What type of asset is Hayward?

[fishonjazz]

The defensive wing combo of Gordo+Alec is ****ing terrible. That + Burke and Enes, who seems to think his arms should be glued to his sides when he defends in space, and you're not ever winning games. If Burks and Gordo are 2 of 3 key wing players on your team, the third had better be a pretty ****ing amazing defender at the 3. Unfortunately, the middling offensive talent of Gordo and Alec also necessitates he be an elite scorer.

This team is poorly constructed currently. I think you need to look to move one of the young bigs (Favors/Kanter) AND one of the young wings (Gordo/Alec). If the Jazz end up signing all these guys for market value or above, they're ****ed.

I dont want agree with this post..... but i kinda do agree

 

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

The defensive wing combo of Gordo+Alec is ****ing terrible. That + Burke and Enes, who seems to think his arms should be glued to his sides when he defends in space, and you're not ever winning games. If Burks and Gordo are 2 of 3 key wing players on your team, the third had better be a pretty ****ing amazing defender at the 3. Unfortunately, the middling offensive talent of Gordo and Alec also necessitates he be an elite scorer.

This team is poorly constructed currently. I think you need to look to move one of the young bigs (Favors/Kanter) AND one of the young wings (Gordo/Alec). If the Jazz end up signing all these guys for market value or above, they're ****ed.

How does Burke fit into all this?

I think you can play Burks and Hayward together IF the other guard is a Defense Guy. That's not Burke. I think as long as you're making guys available, then you make Burke available too.

 

[The Thriller]

My friend you want throw Hayward to dogs like scrap of ripe meat? You are fan who want more losing season yes?

Do you really think whether we resign Hayward or not, will determine whether we having a winning season next year?

 

[The Thriller]

The defensive wing combo of Gordo+Alec is ****ing terrible. That + Burke and Enes, who seems to think his arms should be glued to his sides when he defends in space, and you're not ever winning games. If Burks and Gordo are 2 of 3 key wing players on your team, the third had better be a pretty ****ing amazing defender at the 3. Unfortunately, the middling offensive talent of Gordo and Alec also necessitates he be an elite scorer.

This team is poorly constructed currently. I think you need to look to move one of the young bigs (Favors/Kanter) AND one of the young wings (Gordo/Alec). If the Jazz end up signing all these guys for market value or above, they're ****ed.

If only we had one season to waste... A season to try out different rotations, different strategies, and not give a rip about our record! A season where, we win? Sweet, then we know our talent is good and can compete. All we need to do is make a few minor tweaks to our team and we'll be fine. If we lose? Then we know that our core needs some major reconstructive surgery.

If only...

 

[green]

The defensive wing combo of Gordo+Alec is ****ing terrible. That + Burke and Enes, who seems to think his arms should be glued to his sides when he defends in space, and you're not ever winning games. If Burks and Gordo are 2 of 3 key wing players on your team, the third had better be a pretty ****ing amazing defender at the 3. Unfortunately, the middling offensive talent of Gordo and Alec also necessitates he be an elite scorer.

This team is poorly constructed currently. I think you need to look to move one of the young bigs (Favors/Kanter) AND one of the young wings (Gordo/Alec). If the Jazz end up signing all these guys for market value or above, they're ****ed.

This, 1000x's this.

Core4 - You keep saying there is plenty of minutes for everyone...what if you get Parker or Wiggins? That means either Burks or Hayward have to only play 24 minutes a game. Also, do you want to spend 12 for Hayward, 8-10 for Burks, and then a max deal for Parker/Wiggins? Nope.

You can't do it all. Someone has to go. And that doesn't even take into account how terrible they are defensively.

 

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

This, 1000x's this.

Core4 - You keep saying there is plenty of minutes for everyone...what if you get Parker or Wiggins? That means either Burks or Hayward have to only play 24 minutes a game. Also, do you want to spend 12 for Hayward, 8-10 for Burks, and then a max deal for Parker/Wiggins? Nope.

You can't do it all. Someone has to go. And that doesn't even take into account how terrible they are defensively.

how often do you stop to think?

 

[Ellipse]

I'm not ready to throw anybody under the bus as yet. It's hard to evaluate how well any of our players fit into the system when WE DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM. Bring in a competent coach and then we can see who should stay and who should go.

 

[GVC]

How does Burke fit into all this?

I think you can play Burks and Hayward together IF the other guard is a Defense Guy. That's not Burke. I think as long as you're making guys available, then you make Burke available too.

1. No one on the team is untouchable. You can't much worse defensively than Trey-Alec-Gordo on the perimeter.

2. There aren't a lot of players who can handle the 1 offensively AND defend physical wing players.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this has been brought up. Locke did a very good analysis where he looked at players who have gone from playing a secondary scoring option on a team to becoming the primary scoring option, and he found that with one exception (Danny Granger), all suffered a significant drop in efficiency as a result. We all agree I think that Hayward is not a primary scoring option--this year proved it. But I remain optimistic that as a secondary/tertiary option and facilitator and do everything kind of player, he can be damned good. Players who can average 16-5-5 are rare and have considerable worth.

