What type of asset is Hayward?

[GVC]

So they would rather give money away than sign a player? Let's see how many don't hit it....then I might agree with you.

Absolutely. They're not going to sign someone to an above-market long-term deal that could affect their long-run cap flexibility just to hit the no-penalty salary floor in the short-term. Doesn't make any sense.

Not that it matters though; the Jazz are in no risk of being below the floor next season. Look how easy it was to get to the floor this season without hurting their long-term cap flexibility.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Absolutely. They're not going to sign someone to an above-market long-term deal that could affect their long-run cap flexibility just to hit the no-penalty salary floor in the short-term. Doesn't make any sense.

Not that it matters though; the Jazz are in no risk of being below the floor next season. Look how easy it was to get to the floor this season without hurting their long-term cap flexibility.

But....there are no fat contracts under the old CBA left. And more importantly no teams giving away multiple first round picks to take them. Teams will either take a chance on Hayward or sign vets like Jefferson and Marvin to 8-10 million one year deals. Look around some of these teams rosters and you will see they just don't have the young talent that Hayward could interfere with.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Absolutely. They're not going to sign someone to an above-market long-term deal that could affect their long-run cap flexibility just to hit the no-penalty salary floor in the short-term. Doesn't make any sense.

Not that it matters though; the Jazz are in no risk of being below the floor next season. Look how easy it was to get to the floor this season without hurting their long-term cap flexibility.

Or teams can sign FA's to one-year deals to get to the floor if they desire. There will be a few teams that will consider Hayward this summer. IMO, the year he's had will have little affect on his value. It won't raise it, like he had hoped, but it's not going to crash it, either. In the end, I think a deal comes in at slightly under what Favors got (because bigs get more $), which was likely what Utah had offered him.

 

[GVC]

But....there are no fat contracts under the old CBA left. And more importantly no teams giving away multiple first round picks to take them. Teams will either take a chance on Hayward or sign vets like Jefferson and Marvin to 8-10 million one year deals. Look around some of these teams rosters and you will see they just don't have the young talent that Hayward could interfere with.

and? The salary floor still shouldn't have any effect on what Gordo is offered. If teams have plenty of cap space moving forward and think Gordo is the best use of that space, they'll pay him more, sure, but they won't throw extra money at him just to get to the no-penalty floor. Again, doing that can only hurt teams.

Also, what do you mean by "But....there are no fat contracts under the old CBA left."? Year limits went down by one, but max contracts didn't change as a percentage of the cap by service time.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Also, what do you mean by "But....there are no fat contracts under the old CBA left."? Year limits went down by one, but max contracts didn't change as a percentage of the cap by service time.

No, but reckless contracts, not just max, were happening in the first place thanks to the lax luxury tax. Hording cash was an option for some of the smaller markets because it could get you something at the deadline under the past CBA, but will be pretty worthless going forward. So that's a stronger factor than the rising floor. However the cap rising 4 million is big, and will make teams spend a little more this year than the last two. Can we put you on record for a prediction of what Hayward gets offered?

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

I think owners have until the deadline to reach the salary floor. If so, then you can still leave a big sum under the floor and use it to bail out a team at the deadline.

 

[GVC]

No, but reckless contracts, not just max, were happening in the first place thanks to the lax luxury tax.

The worst contracts always seemed to be the ones where teams were signing away other teams' free agents. As such, those teams were well below the luxury tax (as the LT threshold is well above the salary cap). Based on what you said earlier, the higher floor should lead to larger contracts for players being signed by teams with lots of cap space. Not terribly important. The reduction by 1 year in contracts should have a bigger effect than the LT penalties (for most teams, anyway). Also, teams are more insulated from bad contracts now, as they can always use the stretch provision.

Hording cash was an option for some of the smaller markets because it could get you something at the deadline under the past CBA, but will be pretty worthless going forward.

It can still get you something at the deadline. Again, the salary floor isn't a floor at all. Teams can play a whole season with nothing but minimum contract players. They can acquire more salary for nothing in trades up until the deadline or through the signing of free agents beyond the deadline.

I really don't see any reason why teams would sacrifice long-term flexibility to stay above a no-penalty salary floor. With that said, we might see some large contracts being signed, especially by teams with a lot of upcoming draft picks, because contracts are shorter AND teams can always use the stretch provision if they want to cut a "useless" player with a bloated contract to spread his cap hit over multiple seasons.

Can we put you on record for a prediction of what Hayward gets offered?

I don't have a clue. I don't know nearly enough about this year's free agent market or the needs and cap situation of other teams. If he gets a big contract, it's unlikely to have anything to do with the salary floor.

