It's almost as if they know what the Jazz should do and what fans want but just want to be asses.

 

[The Thriller]

So by saying that burks should take Hayward's minutes, what exactly did you mean? I mean, you have, as you stated, watched more basketball than all of us, so you should know that a player who plays around 30 minutes a game can't really play that much more. So when you say burks should get Hayward's minutes, do you hunk burks is some kind of superman and can play more minutes than actually exist in a game? I mean, how many triple overtime games have you seen in your huge sample size if basketball games?

Yep. Again, because that was exactly what I was saying. This is the 2nd time now I've answered your question. How many more times must I answer it for you to understand?

 

[The Thriller]

dude, you've got to start establishing a winning tradition at some point. Almost half our team will be composed of top10 picks. It's time to bust a nut on the floor and start winning some games next year.

Yet, most of those top 10 picks came from weak drafts.

Typically, top 10 draft picks result in a franchise player. How many of those do we have?