I just found this over at Grantland. Apparently, Paul George is also having a difficult time transitioning to be the team's #1 option: https://grantland.com/the-triangle/curious-george-the-collapse-of-the-pacers-stars-season/.

Now, I AM NOT saying Hayward is George (though I've always thought that all the talk about PG as the next Superstar was hyperbole), but this goes to Locke's larger point, as a second or third option, defenses do not focus on you like they do when you're the #1 option (as they have with Hayward much of the season). For example, I love Chandler Parsons on Houston (he should have been a lottery pick). He's a dynamic player much like Hayward. Does anyone doubt that if Parsons became the #1 option and team's focused their defensive schemes on him, that his efficiency would suffer?

The players who can handle all of the defensive focus and still score at a highly efficient rate while elevating their team, they are the true superstars. And the list of these players is small and includes (not a complete list) the likes of LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Harden, Durrant, Griffin, Parker/Duncan. So this is all worth considering before some of you dump on Hayward and look to shove him out the door.

 

[fishonjazz]

I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this has been brought up. Locke did a very good analysis where he looked at players who have gone from playing a secondary scoring option on a team to becoming the primary scoring option, and he found that with one exception (Danny Granger), all suffered a significant drop in efficiency as a result. We all agree I think that Hayward is not a primary scoring option--this year proved it. But I remain optimistic that as a secondary/tertiary option and facilitator and do everything kind of player, he can be damned good. Players who can average 16-5-5 are rare and have considerable worth.

I just found this over at Grantland. Apparently, Paul George is also having a difficult time transitioning to be the team's #1 option: https://grantland.com/the-triangle/curious-george-the-collapse-of-the-pacers-stars-season/.

Now, I AM NOT saying Hayward is George (though I've always thought that all the talk about PG as the next Superstar was hyperbole), but this goes to Locke's larger point, as a second or third option, defenses do not focus on you like they do when you're the #1 option (as they have with Hayward much of the season). For example, I love Chandler Parsons on Houston (he should have been a lottery pick). He's a dynamic player much like Hayward. Does anyone doubt that if Parsons became the #1 option and team's focused their defensive schemes on him, that his efficiency would suffer?

The players who can handle all of the defensive focus and still score at a highly efficient rate while elevating their team, they are the true superstars. And the list of these players is small and includes (not a complete list) the likes of LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Harden, Durrant, Griffin, Parker/Duncan. So this is all worth considering before some of you dump on Hayward and look to shove him out the door.

Curry.

 

[Tarkanian]

One can sell him easily.
so?
a good one.

 

[green]

Jimmy - I think we all agree with you. I think if Hayward is your third option, you are competing for titles.

My issue is where this team stands, and the pay Hayward wants, they don't line up. This team isn't good enough or close enough to contending to overpay him.

 

[orangello]

When I think about Hayward with any amount of clarity in my head, I realize how much a team like San Antonio would love to have him. That makes me like Hayward for $10million/yr.

Great point.

San Antonio would make Hayward look awesome.

They never pay him 10 mil a year though.

Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[silesian]

Curry.

Yummmm Curry. I love Indian food.

 

[silesian]

Jimmy - I think we all agree with you. I think if Hayward is your third option, you are competing for titles.

My issue is where this team stands, and the pay Hayward wants, they don't line up. This team isn't good enough or close enough to contending to overpay him.

There are two reasons why they might give Gordon >$10MM: 1. They think he is the next Manu 2. They think that his contract at that pay level has trade value. If either is true, they re-up.

 

[Stifle Tower]

This, 1000x's this.

Core4 - You keep saying there is plenty of minutes for everyone...what if you get Parker or Wiggins? That means either Burks or Hayward have to only play 24 minutes a game. Also, do you want to spend 12 for Hayward, 8-10 for Burks, and then a max deal for Parker/Wiggins? Nope.

You can't do it all. Someone has to go. And that doesn't even take into account how terrible they are defensively.

Wiggins and Parker are pipe dreams. Parker probably isn't coming out and the odds of getting the #1 (Wiggins) will likely be less than 8%. Hayward would have a 5 year deal at most, so his contract is up by the time Wiggins would get "MAX" - if he does become a superstar. In any case, you have games missed, Burks might get some time at PG, etc. Or take them down to 32 mins. each when all three are healthy. When one of them misses a game, the others get 40+. It all works out. There ARE enough mins to go around for 3 wings.

 

[green]

Wiggins and Parker are pipe dreams. Parker probably isn't coming out and the odds of getting the #1 (Wiggins) will likely be less than 8%. Hayward would have a 5 year deal at most, so his contract is up by the time Wiggins would get "MAX" - if he does become a superstar. In any case, you have games missed, Burks might get some time at PG, etc. Or take them down to 32 mins. each when all three are healthy. When one of them misses a game, the others get 40+. It all works out. There ARE enough mins to go around for 3 wings.

