What's new
By:

Use Hayward to trade up or for another pick

Eenie-Meenie said:
I guess they couldn't do a wink-wink, after the draft? I do recall now that someone did mention that earlier that he couldn't be traded. Oh, well. I don't like the idea of trading Burks or Kanter now because we haven't given them enough of a chance to prove themselves. And for my money, I think Burks already has shown that he is going to be a very good player.
Click to expand...

Are you ****ing high? Someone start a "post your verified IQ thread". *i want to kick this thread in the ****ing face......*
 
Bodhi said:
Are you ****ing high? Someone start a "post your verified IQ thread". *i want to kick this thread in the ****ing face......*
Click to expand...

Chill ... I forgot we couldn't trade Hayward. Just would rather than trade him out of any of our core guys. Who knows we might end up signing and trading him, depending on who we draft, and it might involve some draft picks. It is a possibility given all the other teams interested in him
 
Well, based upon previous drafts, the Jazz have what they need to trade up (without untradeable Hayward). In 2005, when the Jazz drafted Deron Williams #3 overall, they were too unlucky in that year's NBA Draft Lottery. They finished with the 4th worst record in the league (26-56), yet, got passed by TWO teams in the lottery to finish 6th. They also had the 27th pick that year. They used the 6th and 27th picks (along with a future pick I believe) to trade up the day of the draft to #3 to draft Williams. Well, based upon that year's results, the Jazz have an even better chance to trade up if they wish. This year, they have the #5 pick (1 pick higher than 2005's #6) and the #23 pick (4 picks higher than 2005's #27). Based upon their past, the #5 and #23 picks should be good enough to get the Jazz into the top 3, if not the top 2 picks in the draft, which would land them either Wiggins or Parker. Remember, Utah traded their two first round draft picks last year to get up to #9 so they could land Trey Burke. Dennis Lindsey has been aggressive on draft day. I expect the same this year.
 
Yeah it's just math. If 6+27=3, then obviously 5+23=2 or even 1. Everything else is obviously exactly the same. It's a no brainer and it proves the Jazz FO is stupid if they don't take advantage of this mathematical certainty.
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
I guess they couldn't do a wink-wink, after the draft? I do recall now that someone did mention that earlier that he couldn't be traded. Oh, well. I don't like the idea of trading Burks or Kanter now because we haven't given them enough of a chance to prove themselves. And for my money, I think Burks already has shown that he is going to be a very good player.
Click to expand...

The wink wink deals go down all the time. Why do you think so much infomation gets leaked? Somebody leaks info that Utah potentially wants to S&T Hayward instead of signing him out right. Completely legal. In a completely unrelated interview *wink wink* Hayward can comment on the teams he would or wouldn't be interested in or the type of contract he's looking for if he were to be S&T'ed. Also completely legal under the rules.

Basically the team that's interested in Hayward knows he'll sign with them and have a basic stucture of the deal it'll take. Sure Hayward could rock the boat, but why? He'll be going to a team he desires on a deal he wants and most likely for the extra year he can only get if Utah signs him out right or S&T's him. None of it is against the rules as no team has officially contacted Hayward or his agents. So once the free agency period opens up Utah can officially go to Gordon and say we have a S&T to send you to X team for Y contract(both of which is something you know he and his agents wants). Utah would just have to be clear that team X is ok with meeting Hayward's contract demands(as they already know they are Hayward's desired destination). Once that agreement is reached all party can proceed knowing that all parties involved are happy. Again none of this breaks any NBA rules.
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
Most everyone has been talking about using Burks or Kanter in trade up scenarios, or if not up, then to get another high 1st rounder. But I think it would better to use Hayward. For one, we know what we have in Hayward. He got the playing time and opportunities to show what he has and will probably be -- at best, a third option on a championship team and surely not a go-to guy on any time. However, we really don't know what we have in Burks and Kanter because of the limited opportunities that Corbin gave them. Both have the potential to be second options on very good teams and first options on middle-of-the-pack teams. Hayward also is far more coveted around the league, so the Jazz would not have to give up so much if he is part of the deal.

The question remains who is going to take Parker if the Jazz don't and would they be interested in Hayward.

Well, it is just a thought. Others on the site seem to be more informed about the draft than me.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I don't have to wonder about you anymore.
 
The only thing that really hurts trading Hayward to move up is he has to accept the sign and trade and be willing to basically come out and say he's OK with it without either side contacting him. Hayward wouldn't be willing to go to teams like the Bucks, or Sixers. Maybe the Magic, but I don't think they'll be willing to give Hayward what he wants. Really thinking about it why would the Sixers or Bucks give up a chance at one of Embiid, Wiggins, or Parker for Gordon Hayward?
 
da ThRONe said:
The only thing that really hurts trading Hayward to move up is he has to accept the sign and trade and be willing to basically come out and say he's OK with it without either side contacting him. Hayward wouldn't be willing to go to teams like the Bucks, or Sixers. Maybe the Magic, but I don't think they'll be willing to give Hayward what he wants. Really thinking about it why would the Sixers or Bucks give up a chance at one of Embiid, Wiggins, or Parker for Gordon Hayward?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. Probably all we could do is get another high 1st rounder, like Sac's pick or maybe the Celtics? The Celtics probably have the most interest in Hayward. Is he worth that? We might need to include a draft pick, a future first or maybe this year's second rounder and a future second rounder?
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];832845 said:
Well, I guess I don't have to wonder about you anymore.
Click to expand...

I was going to send this in a PM, but since your box is full, I'll put it here:

So what are you wondering about? I shoot straight and am brutally honest -- what more do you want to know? The vague comments you make in your posts make me wonder about you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top