What's new
By:

Would Hayward take less than the max?

green said:
So your boss comes to you and says this:

I want to pay you 20% less. By doing so, my company will get better, it will be worth more and I'll make more money. But you take less. I know you could go to a better city and make more money, but think of all we will accomplish! We can be the best! I'll be richer and you'll be poorer, but we will be #1!

And, maybe someone else will give you some money to schill their product, but there's no guarantee to that.

How about it?
Click to expand...
This is all true, but Duncan took the deal. Why did he agree to it? As far as I know he never got big endorsements. Did he just figure that he was earning enough money and cared more about championships?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
This is all true, but Duncan took the deal. Why did he agree to it? As far as I know he never got big endorsements. Did he just figure that he was earning enough money and cared more about championships?
Click to expand...
Yep. Other players have done it too.
(I think durant too less money in order to help the team be better in golden state iirc)
 
green said:
So your boss comes to you and says this:

I want to pay you 20% less. By doing so, my company will get better, it will be worth more and I'll make more money. But you take less. I know you could go to a better city and make more money, but think of all we will accomplish! We can be the best! I'll be richer and you'll be poorer, but we will be #1!

And, maybe someone else will give you some money to schill their product, but there's no guarantee to that.

How about it?
Click to expand...

99.99% of people are going to reply to their boss with "give me the money", but a good deal of people are also living paycheck to paycheck. But I'm genuinely curious where my head would be at if I were in Hayward's shoes. I think I would understand that even if I take a "hometown discount" that I will be earning generational changing amounts of money. So when do other things start taking priority over money? So really, at what dollar amount am I good to start saying, "OK, what's important now?" I think once I reached a certain dollar amount, I'd start thinking about: wife's preference, community, winning culture, relationships with co-workers, etc. I just don't see how making money the number one priority equates to overall happiness.
 
Gameface said:
Is there a user here you would trust to hold it?

EDIT: other than your alt, of course
Click to expand...

What are the terms? How are you going to prove all max deals are created equal? How can I prove they are not? Dollar figure divided by cap seems reasonable but this place proves to be unreasonable.

Do you agree to that term alone? Dollar figure / Cap. Including cap escalation? I.E. Parsons max not equivalent to Hayward 30% max next year?
 
margodydek said:
99.99% of people are going to reply to their boss with "give me the money", but a good deal of people are also living paycheck to paycheck. But I'm genuinely curious where my head would be at if I were in Hayward's shoes. I think I would understand that even if I take a "hometown discount" that I will be earning generational changing amounts of money, so when do other things start taking priority over money? So really, at what dollar amount am I good to start saying, "OK, what's important now?" I think once I reached a certain dollar amount, I'd start thinking about: wife's preference, community, winning culture, relationships with co-workers, etc. I just don't see how making money the number one priority equates to overall happiness.
Click to expand...

This. It's stupid to think Hayward will definitely take 4 years/120M (30 per) over 5 years/140M (28 per). Or whatever the dollar amounts will be. We just don't know. He has a new home in Utah, two kids and a wife there, perhaps other family, and teammates he seems to love. Add in an extra 20M for that 5th year (will he get THAT much more than that anyway with the cap likely going back down starting soon in year one after his 4 year contract us up?) and knowing what he's getting in Utah (the unknown can be scary) and I think it's reasonable to think he could re-up at a slight discount for the sake of the team and his family and knowing what he's getting into. It will equal more money for the Jazz to spend on a per year basis on his teammates and an extra 20M for him up front.
 
Last edited:
margodydek said:
99.99% of people are going to reply to their boss with "give me the money", but a good deal of people are also living paycheck to paycheck. But I'm genuinely curious where my head would be at if I were in Hayward's shoes. I think I would understand that even if I take a "hometown discount" that I will be earning generational changing amounts of money. So when do other things start taking priority over money? So really, at what dollar amount am I good to start saying, "OK, what's important now?" I think once I reached a certain dollar amount, I'd start thinking about: wife's preference, community, winning culture, relationships with co-workers, etc. I just don't see how making money the number one priority equates to overall happiness.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Cunning Linguist said:
This. It's stupid to think Hayward will definitely take 4 years/120M (30 per) over 5 years/140M (28 per). Or whatever the dollar amounts will be. We just don't know. He has a new home in Utah, two kids and a wife there, perhaps other family, and teammates he seems to love. Add in an extra 20M for that 5th year (will he get THAT much more than that anyway with the cap likely going back down starting soon?) and knowing what he's getting in Utah (the unknown can be scary) and I think it's reasonable to think he could re-up at a slight discount for the sake of the team and his family and knowing what he's getting into. It will equal more money for the Jazz to spend on a per year basis on his teammates and an extra 20M for him up front.
Click to expand...
This post brings up a question that I would like to know the answer to.
If we offer Hayward the 5 year max can the yearly dollar amount be flexible or does the 5 year max have to be a certain amount.... The SUPERMAX.

