Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
Rodney....not Rudy
Hayward - after 2 more seasons can opt out - due to DL gambling and losing....
- Thread starter ijazz
- Start date
Rodney....not Rudy
Derp. I'm gonna have another beer...
Hayward has a potential superstar center and a potential superstar point guard on his team, two great friends in Evans and Ingles (and I suspect we'll keep both, or potentially bring Evans into a front office job), a great relationship with his likely All Star power forward, and a coach who - while it isn't Brad Stevens - is one he really likes and respects. He's also seen first hand what happens, more often than not, when players leave in free agency - he had a front row seat to the D-Will experience. I'm sure he's watching what's happening in Charlotte this season. And he, for the forseeable future, is the leader of the squad. And he likes Salt Lake.
In other words, I have absolutely zero concern that he's even thinking about leaving. He knows what we're building and what he's got here.
In other words, I have absolutely zero concern that he's even thinking about leaving. He knows what we're building and what he's got here.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Utah made the right decision with Hayward, in spite of the way it worked out. The odds were in their favor, and they just happened to go against them anyway. Also, Hayward will opt out, but I think he'll re-sign as long as the team is doing well, which is looking pretty good right now. Definitely not a given, however, because he'll be eligible for a true max, which may be an iffy call yet again.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Can you imagine the OUTRAGE on this board had Lindsey given Hayward a max deal on July 1st? Or how about a $14M/per deal the previous October 30th?
Many on this board were claiming he was worth around $8-$10M. Hindsight is always great.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Yep, I agree. He really needs to take a step up again to be worth $20M. If not, Hood, Burks and a future pick (maybe this years?) might be our wing rotation. WE can't pay everyone and right now, I'd say Rudy is priority #1 and Derrick #2. Wings are generally much easier to find than dominant bigs.
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
lol what would we do without Mr. Mediocre. My guess move on easily to Hood who is arguable a better scorer right now as a rookie.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I still think we overpaid for Hayward. The only thing that is making it look ok is the fact that the cap is changing. Hayward is our best player realistically, but he is also just too inconsistent to be the go-to guy, and I think what we see now is generally what we get. If he can maintain better percentages and cut down on the off-games he would go from a borderline all-star player to a near-perennial all-star level player. But that inconsistency drives his value down.
+ a lot.
Simply put Hayward is looking forward to his future with the team and isn't thinking about leaving. That doesn't mean he doesn't have his best financial interests as a priority. I am pretty sure he will try to get as much money as possible as soon as possible, but no reason why he would try to do that somewhere else though !
karl malone
Well-Known Member
Unless we're still a lottery team by the time he can opt out, I expect him to resign with the team. The question will be how much more he has progressed by then, how much of a raise he is looking for, & where our other wings (Burks, Hood, this year's draft pick if we go with a wing) are at in their development. If we are on the brink of becoming true contenders, I think Hayward would even be willing to take a little less $ to assure that we can retain all of our key members.
I agree that, in hindsight, it was a mistake to not sign Hayward to a deal similar to that which Favors received (if the rumors were true- although I seem to remember reports indicating that he was looking for slightly more than what DF received), but I understand why DL took the risk that he did. If I remember correctly, the Jazz were offering somewhere around 4/40 & when I heard that Favors had signed for 4/50, I felt like he was worth more than Hayward. I was undecided as to whether they should have gone that high, & was hoping that they would meet somewhere in the middle (4/44-46).
Unfortunately, that didn't happen, & Hayward went on to receive a max offer with an opt-out clause, after not having the type of season that you would expect to bring in that type of offer. DL certainly couldn't have anticipated that &, I expect, will handle these situations differently when it comes to future (& past) contract negotiations (ie Burks- wanted to retain him & did so by slightly overpaying in order to assure that he didn't receive a contract that they were uncomfortable matching- & Kanter- he wouldn't sign at a price that they felt was fair value so they traded him instead of allowing him to reach RFA).
I am (& I imagine DL is now too) a firm believer in not allowing others to dictate the terms of the contracts that you sign. Even after a down year from Hayward, we stated that we would still match any contract he received, which tells you that he was always in our future plans. Oh well, lesson learned; if you identify a player as a crucial part of your long-term plan, you retain him however necessary, even if that involves paying slightly more than you would like. The opt-out clause is worse than the paying him max $ part, especially when you figure it's only $3-4 mil more than what we could have paid him, as well as the timing of the opt-out, which comes just as we project to be truly contending.
I agree that, in hindsight, it was a mistake to not sign Hayward to a deal similar to that which Favors received (if the rumors were true- although I seem to remember reports indicating that he was looking for slightly more than what DF received), but I understand why DL took the risk that he did. If I remember correctly, the Jazz were offering somewhere around 4/40 & when I heard that Favors had signed for 4/50, I felt like he was worth more than Hayward. I was undecided as to whether they should have gone that high, & was hoping that they would meet somewhere in the middle (4/44-46).
Unfortunately, that didn't happen, & Hayward went on to receive a max offer with an opt-out clause, after not having the type of season that you would expect to bring in that type of offer. DL certainly couldn't have anticipated that &, I expect, will handle these situations differently when it comes to future (& past) contract negotiations (ie Burks- wanted to retain him & did so by slightly overpaying in order to assure that he didn't receive a contract that they were uncomfortable matching- & Kanter- he wouldn't sign at a price that they felt was fair value so they traded him instead of allowing him to reach RFA).
I am (& I imagine DL is now too) a firm believer in not allowing others to dictate the terms of the contracts that you sign. Even after a down year from Hayward, we stated that we would still match any contract he received, which tells you that he was always in our future plans. Oh well, lesson learned; if you identify a player as a crucial part of your long-term plan, you retain him however necessary, even if that involves paying slightly more than you would like. The opt-out clause is worse than the paying him max $ part, especially when you figure it's only $3-4 mil more than what we could have paid him, as well as the timing of the opt-out, which comes just as we project to be truly contending.
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Good realistic non-god referential take on Hayward. It is what it is though, he's in our roster and I'm rolling with it. Just hope he becomes more consistent.