Hayward & Jazz - not close to agreement (Hayward leaving 4/40 on the table)

[Litany]

As much as the Thunder may have undervalued Harden, I think most people thought the right choice was to amnesty Perk or commit to Harden and move Ibaka, but the Thunder got cocky.

They figured hey, we got this. Lamb will be a stud and these draft picks will be amazing and Martin can so what Harden did ezpz until Lamb comes along.

Wrong.

 

[b_line]

It was a dumb conversation because Harden was indeed THAT much better than Hayward. All Harden did in his third season was be the second-best player on an NBA finalist and turn in one of the most efficient scoring campaigns ever seen (both as the man and as a complementary scorer [which is in itself a rare quality]). Then get a gold medal.

Hayward after his third year once again struggled to find a niche to thrive in and once again strung together some good games then looked terrible for another couple of games. Hayward is the only member of teh CORE 4 LOL that has been given every opportunity to succeed and his success has been marginal.

I kind of disagree that Hayward has been given every opportunity to succeed. If you are given every opportunity to succeed, then your minutes are not cut in favor of a busted former number 2 pick, and relegated to the third or fourth option on the team for half of your minutes. If the Jazz had been giving him every opportunity to succeed, they would have played Marvin less, not traded for Mo, and gotten rid of Jefferson at least a season earlier. I do agree having Hayward lead the second unit was a great opportunity for him, but that was only one opportunity, and he thrived in it.

And as far as Harden goes, it was VERY unclear to a lot of people that he was a max player before the trade went down. Just do a simple google search, and you will come up with a lot of articles like this one: https://www.sportsgrid.com/nba/the-winner-and-loser-of-the-james-harden-trade/

It was a great decision by the rockets to offer him a max extension, but not a sure bet by any means. They took a huge risk, and it looks like it paid off.

 

[b_line]

I'm baffled that anyone is still willing to make this claim. Your take on OKCs evaluation couldn't be further from the truth for starters (they had no doubt he was a max player). Then there's the fact that Houston immediately franchised him just as 29 other teams with the financial wherewithal would have.

But you're right, there was a group of meatheads on JF pretending Harden was a question mark.

I personally thought he was a max player. But hey, there are plenty of people in the NBA who did not at that point. You can say that every team in the NBA would have maxed him, but I remember it differently, as apparently so does the internet. There are a bunch of articles out there questioning the trade the day it was done, and wondering if Harden was truly a max player.

Not trying to say he was not a max player, just that there was some question as to whether he was or not.

 

[Litany]

The thunder were also foolishly cheap.

The Jazz had more guts in paying the tax the last year DWill was here and we didn't have best the contender they did.

So anytime we think millers might be getting cheap have a look at this Thunder decision.

 

[b_line]

I agree on how undervalued Harden was by the Thunder, but i don't think him and Hayward were even close at the same point in their careers and saying that is unfair to Hayward.

It's as wrong as saying Hayward could be Ginobili. Not. Gonna. Happen.

I have been a big supporter if Hayward but i just don't see him being that caliber guy anymore and that's fine. I was hopeful but I have taken off the rose colored glasses and can evaluate him rationally now.

He is an average defender at best, mostly against 2s that he's bigger than, struggling against 3s, he's a very good 3pt shooter and off ball scorer and he doesn't have an ability to create for himself the way someone like Ginobili or Harden can.

We gotta be careful with this contract.

I said in another post that Harden was at least 15% better than Hayward consistently through his career. I am not arguing at all that Hayward is the next Harden. I do not think that Hayward will be close to as good as him.

 

[franklin]

Oh, now b-line is pretending Hayward didn't get the same starting minutes as Al, Millsap, Mo, and Foye, and as many touches as Sap and Mo in spite of his highly inefficient scoring. This ones gone pretty deep in ****.

 

[Litany]

I said in another post that Harden was at least 15% better than Hayward consistently through his career. I am not arguing at all that Hayward is the next Harden. I do not think that Hayward will be close to as good as him.

Fair enough. I guess I just think that the gap between a superstar you can build around and a 4th best, maybe 3rd best player on your contending team is a lot larger than 15%.

Someone's was pointing out that Hayward would be the 3rd or 4th best player on the top5 teams today.

Heat? 4th?
Spurs? 4th?
Clips? 3rd? Or 4th
Bulls? 3rd or 4th?
Rox? 3rd or 4th?
Nets? 4th?
Thunder? 4th?

Do we picture Hayward as better than the 2nd best player on those teams? Ever? I can't see it. That's why going above 11 could hurt bad.

 

[b_line]

Oh, now b-line is pretending Hayward didn't get the same starting minutes as Al, Millsap, Mo, and Foye, and as many touches as Sap and Mo in spite of his highly inefficient scoring. This ones gone pretty deep in ****.

Numbers don't lie, that is exactly what happened. You can compare the numbers for yourself, but here they are just incase you don't want to:

Al MPG 2011-2013 36, 34, 33
Al usage rate 24.2, 25.7, 25.3

Paul mpg same time: 34, 32, 30
Paul usage rate: 22.6, 23.2, 22.4

Gordon MPG same time: 17, 30, 29 *edited because I originally put 80 for the second season...
Gordon usage rate: 15.3, 17.8, 22.1

Gordon was always second or third to these guys. It is very clear. I didn't look up Mo, but to me when he was on the court together with Hayward, it was not a good fit, and Mo was a ball hog.

 

[b_line]

Fair enough. I guess I just think that the gap between a superstar you can build around and a 4th best, maybe 3rd best player on your contending team is a lot larger than 15%.

Someone's was pointing out that Hayward would be the 3rd or 4th best player on the top5 teams today.

Heat? 4th?
Spurs? 4th?
Clips? 3rd? Or 4th
Bulls? 3rd or 4th?
Rox? 3rd or 4th?
Nets? 4th?
Thunder? 4th?

Do we picture Hayward as better than the 2nd best player on those teams? Ever? I can't see it. That's why going above 11 could hurt bad.

All I was saying is that to this point in their respective careers, 15% was about the difference. Harden took a HUGE leap last year with Houston. That is where the big difference is. Hayward probably caps out at about 2nd to 3rd best on a contender, so paying too much would be bad. I totally agree.

 

[GVC]

in spite of his highly inefficient scoring.

Hayward was pretty efficient last season (as a spot-up shooter).

 

[GVC]

All I was saying is that to this point in their respective careers, 15% was about the difference.

15% isn't a meaningful number. You can build an offense around Harden; you can't build an offense around Hayward; you need an offense to contend. What the **** does 15% even mean?

 

[Siro]

Numbers don't lie, that is exactly what happened. You can compare the numbers for yourself, but here they are just incase you don't want to:

Al MPG 2011-2013 36, 34, 33
Al usage rate 24.2, 25.7, 25.3

Paul mpg same time: 34, 32, 30
Paul usage rate: 22.6, 23.2, 22.4

Gordon MPG same time: 17, 30, 29 *edited because I originally put 80 for the second season...
Gordon usage rate: 15.3, 17.8, 22.1

Gordon was always second or third to these guys. It is very clear. I didn't look up Mo, but to me when he was on the court together with Hayward, it was not a good fit, and Mo was a ball hog.

Don't your numbers show similar mpg and usage for both Millsap and Hayward?