 

[billyshelby]

I have no doubt GVC is right on the cap specifics (and thanks for the education GVC). I'm just surprised that there are any limitations trading players going into the draft. Logically, teams would benefit from being able to trade RFA players to another team that covets them more before/as they draft (even if the risk of acquiring an RFA player would inherently lower his value in trade.)

In that construct, interested teams (like Boston) might actually offer more with the security of an S&T. So by waiting, Lindsey holds the cards by having cap space to trump RFA offers and gets better value in return, just not 2014 draft picks. Interesting.

 

[billyshelby]

As to Hayward's value, I see it two ways:

His true value, in the NEW CBA, is around 10. I don't remember if Batum was signed in the new or old CBA, but his salary makes sense under the Old CBA and it's a cautionary tale in the New. Hayward is better than Batum, worse than Leonard, and both Batum and Leonard are worth somewhere between 8 and 11 in the New. The difference is that Batum looks like an overpaid, but competent 3rd option, Leonard looks like a guy who is, at worst, a competent 3rd option, and may be heading toward solid #2 guy (or better -- I really love his game.) Also, Batum and especially Leonard are elite defensively where Hayward is not.

Hayward's market value is much higher. It only takes one dumb GM to see 16/5/5 and offer 12, or 12 plus. That's the same mistake teams made overpaying Deng for the last decade, which was less egregious under the old CBA. But under the new regime, even allowing for increases to the Salary Cap in coming years, 12 for Hayward is way too much. On a team with a true star, he handles the ball 50% less (a huge number) and will struggle to put up even close to the same stats unless he continues to get Deng minutes (a huge assumption.)

The other problem is Hayward is only an injury away from becoming Dunleavy. Any hit to his athleticism and he becomes ordinary overnight. By contrast, a player like Wade, currently operating at about 65% of his 23 year old self, is still a pretty terrific player. Hayward at 65% is not a guy you want. At all. And, in just my opinion, you don't give big contracts to guys who have such a huge potential for worthlessness if they get hurt.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

As to Hayward's value, I see it two ways:

His true value, in the NEW CBA, is around 10. I don't remember if Batum was signed in the new or old CBA, but his salary makes sense under the Old CBA and it's a cautionary tale in the New. Hayward is better than Batum, worse than Leonard, and both Batum and Leonard are worth somewhere between 8 and 11 in the New. The difference is that Batum looks like an overpaid, but competent 3rd option, Leonard looks like a guy who is, at worst, a competent 3rd option, and may be heading toward solid #2 guy (or better -- I really love his game.) Also, Batum and especially Leonard are elite defensively where Hayward is not.

Hayward's market value is much higher. It only takes one dumb GM to see 16/5/5 and offer 12, or 12 plus. That's the same mistake teams made overpaying Deng for the last decade, which was less egregious under the old CBA. But under the new regime, even allowing for increases to the Salary Cap in coming years, 12 for Hayward is way too much. On a team with a true star, he handles the ball 50% less (a huge number) and will struggle to put up even close to the same stats unless he continues to get Deng minutes (a huge assumption.)

The other problem is Hayward is only an injury away from becoming Dunleavy. Any hit to his athleticism and he becomes ordinary overnight. By contrast, a player like Wade, currently operating at about 65% of his 23 year old self, is still a pretty terrific player. Hayward at 65% is not a guy you want. At all. And, in just my opinion, you don't give big contracts to guys who have such a huge potential for worthlessness if they get hurt.

It would be interesting to see how G would do in an actual system like the one Pop runs. Or to see how Leonard and Batum would do if suddenly they became the #1 option like G was this season. I'd bet a sig amount that we'd see large drops in their efficiency.

I agree that Batum, Leonard, and I'd add Parsons, are G's best comparables.

I do not see Leonard as a second option, not at all.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Here's an interesting tidbit on how G rates in the real +/- (hint: he's the highest on the team and compares favorably to most SGs in the league).

In any case, it seems to be that G is being undervalued by some. That he's not a #1 option or possibly even #2 option is only a knock on him if that is your expectation for him.

That said, I agree $12 m or so is too high, but I fully expect him to get in around $10m range give or take, whether from Jazz (my first guess) or someone else.

https://www.slcdunk.com/2014/4/8/55...at-is-it-and-what-does-it-say-about-2014-jazz

 

[GVC]

Here's an interesting tidbit on how G rates in the real +/- (hint: he's the highest on the team and compares favorably to most SGs in the league).

In that stat, he's 15th among shooting guards, tied with Iman Shumpert, and 95th overall. There are 58 players making $10mm+ this season.