Doesn't the 5 year max have to be a certain %of the cap or whatever? If yes, then he really can't take a discount unless he only goes with 4 years right?
 
green said:
So your boss comes to you and says this:

I want to pay you 20% less. By doing so, my company will get better, it will be worth more and I'll make more money. But you take less. I know you could go to a better city and make more money, but think of all we will accomplish! We can be the best! I'll be richer and you'll be poorer, but we will be #1!

And, maybe someone else will give you some money to schill their product, but there's no guarantee to that.

How about it?
Click to expand...
This logic doesn't correlate to my point. My logic is this - my boss would offer me more than any other company can give me but he wants me to take a fraction less than the most he can give me so the company can be more successful.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
 
LoPo said:
This logic doesn't correlate to my point. My logic is this - my boss would offer me more than any other company can give me but he wants me to take a fraction less than the most he can give me so the company can be more successful.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Your logic is flawed. In your case, the employee gets nothing else. You're considering only money. In Hayward's case, his sacrifice is for the team (him, the other players, and the coaching staff, NOT the FO) so that they can win a ring, something that really should be the goal for any competitive player.
 
I doubt he'd take less than the max because another team will offer him the max. I would rather we offer the max to a superstar. I know my answer won't be popular but that's how I feel. Some teams have maxed players who don't deserve it and they will suffer and will trade talent and draft picks in hopes of finding cap relief.

I know the Jazz (like every other team) can spend more money now and the contracts will be larger but max players need to be 'the man'.

Having said that, if Hayward were to walk and the Jazz receive nothing, that would be a huge mistake.

But I trust in DL. I believe he thinks ahead. Which is why the Jazz don't have any bad contracts.

Hayward is obviously coveted.

The Jazz have depth now. And draft picks. Anyone who wants Hayward would need to offer a star player in return.
 
kabenac said:
I doubt he'd take less than the max because another team will offer him the max. I would rather we offer the max to a superstar.
Click to expand...

Jesus ****ing Christ. What "superstar" do you think Utahr will be able to lure here, dude? Get a reality check.
 
If the Jazz are really as good as people are saying, then the only team that will actually compete with us is Boston. There have been talks that Boston is the front-runner in trading for Westbrook. They would then have a core of Westbrook/Horford and would probably focus a heavy campaign on Hayward. Westbrook/Horford are probably a 2nd/3rd seed if they can maintain guys like Bradley/Crowder and only have to give up guys like Brown/Smart/A Boston pick.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
Jesus ****ing Christ. What "superstar" do you think Utahr will be able to lure here, dude? Get a reality check.
Click to expand...

Only realistic scenario is giving up some combination of our young talent for Westbrook then offering him a max. Though if you did that, you would certainly max both Hayward/Westbrook so the point is mute. Both players would get maxed.
 
I do feel like the possibility of Westbrook is intriguing. I've read reports that the Lakers are confident they can sign him in the off-season and don't really want to give up their young talent to get him. That would leave Boston as the only real trade partner capable of delivering enough assets to get him. They could potentially try to lowball OKC to get him, and we could actually get him without giving up much. Westbrook would certainly change everything we want to do as a team, but the raw talent he would bring would be interesting.
 
King Cy said:
Only realistic scenario is giving up some combination of our young talent for Westbrook then offering him a max. Though if you did that, you would certainly max both Hayward/Westbrook so the point is mute. Both players would get maxed.
Click to expand...

And if we did that this season, there's zero guarantee Westbrook does re-sign here. For that reason, I'd never do it.
 
fishonjazz said:
Yep. Other players have done it too.
(I think durant too less money in order to help the team be better in golden state iirc)
Click to expand...
I just heard some audio of Pop talking about Duncan's retirement. No farewell tour, no calling attention to himself, not even a press conference. Pop said that if he could choose anyone in the world to have dinner with he would choose Timmy. Most genuine person he's ever known. Maybe Hayward will see that and think, "I'd rather go that route than the one Carmello is taking."
 
fishonjazz said:
This post brings up a question that I would like to know the answer to.
If we offer Hayward the 5 year max can the yearly dollar amount be flexible or does the 5 year max have to be a certain amount.... The SUPERMAX.

Doesn't the 5 year max have to be a certain %of the cap or whatever? If yes, then he really can't take a discount unless he only goes with 4 years right?
Click to expand...
I don't think this is correct. We can offer any contract up to the max, and we can offer up to 5 years because we have his Bird rights. There are restrictions on how much his pay can change (up or down) year to year.
 
This is a huge season for Favors. I'd say I'd love him to put up an 18/10 spot but that's never going to happen with the great depth we have. If he can put up 16/9 but raise his fg% to 52.5%, ft% to 74% and demonstrate a little more range with (and I'm really crossing my fingers here because I think this factors in huge to whether we keep him long-term or not) an ability to maybe hit the occasional 3 at about a 33-34% clip, I'd be thrilled.
 
King Cy said:
Only realistic scenario is giving up some combination of our young talent for Westbrook then offering him a max. Though if you did that, you would certainly max both Hayward/Westbrook so the point is mute. Both players would get maxed.
Click to expand...

Um, it's moot not mute ya jackwagon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top