If Hayward left, or were traded.

[Game6Conley]

Yes, let's dump Hayward because Ben Simmons, Ingram and others "project" better, and because there's such a great chance we'll be able to land all of them.

It's not drinking the Hayward 'lemonade' to say that he's a very good player, one of the best wings in the league. He may not be a #1, but just which #1 are we going to be able to flip him for? Curry? Durrant? LeBron? Beside these guys, who else out there is the player who will take us to the Finals, and just how do we go about getting him?

Well there's more to that list of SF's with apparently tons of Potential, thats the thing.. The way I see it there's tons of options.. I don't think the Jazz are backed into any sort of corner, and I don't think they should conceed to Hayward because 'he wants to stay in Utah', that seems like a defeatists attitude to me.

KD called Porzingis rare as a unicorn the other day -- We can all agree Haywards game is less rare than that..

Marvin Bagley in 2019, Miles Bridges in 2017, Jonathan Isaac in 2017, Rodions Kurucs(2017) Wenyen Gabriel in 2017, there's also Simi ****tu in 2019 and R.J. Barrett in 2019, Oton Jankovic in 2019 and Luka Doncic in 2018, Dzanan Musa(2018), Sandro Mamukelashvili (2018), players like Kris Wilkes(2018), Brian Bowen(2018), Cameron Reddish (2019), Jadeon LeDee (2019), Khavon Moore (2019) Robert Woodard (2019) Gerald Lidell, all show possibly game-breaking potential at SF.. This list doesn't even include the SF's i've already mentioned in this thread either**


There's also; KD, Lebron, Harrison Barnes(R), Brad Beal(R), DeRozan, Nic Batum and Kent Bazemore on the market this summer.

and the next summer there's Giannis(R), Hayward, Gallinari, Gay, Tyreke Evans, and Victor Oladipo(R) on the market..


How do we go about getting them?? Well once Hayward is gone there will be a void that certain free agents will look at like an opportunity, Hood can cover minutes at SF so going after a SG could be viable too.. Acquiring tons of picks to snag some of these talented SF's is already going on, If the team performs poorly that'll just increase the lottery chances at landing one of the big prizes at SF -- And my point is there's gonna be quite a few of them.

 

[Game6Conley]

What I hate about this constant desire to "upgrade" with prospects who haven't played a minute of NBA basketball is that it continues to push the timeline of a competitive Utah Jazz team back a year here, a couple years there. At that point what we're talking about is a full on rebuild before we've finished rebuilding from 5 years ago.

I want to watch a competitive Utah Jazz team play basketball. That's the kind of fan I am, as crazy as that is for so many people here. I want to grab a beer, turn on a Jazz game and enjoy what I see. I'm not content with fantasies about all the titles the Jazz could/would win if only some highschool kid gets drafted two years from now. That does nothing for what I'm want out of the Utah Jazz, which is to be able to watch an entertaining basketball game from time to time.

Well that's kinda what a rebuild is, they can sell the team age and then keep it in stasis for years re-shuffling. That's how I'd do it. It's like bulking and cutting cycles for a body builder.. They're competitive on a game to game basis.

To overlook the talent on the horizon and prepare for today's NBA is a good way for the rebuild to fail, the Jazz have no choice but to try and be a step ahead of the competition, not having to go full-throttle is one of their advantages. Their PR team probably calls it 'Flexibility'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi8i66mP7-I

 

[Game6Conley]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dwmWOi558M

Forgot to mention Tatum, DX's projected #1 pick in 2017. He's a much better prospect than Hayward, it's not even close when they were 17..

 

[MoTappin]

Overpaid maybe. Superfluous no. Hood is playing great and is definitely a big part of the team's future, but we still need Hayward. We need his points, defense, and ability to facilitate for others (especially in absence of a better PG). And if Hood were injured again, we'd need him even more. Is he a superstar at this point? Probably not. But he's still a very good wing.

 

[MoTappin]

Yes, let's dump Hayward because Ben Simmons, Ingram and others "project" better, and because there's such a great chance we'll be able to land all of them.

It's not drinking the Hayward 'lemonade' to say that he's a very good player, one of the best wings in the league. He may not be a #1, but just which #1 are we going to be able to flip him for? Curry? Durrant? LeBron? Beside these guys, who else out there is the player who will take us to the Finals, and just how do we go about getting him?

Totally agree with this.

 

[Stifle Tower]

I'm certainly not arguing that we should let him walk for nothing. I just question whether he is the piece to build around.

Favors game appears to be much more critical to winning than Hayward's. If Hood projects to produce similar #s to Hayward in only his second year, then I think one of them becomes a luxury. Who knows if the Jazz are interested in paying for both on top of what Favors and Gobert will clearly command.