I'll concede the minutes argument, even though I disagree, but are you really going to sink 30+ million into two positions the next 5 years? The next question becomes, if you sign Hayward to that deal, what do you give up for that? Do you lose Kanter because of it? Do you lose Burks? Do you lose out on the ability to bring in a vet PG? That is a lot of money to put into one area.

The salary cap is at 59 million. That equals out to 11.8 million to give to each position. You are already over budget on your PF spot, because Favors is making 12 per. You have 23.6 million to give out to the SF/SG spot. If you give 8 to Burks, 12 for Hayward, that is 20 million. That means that if you add Parker or Wiggins (and there is NOTHING that would give you any reason to think Parker is staying, other than he is quiet), that's another 10 million. You are now over budget in two positions and you need a starting C, a backup PG, and an end of bench.

That means that the PF, SF, SG spots are now taking up 70% of your money. Four players. Is Hayward that good to strap you financially that much?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I'll concede the minutes argument, even though I disagree, but are you really going to sink 30+ million into two positions the next 5 years? The next question becomes, if you sign Hayward to that deal, what do you give up for that? Do you lose Kanter because of it? Do you lose Burks? Do you lose out on the ability to bring in a vet PG? That is a lot of money to put into one area.

The salary cap is at 59 million. That equals out to 11.8 million to give to each position. You are already over budget on your PF spot, because Favors is making 12 per. You have 23.6 million to give out to the SF/SG spot. If you give 8 to Burks, 12 for Hayward, that is 20 million. That means that if you add Parker or Wiggins (and there is NOTHING that would give you any reason to think Parker is staying, other than he is quiet), that's another 10 million. You are now over budget in two positions and you need a starting C, a backup PG, and an end of bench.

That means that the PF, SF, SG spots are now taking up 70% of your money. Four players. Is Hayward that good to strap you financially that much?

David Locke has gone over this a few times on his podcast. According to him (and I find him to be credible), if the Jazz do resign Hayward to, say in 10-11 million range, the way the timing of the other contracts shape up, they will retain significant financial flexibility and won't be hamstrung financially. So it is not necessarily the case that giving Hayward a generous contract will doom the franchise as suggested by some here. He also seems to think it's highly likely Hayward gets resigned. Of course, Locke can't tell the future, so we'll see.

 

[akirac73]

I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this has been brought up. Locke did a very good analysis where he looked at players who have gone from playing a secondary scoring option on a team to becoming the primary scoring option, and he found that with one exception (Danny Granger), all suffered a significant drop in efficiency as a result. We all agree I think that Hayward is not a primary scoring option--this year proved it. But I remain optimistic that as a secondary/tertiary option and facilitator and do everything kind of player, he can be damned good. Players who can average 16-5-5 are rare and have considerable worth.

I just found this over at Grantland. Apparently, Paul George is also having a difficult time transitioning to be the team's #1 option: https://grantland.com/the-triangle/curious-george-the-collapse-of-the-pacers-stars-season/.

Now, I AM NOT saying Hayward is George (though I've always thought that all the talk about PG as the next Superstar was hyperbole), but this goes to Locke's larger point, as a second or third option, defenses do not focus on you like they do when you're the #1 option (as they have with Hayward much of the season). For example, I love Chandler Parsons on Houston (he should have been a lottery pick). He's a dynamic player much like Hayward. Does anyone doubt that if Parsons became the #1 option and team's focused their defensive schemes on him, that his efficiency would suffer?

The players who can handle all of the defensive focus and still score at a highly efficient rate while elevating their team, they are the true superstars. And the list of these players is small and includes (not a complete list) the likes of LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Harden, Durrant, Griffin, Parker/Duncan. So this is all worth considering before some of you dump on Hayward and look to shove him out the door.

How would you explain Hayward's shooting % declining each year he's been in the league? The first three seasons of his career he was always a 3rd/4th option behind Big Al/Millsap, so he wasn't asked to carry the team on his shoulders, yet his shooting got worse and worse each year. I'm not sure if Hayward goes back to being a support player that it's a sure thing he'll suddenly be more efficient and shoot the ball better...his career numbers don't support that.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

How would you explain Hayward's shooting % declining each year he's been in the league? The first three seasons of his career he was always a 3rd/4th option behind Big Al/Millsap, so he wasn't asked to carry the team on his shoulders, yet his shooting got worse and worse each year. I'm not sure if Hayward goes back to being a support player that it's a sure thing he'll suddenly be more efficient and shoot the ball better...his career numbers don't support that.

I would explain it as the more of the scoring burden he takes on, the less efficient he gets. Locke's analysis emphasizes that his efficiency has really dropped this year (and you imply also that as he shoots more, he gets less efficient), so if there is indeed an inverse relationship, doesn't it follow that if you reduce his role/burden, his efficiency will also improve?