What's new
By:

Official We Don't Need Hayward; Trade him.

Stifle Tower said:
I disagree. The extra year is meaningless as he'll still be very young and will get an even BIGGER deal after 4 years. In fact, I could see him asking for a deal that gives him an opt out after the 3rd year so he would then have 10 yrs of experience and could sign a 35% contract. That's why he had the opt out in this contract (to get to 7 yrs/30%). Also, look at LBJ; he is doing short-term deals to take advantage of the different tiers and escalating cap numbers. Others have done the same.

When you're making $30M/per, the difference between 7.5% and 4.5% won't be the deciding factor. Sure, he gives up $2.7M over three years. But then he opts out and gets 35% wherever he goes. And we all assume Boston because of Stevens. I say Indiana is more likely. His entire family, including in-laws lives there. He stays there during the off-season. Can you imagine Gordon at the 3 and George at the 4? Or go with Gordon at the 2. IF he leaves, my money is on Indiana as his likely destination.

This is DWill all over again. Jazz knew DWill was homesick for Dallas and would probably sign there as a FA. Instead, he took some extra money from Prokhorov, coupled with the promise the billionaire was going to spend like never before to buy a title. So he stayed in Brooklyn after the trade.

Imagine if we could get another Favors and draft picks from Team X in a trade. Getting that kind of return is MUCH better than gambling that Hayward will stay n a bloated contract. At the time, DWill was a top-3 PG in the league. That is justification for a max contract. Gordon isn't even an all-star.

1. Option A. Utah overpays ($30M + 7.5% raises). In '18/'19, Jazz have to let go 1-2 other core players plus decimate the bench to fit a team under the tax threshold.

2. Option B. Gordon opts out and leaves, spurning a big offer from Utah to play with another team. Utah gets nothing in return.

3. Option C. Jazz sit down with Gordon like they did with DWill and sense there is just to much risk and uncertainty. Or decide $30M is more than his value. They trade him for a prospect and picks. AND with that $30M "savings" they can re-sign the rest of the core and then pick up a SF (if not obtained in this draft or 2017).
Click to expand...
Great post
 
stitches said:
Lets say the only way for the Jazz to keep Hayward is to give him the super max next year. In 2017 the cap is projected to be 108M so the max for that year for him would be 30% of that and it would go up 7.5% every following year. So we are talking about: 32.4M in 2017, 34.8M in 2018, 37.2M in 2019 and 39.6M in 2020 and 42M in 2021. Or overall ~186M over 5 years or ~144M over 4 years.
Click to expand...

**** that ****.
39.6 million for Hayward? I like him and all but hell no.
 
stitches said:
I don't think that's a very likely scenario. Players have shown that they value financial security a lot and practically nobody(LeBron being the notable exception) from the players that deserved max signed short-term deals in order to get the jump in pay after next year. I can't see Hayward refusing 5/max or even 4/max.
Click to expand...
Didn't hayward just sign a shorter deal with an early opt out though?
 
fishonjazz said:
Didn't hayward just sign a shorter deal with an early opt out though?
Click to expand...

He signed the longest possible deal with the best option to have as a player(player option in the last year).

In other words, if you offer him 3 max with player option or 4/max with player option in the 4th vs 5/max with player option in the 5th, he's always going to choose the longest term contract. At least IMO.
 
stitches said:
He signed the longest possible deal with the best option to have as a player(player option in the last year).

In other words, if you offer him 3 max with player option or 4/max with player option in the 4th vs 5/max with player option in the 5th, he's always going to choose the longest term contract. At least IMO.
Click to expand...

No, he won't necessarily. The best possible deal for him - after he opts out - is a new contract with an opt out in 3 seasons. The CBA sets the max at 30% for a 7 year player and then it jumps to 35% for a 10 yr player.

So ideally (for him) he signs a $30M/per deal in 2017 with an opt out in 2020 so he can then sign for 4 or 5 years at 35%. That's why Utah doesn't have a huge advantage. He'll want the ability to opt out of his next deal in order to sign an even bigger one. And that requires just 3 years to reach the next service level plateau.
 
Stifle Tower said:
No, he won't necessarily. The best possible deal for him - after he opts out - is a new contract with an opt out in 3 seasons. The CBA sets the max at 30% for a 7 year player and then it jumps to 35% for a 10 yr player.

So ideally (for him) he signs a $30M/per deal in 2017 with an opt out in 2020 so he can then sign for 4 or 5 years at 35%. That's why Utah doesn't have a huge advantage. He'll want the ability to opt out of his next deal in order to sign an even bigger one. And that requires just 3 years to reach the next service level plateau.
Click to expand...

But he's taking a risk. Injury, underperformance, change in the market. If he thinks he's just that much of a badass he'll probably take the risk, but I've heard-tell stories from his barber that the guy get's pretty ****ing anxious about this ****.
 
Stifle Tower said:
No, he won't necessarily. The best possible deal for him - after he opts out - is a new contract with an opt out in 3 seasons. The CBA sets the max at 30% for a 7 year player and then it jumps to 35% for a 10 yr player.

So ideally (for him) he signs a $30M/per deal in 2017 with an opt out in 2020 so he can then sign for 4 or 5 years at 35%. That's why Utah doesn't have a huge advantage. He'll want the ability to opt out of his next deal in order to sign an even bigger one. And that requires just 3 years to reach the next service level plateau.
Click to expand...

The problem is nobody knows what will happen in 3 years time - injuries, decline in performance, change of the market. Too much uncertainty. Again - every single player with the exception of LeBron who has more power than anybody in the league chose the long-tern sure thing deal, even when they could wait for the cap to jump. A jump from 67M to 92M or to 108M in cap limit(35-45%) has much bigger effect on salary than the 5% increase he can get when he's becomes a 10 year vet, and players still took the long-term security...
 
Let's be clear if we drop Hayward, we aren't better. We need to replace that talent.
This isn't about getting rid of Hayward to improve the team. This is big picture, and the overall direction of the team.

Is there another piece out there we can get for Hayward that would make us better? I'm doubtful. We are sort of stuck
with Hay, and hoping for development of players like Hood, Lyles, and Exum to make us elite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top