Dante's extension comes up at the same time as Rodney's. Choosing between them might be painful if both improve next year. Hayward's extension may force the Jazz into that scenario.

.
Exactly. I'm an advocate of trading Hayward, but not because I think he's an average player. He's very good. Maybe even an all-star if the Jazz were in the top-5 in the WC. The problem is that Utah can't pay everyone. A new cap of $100M sounds like a lot. But consider Favors and Hayward will both be eligible for 30% contracts and Gobert 25%. Let's even assume Utah gets a bit of a discount on Favors and even Hayward (although I think Gordon is going to want the max). Let's say those three take $25M each. That's still $75M. Trade Burks once Hood and Exum come up for raises. What do they get, $15-$20M each? So now the Jazz are at $110-$115M for just 5 players. Cut everyone else and go with rookies/Dleaguers at $525K each (I know it's somewhere around that range for rookies). So add at least $4.2M in payroll to get to 13 players. And obviously, I'm not counting guys like Lyles, Neto, Withey or anyone picked in the 1st round with a salary above rookie minimum,. Jazz are looking at $120M payroll (at a MINIMUM!). That's luxury tax territory for a team that would have NO ONE beyond the starting five outside of DLeaguers and 2nd rounders.

The logical choice for a trade is Hayward. He'll demand the most money and he'll be giving Utah the least bang for the buck. SF should also be the easiest position to fill, unlike PG or a dominant big. He'd also net Utah very good assets. Perhaps not what DWill got us, but every year there should be good shooters in the draft, even if was somewhere in the 10-15 range. Also, Jazz could take that $25-$30M and use it to go after another wing in free agency (or keep Burks if they choose) AND still have other picks/players acquired in a trade. If Dante develops a shot, you could even slide him over to the 2 and look at bringing in a stud PG with Hood at the 3.

 

[Engorged On Unborn Gore]

I would advocate for trading Hayward to Atlanta for a package centered on Schroeder instead of Teague. It would give the Jazz a promising point guard who still has 2+ years on his rookie deal, and balance out the talent on our roster.

It would also shore up Atlanta against the possible departure of Bazemore.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

What I hate about this constant desire to "upgrade" with prospects who haven't played a minute of NBA basketball is that it continues to push the timeline of a competitive Utah Jazz team back a year here, a couple years there. At that point what we're talking about is a full on rebuild before we've finished rebuilding from 5 years ago.

I want to watch a competitive Utah Jazz team play basketball. That's the kind of fan I am, as crazy as that is for so many people here. I want to grab a beer, turn on a Jazz game and enjoy what I see. I'm not content with fantasies about all the titles the Jazz could/would win if only some highschool kid gets drafted two years from now. That does nothing for what I'm want out of the Utah Jazz, which is to be able to watch an entertaining basketball game from time to time.

I am with you. While I'd like to win a championship, I concede that the odds of this happening are slim, even in the best of circumstance. What I want is a competitive team that wins 45+ a year (give or take) and which has a chance of doing some damage in the playoffs. I want to watch good, winning basketball. If a championships comes, so much the better, but if that's the standard one has for taking pleasure out of all of this, it's got to be a very frustrating experience.

Neither do I want to continue to push the rebuilding further down the road ad nauseum in some never-ending Quixotic quest to land the #1 player who can take us to the promised land. I don't want to be the Kings, or the 76ers, or the Timberwolves etc. forever in the lottery and forever banking on prospects who project well but who may or may not turn out.

 

[Jazz4ever]

.
Exactly. I'm an advocate of trading Hayward, but not because I think he's an average player. He's very good. Maybe even an all-star if the Jazz were in the top-5 in the WC. The problem is that Utah can't pay everyone. A new cap of $100M sounds like a lot. But consider Favors and Hayward will both be eligible for 30% contracts and Gobert 25%. Let's even assume Utah gets a bit of a discount on Favors and even Hayward (although I think Gordon is going to want the max). Let's say those three take $25M each. That's still $75M. Trade Burks once Hood and Exum come up for raises. What do they get, $15-$20M each? So now the Jazz are at $110-$115M for just 5 players. Cut everyone else and go with rookies/Dleaguers at $525K each (I know it's somewhere around that range for rookies). So add at least $4.2M in payroll to get to 13 players. And obviously, I'm not counting guys like Lyles, Neto, Withey or anyone picked in the 1st round with a salary above rookie minimum,. Jazz are looking at $120M payroll (at a MINIMUM!). That's luxury tax territory for a team that would have NO ONE beyond the starting five outside of DLeaguers and 2nd rounders.

