Would Hayward take less than the max?

[karl malone]

The question isn't whether or not he's a max player, the market that has been established has made it clear that he is. The question is whether or not a team (especially a small market, non-championship contender such as Utah) can win a title with him on a max contract, which has yet to be determined (although I have my doubts unless it's alongside a superstar, which we currently don't have).

 

[Boris]

I'd rather have your money.

Would you put $100 on it?

Yup

 

[Gameface]

Yup

Okay. So the bet is that Hayward doesn't get a max offer. It includes the Jazz giving him as much or more than what would be a max offer from another team.

Agreed?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I think any fan would be pissed off if the so-called "star" of his team averaged just 18-6-4 or something like it. A player with such averages is a secondary one, not a franchise player. Hence, a player like that is not worth the max. If you max a secondary player rather than a franchise player you might not have enough money left to build a good team.

Wrong

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[SCS]

If you max a secondary player rather than a franchise player you might not have enough money left to build a good team.

This is my exact problem with giving Hayward the max. If we give Hayward the max we lose multiple pieces of our core one way or another because of the financial ramifications. I would love someone to show me a model/plan going forward with Hayward on a max deal where we can win a championship. Project forward. Show me who we keep, who we lose. Go through the roster and tell me how it works financially and how we win. Go through our draft picks, finances, all of it. Of course some variables you can't project come into play sometimes, but this is what teams do. They map out a path going forward. If someone could map out a championship winning path with Hayward on the max I'd buy in. I'd drink the cool aid. But I don't to this point see a sustainable path to a championship paying the max to a third or fourth best option on a championship team when nobody else on the young core is locked up long-term, and we have no stand out star.

 

[Qman]

This isn't complicated. Hayward is our best player. We need to pay the man so we can keep him. We are going to have to dump someone to make room for all of our guys or play the luxury tax. Those are the facts of life.

 

[Jazz4ever]

This is my exact problem with giving Hayward the max. If we give Hayward the max we lose multiple pieces of our core one way or another because of the financial ramifications. I would love someone to show me a model/plan going forward with Hayward on a max deal where we can win a championship. Project forward. Show me who we keep, who we lose. Go through the roster and tell me how it works financially and how we win. Go through our draft picks, finances, all of it. Of course some variables you can't project come into play sometimes, but this is what teams do. They map out a path going forward. If someone could map out a championship winning path with Hayward on the max I'd buy in. I'd drink the cool aid. But I don't to this point see a sustainable path to a championship paying the max to a third or fourth best option on a championship team when nobody else on the young core is locked up long-term, and we have no stand out star.

No one can predict the future, so no point in modeling anything. Sometime players don't break out until their 4th year or 5th year. The Exum, Hood, and Lyles contract amounts could all swing wildly at this point. Best to put the trust in DL he gets paid the big bucks for it.

 

[ghsartin]

This isn't complicated. Hayward is our best player. We need to pay the man so we can keep him. We are going to have to dump someone to make room for all of our guys or play the luxury tax. Those are the facts of life.

Qman, I understand you. We need to pay Hayward well for sure, but there's a risk of having the Kirilenko situation a second time. In other words, paying the max for a complementary player severely limits the team flexibility in terms of salary cap and hampers the signing of a player really worth the max. The result? The team end up with a bunch of overpaid complementary players and no franchise player at all, like Kirilenko, Deron, Boozer and Okur.

 

[zbone]

Whoever think Hayward would give a discount they are dreaming. He is as tight with money as they make. And there will be plenty of teams to offer him max.
I also don't see Favors giving a discount second time as well seeing that Hayward us unwilling to. As cap apparently goes up and then down Hayward's max might be due for extension in the worst possible time and I wouldn't be surprised if DL would let him walk or trade mid-season.
In my opinion Hayward is gone as likely as Burks due to they way the cap is projected if he becomes an unquestionable All-Star coming season.

 

[Tom Pitt]

He could send a strong leadership and confidence signal to his teammates by signing at a discount. If it resulted in a championship (or even a legit contender) he might more than make up for any loss in endorsements (I wonder what KD's endorsement income is). Realistically, though, past experience suggests that Hayward will demand the max. Favors is more likely to eventually give us a discount.

My whole thing is what can you do with 130 million that you can't do with 110 million?

 

[framer]

People understand that not every team is going to have an extra 26 million to spend forever going forward, right? After next year not every above average player is going to get a max deal. Most teams, including the Jazz will have burned through their salary cap. In this situation, signed players will be a good plan, especially those that are worth their contracts. Hayward on a max contract is worth more than Hayward gone for nothing, especially as there will always be a trade partner for Hayward. He isn't a liability like Kanter. Get players on a deal if you can, if you can't pay them what they are worth. A player worth their contract will always be a strong asset.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

My whole thing is what can you do with 130 million that you can't do with 110 million?

Other than buying and extra one of these,

Or one of these,

Or one of these?

Probably a whole bunch of things.