Jazz 2017->onwards payroll projection

[Tom Pitt]

I wasn't talking about Haywards decision. For him it's easy. Opt out, wait for a fat contract, sign it. I was talking about the decision the Jazz have. If they give Hayward the max, multiple pieces of our core will be lost one way or another. So their decision in regards to him will decide the future of the team.

I suspect, if Lyles can become even average defensively, Favors Burks and Hill will be let go to. So our starting lineup will be
Exum
Hood
Hayward
Lyles
Gobert

 

[MDAV28]

I wasn't talking about Haywards decision. For him it's easy. Opt out, wait for a fat contract, sign it. I was talking about the decision the Jazz have. If they give Hayward the max, multiple pieces of our core will be lost one way or another. So their decision in regards to him will decide the future of the team.

If Hayward's worth the mega max it's possible you could still move the mega max. Easy decision to resign your best player.

 

[SCS]

If Hayward's worth the mega max it's possible you could still move the mega max. Easy decision to resign your best player.

Absolutely no way you are getting the same trade value for Gordon Hayward on a 30+ million dollar deal that you would get for him on his current deal. At all. It would be much harder to make contracts match up and make the numbers work.

 

[MDAV28]

Absolutely no way you are getting the same trade value for Gordon Hayward on a 30+ million dollar deal that you would get for him on his current deal. At all. It would be much harder to make contracts match up and make the numbers work.

He's an unrestricted FA this Summer and would be signing that deal anyways. GM's aren't short-sighted like some people here apparently.

 

[SCS]

He's an unrestricted FA this Summer and would be signing that deal anyways. GM's aren't short-sighted like some people here apparently.

Yeah but it's not about that, it's about leverage. Right now the Jazz have the leverage. They are in position to re-sign Hayward for more than anyone else can offer. They don't have to move him. But if they try to trade him after re-signing him they have less leverage. Few teams will have the cap space and/or the right contracts to make a deal work. And if the Jazz ever get put in a situation where they want/need to move him the other team will have all the leverage and they won't receive good offers *cough* Kirilenko *cough*

 

[MDAV28]

Yeah but it's not about that, it's about leverage. Right now the Jazz have the leverage. They are in position to re-sign Hayward for more than anyone else can offer. They don't have to move him. But if they try to trade him after re-signing him they have less leverage. Few teams will have the cap space and/or the right contracts to make a deal work. And if the Jazz ever get put in a situation where they want/need to move him the other team will have all the leverage and they won't receive good offers *cough* Kirilenko *cough*

I don't think you read what I said. I understand his contract now is more moveable in terms of finding salaries to match but you can't say his value is any higher. It doesn't matter. Easy decision for the Jazz and Hayward really.

 

[framer]

Absolutely no way you are getting the same trade value for Gordon Hayward on a 30+ million dollar deal that you would get for him on his current deal. At all. It would be much harder to make contracts match up and make the numbers work.

This is exactly false. A good player under contract for three or four years is ALWAYS a better asset than a good player entering RFA the next year. Even at a high dollar contract, a signed Hayward is more valuable than current Hayward because of the possibility you could trade for him and have him walk the next year. Would you give up a bunch of assets for Westbrook right now? How about after he signs? Once upon a time expiring contracts were valuable due to so many teams being in salary cap hell. This is not the current reality.

 

[framer]

Also, I would make sure that Hayward understands that he gets the max OR a no trade clause. He doesn't get both.

 

[SCS]

This is exactly false. A good player under contract for three or four years is ALWAYS a better asset than a good player entering RFA the next year. Even at a high dollar contract, a signed Hayward is more valuable than current Hayward because of the possibility you could trade for him and have him walk the next year. Would you give up a bunch of assets for Westbrook right now? How about after he signs? Once upon a time expiring contracts were valuable due to so many teams being in salary cap hell. This is not the current reality.

You're telling me the Jazz have more trade leverage with Hayward on a 30+ million per year contract that they are stuck with if they ever want to trade him unless a team wants to take it on, as opposed to a 16 million dollar per year contract that the Jazz aren't in a rush to move. Does nobody understand trade leverage? Or remember the AK contract?

 

[MDAV28]

You're telling me the Jazz have more trade leverage with Hayward on a 30+ million per year contract that they are stuck with if they ever want to trade him unless a team wants to take it on, as opposed to a 16 million dollar per year contract that the Jazz aren't in a rush to move. Does nobody understand trade leverage? Or remember the AK contract?

You're literally not reading what he just wrote. Hayward is going to get $30 million everywhere. There is not any more trade leverage right now. You only dump Hayward if you believe he won't resign and, barring the Jazz success this season, it should be a pretty easy decision to resign.

 

[framer]

You're telling me the Jazz have more trade leverage with Hayward on a 30+ million per year contract that they are stuck with if they ever want to trade him unless a team wants to take it on, as opposed to a 16 million dollar per year contract that the Jazz aren't in a rush to move. Does nobody understand trade leverage? Or remember the AK contract?

You're telling me the Jazz have more trade leverage with Hayward on a 30+ million per year contract that they are stuck with if they ever want to trade him unless a team wants to take it on, as opposed to a 16 million dollar per year contract that the Jazz aren't in a rush to move. Does nobody understand trade leverage? Or remember the AK contract?

The Jazz have little leverage right now. If the Jazz want to trade Hayward, the team they want to trade him to will need assurances that he will resign. If Hayward doesn't give them that reassurance, the deal will not go through. Nobody is even going to inquire about Hayward if they aren't prepared to pay him the going rate next year. Therefore, every team that wants Hayward now will want him a year or two from now. The difference is that Hayward will be locked down and can't walk away the year after the trade.

The dual problems you had with Kiri is that 1. His game was regressing after signing the big contract. His game was also not really in harmony with DWill and Boozer, which made him a poor fit with the philosophy of the team. 2. There weren't a lot of teams with cap space that could use a piece like AK47. Teams that COULD use him needed to give back their high priced junk in order to afford him, which we weren't interested in.

Hayward has gotten better every year and added something to his game. It is possible he could regress, but it isn't likely. His play style is essential for everything we are trying to do as a team. For the next couple of years there will be many teams with loads of cap space and room to fit high priced players into their payroll. There is almost no real chance of Hayward becoming an albatross outside of injury, due to how damn useful he is in every aspect of the game. Trading him away right now would be pretty idiotic.

 

[MDAV28]

The Jazz have little leverage right now. If the Jazz want to trade Hayward, the team they want to trade him to will need assurances that he will resign. If Hayward doesn't give them that reassurance, the deal will not go through. Nobody is even going to inquire about Hayward if they aren't prepared to pay him the going rate next year. Therefore, every team that wants Hayward now will want him a year or two from now. The difference is that Hayward will be locked down and can't walk away the year after the trade.

The dual problems you had with Kiri is that 1. His game was regressing after signing the big contract. His game was also not really in harmony with DWill and Boozer, which made him a poor fit with the philosophy of the team. 2. There weren't a lot of teams with cap space that could use a piece like AK47. Teams that COULD use him needed to give back their high priced junk in order to afford him, which we weren't interested in.

Hayward has gotten better every year and added something to his game. It is possible he could regress, but it isn't likely. His play style is essential for everything we are trying to do as a team. For the next couple of years there will be many teams with loads of cap space and room to fit high priced players into their payroll. There is almost no real chance of Hayward becoming an albatross outside of injury, due to how damn useful he is in every aspect of the game. Trading him away right now would be pretty idiotic.

Yeah but leverage and Kirilenko.