The logical choice for a trade is Hayward. He'll demand the most money and he'll be giving Utah the least bang for the buck. SF should also be the easiest position to fill, unlike PG or a dominant big. He'd also net Utah very good assets. Perhaps not what DWill got us, but every year there should be good shooters in the draft, even if was somewhere in the 10-15 range. Also, Jazz could take that $25-$30M and use it to go after another wing in free agency (or keep Burks if they choose) AND still have other picks/players acquired in a trade. If Dante develops a shot, you could even slide him over to the 2 and look at bringing in a stud PG with Hood at the 3.

Trading your best player so you can afford a 5 PER player (Exum) who *might* be average some day is asinine. While I like Hood, he is still a ways away from being able to carry an offense like Hayward, and is a far worse defender. Hayward is a top 30 player in the NBA.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Hayward's game will age nicely. I think that's fairly obvious.

Yup. And he keeps improving.

Let's not taste the closest thing we have to a team America Olympian, unless it brings us a better player.

 

[JimLes]

Trading your best player so you can afford a 5 PER player (Exum) who *might* be average some day is asinine. While I like Hood, he is still a ways away from being able to carry an offense like Hayward, and is a far worse defender. Hayward is a top 30 player in the NBA.

One time, when I was 19-20, I had this friend that I was crazy about and when her relationship with her boyfriend seemed on the rocks, I broke up with my then-girlfriend so I could be single for when my friend was single. I don't think I have to tell anyone how that turned out. When I heard all these "trade-Gordon-to-get-or-keep-HOF-level-player," it's the first thing I think of.

 

[NAOS]

One time, when I was 19-20, I had this friend that I was crazy about and when her relationship with her boyfriend seemed on the rocks, I broke up with my then-girlfriend so I could be single for when my friend was single. I don't think I have to tell anyone how that turned out. When I heard all these "trade-Gordon-to-get-or-keep-HOF-level-player," it's the first thing I think of.

^dude is crushin on Hayseed^

 

[magic]

a 5 PER player (Exum) who *might* be average some day

You are an idiot.

 

[ncoloradojazz]

Trading your best player so you can afford a 5 PER player (Exum) who *might* be average some day is asinine. While I like Hood, he is still a ways away from being able to carry an offense like Hayward, and is a far worse defender. Hayward is a top 30 player in the NBA.

Top 30 might be a reach buthe is dif a top 50 player in the league. He has shown you what he can do be the leading man of a team. He can lead you right into the lottery.. He needs to be a compliment player on a winning team. Him as the center piece is never going to get it done, This he has proven.

 

[JazzyFresh]

We trade Hayward for a stop gap PG we are screwed. The only way we trade Hayward is if we get something better in return and it's not going to happen.

Still unsure of why people are so adamant about trading our best piece, for a lower caliber player. Fans just get bored I guess?!

 

[JimLes]

^dude is crushin on Hayseed^

Who isn't. He's so clean-cut and dreamy.

 

[Stifle Tower]

We trade Hayward for a stop gap PG we are screwed. The only way we trade Hayward is if we get something better in return and it's not going to happen.

Still unsure of why people are so adamant about trading our best piece, for a lower caliber player. Fans just get bored I guess?!

No one ever suggested trading Hayward for crap. The idea is to get a top-5 pick and other assets for him. That way you replace his upcoming $30M/per salary (IF he even WANTS to stay) with a player who has the potential to be an all-star. Given unlimited money, yes, I say keep Hayward, Favors, Gobert, Hood and Exum as the starting 5 and have Burks, Lyles and another shooter off the bench, along with an upgrade over Burke as the backup PG. But the money is simply not going to be there. Hayward has said (as recently as after the Bulls game), that he considers himself to be an elite player. To me that says he'll want the max ($30M/per). Is he in the class of Curry, LBJ, etc.? Or is there better value to be had keeping ALL or MOST of the group I listed above (I think Burks is replaceable) and adding a top-5 prospect and maybe a good FA for HALF of what Hayward will cost?

Teams have to make tough choices. A big-3 of Hayward, Favors and Gobert isn't going to bring a championship. Of those three, Hayward will be the most expensive and is at a position where there are/will be very good replacements available. No, none as good as Gordon, But to keep Hayward means a couple of other players will need to be traded. Or Favors.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

LMAO

'Trade Hayward because we need to pay Exum!!'

Do you guys watch the games?

 

[JimLes]

A big-3 of Hayward, Favors and Gobert isn't going to bring a championship.

But Favors, Gobert, and Exum will?

 

[BabyPeterzz]

"Kiss the mother ****in ring." - Gtime