What's new
By:

Rumor: Jazz prepared to match 'any offer' for Hayward.

He's going to get paid a lot more than a lot of Jazz fans are comfortable with IMO. We'll just have to live with it.
 
[h=4]Jeff Green[/h]Not sure if anyone has noticed, but Hayward's stats are eerily similar to those of Greens (for 2013-14 season).
JG: 16.9PPG (41.2FG, 34.1 3PT, 79.5FT) 1.7AST, 4.6RPG,0.7SPG, 0.6BPG, 2TOPG in 34.2 minutes
G-Time: 16.2ppg(41.3%FG , 30.4% 3PT, 81.6% FT), 5.2APG, 5.1RPG, 1.4SPG, 0.5BPG, 2.8TOPG, 36.4MIN/Game
Obviously, Haywards stats look fractionally better. But they're basically the same. So why not sign and trade Hayward for Green if Hayward wants too much? Green is earning about 9mil/year, so that would be a decrease if Hayward wants a Max (or close to Max).
[h=4]Chandler Parsons[/h]He's going to be a RFA, but if Houston get their man (Melo, James?) they'll let Parsons walk. I'm not sure how much teams are willing to pay for Parsons, but if the contract is below Haywards, why not? He impressed me during the season by scorching up numerous teams.
Statline (13-14): 16.6PPG (47.2FG%, 37 3PT%, 74.2 FT%) 4.0APG, 5.5RPG, 1.2SPG, 0.4BPG, 1.9TOPG in 37.6Mins
He's basically a better shooter, and his stats are also quite similar to Hayward. So if Hayward does walk, he'll be another great/similar replacement.
Even though Jeff Green and Parsons stats might not be as impressive as Haywards (though extremely similar), you have to remember they're not the focal points of their offense, whilst Hayward was, allowing him to do more and pad his stats. This is especially the case for Parsons, being surrounded by famous ballhogger and flopper James Harden.
These are some similar replacements to Hayward. We may need to really consider them if Hayward gets a poison pill offer.


 
Core4 said:
How do we know WHAT he was offered? Maybe he wanted MAX money. Actually, the reports I read said the sides were several million apart. What was never revealed is if that was per year or on the total value of the contract. Suppose the Jazz offered the same amount as Favors. Several million apart could mean Hayward wanted $14-15M/per year as opposed to $12M/per. So the Jazz just say, no problem, we'll give you a 5yr/$75M deal just to avoid you possibly getting offered 4/$63M next summer? No. They say, "tell you what, Gordon, if you think you're a MAX player, let's see it on the court. Take it to the next level and then we'll talk."


And how could you argue the Jazz failed with Millsap? He was great value for his contract. Jazz were hoping he'd come in on the low end of their range. They offered a contract, he and his uncle felt insulted so they went out and shopped around. The only "failure" was in the structure of the payout as they had to come up with a big bonus. Paul Allen was trying to be a bully, thinking those po-dunk car dealers down in Utahr couldn't raise the capital. But they did.
Click to expand...

The failure was low balling Millsap to begin with. They had to match him because they had already lost Matthews because they let him go on the free market. That is my point either the Jazz are bad negotiators and don't know the value of their players or Jazz players think they are worth more than they are. There is probably truth to both sides but in the end you take a bigger chance of overpaying if you let your guy go on the market. You are right nobody knows what Hayward wanted but it doesn't matter really because the organization should have their own pricing tier. THis is how much we are willing to spend...

I see a lot of "pay hayward the Max" supporters dismiss AK's contract as not the same. I disagree, AK's contract kept the Jazz from bringing in other FAs and the Jazz were unable to match the Matthews deal because of his contract. While the amount won't be the same, the concern is the same. If you Max out or grossly overpay a player it will eventually come back and bite you in several ways. The Jazz need to be smart and not act emotionally. Hayward is replaceable. He is not Stockton or Malone.
 
jazzrule said:
[h=4]Jeff Green[/h]Not sure if anyone has noticed, but Hayward's stats are eerily similar to those of Greens (for 2013-14 season).
JG: 16.9PPG (41.2FG, 34.1 3PT, 79.5FT) 1.7AST, 4.6RPG,0.7SPG, 0.6BPG, 2TOPG in 34.2 minutes
G-Time: 16.2ppg(41.3%FG , 30.4% 3PT, 81.6% FT), 5.2APG, 5.1RPG, 1.4SPG, 0.5BPG, 2.8TOPG, 36.4MIN/Game
Obviously, Haywards stats look fractionally better. But they're basically the same. So why not sign and trade Hayward for Green if Hayward wants too much? Green is earning about 9mil/year, so that would be a decrease if Hayward wants a Max (or close to Max).
[h=4]Chandler Parsons[/h]He's going to be a RFA, but if Houston get their man (Melo, James?) they'll let Parsons walk. I'm not sure how much teams are willing to pay for Parsons, but if the contract is below Haywards, why not? He impressed me during the season by scorching up numerous teams.
Statline (13-14): 16.6PPG (47.2FG%, 37 3PT%, 74.2 FT%) 4.0APG, 5.5RPG, 1.2SPG, 0.4BPG, 1.9TOPG in 37.6Mins
He's basically a better shooter, and his stats are also quite similar to Hayward. So if Hayward does walk, he'll be another great/similar replacement.
Even though Jeff Green and Parsons stats might not be as impressive as Haywards (though extremely similar), you have to remember they're not the focal points of their offense, whilst Hayward was, allowing him to do more and pad his stats. This is especially the case for Parsons, being surrounded by famous ballhogger and flopper James Harden.
These are some similar replacements to Hayward. We may need to really consider them if Hayward gets a poison pill offer.
Click to expand...

These are two great examples of players who are basically equal talents and are at a lower price. I would do either of those deals.
 
jazzrule said:
[h=4]Jeff Green[/h]Not sure if anyone has noticed, but Hayward's stats are eerily similar to those of Greens (for 2013-14 season).
JG: 16.9PPG (41.2FG, 34.1 3PT, 79.5FT) 1.7AST, 4.6RPG,0.7SPG, 0.6BPG, 2TOPG in 34.2 minutes
G-Time: 16.2ppg(41.3%FG , 30.4% 3PT, 81.6% FT), 5.2APG, 5.1RPG, 1.4SPG, 0.5BPG, 2.8TOPG, 36.4MIN/Game
Obviously, Haywards stats look fractionally better. But they're basically the same. So why not sign and trade Hayward for Green if Hayward wants too much? Green is earning about 9mil/year, so that would be a decrease if Hayward wants a Max (or close to Max).
[h=4]Chandler Parsons[/h]He's going to be a RFA, but if Houston get their man (Melo, James?) they'll let Parsons walk. I'm not sure how much teams are willing to pay for Parsons, but if the contract is below Haywards, why not? He impressed me during the season by scorching up numerous teams.
Statline (13-14): 16.6PPG (47.2FG%, 37 3PT%, 74.2 FT%) 4.0APG, 5.5RPG, 1.2SPG, 0.4BPG, 1.9TOPG in 37.6Mins
He's basically a better shooter, and his stats are also quite similar to Hayward. So if Hayward does walk, he'll be another great/similar replacement.
Even though Jeff Green and Parsons stats might not be as impressive as Haywards (though extremely similar), you have to remember they're not the focal points of their offense, whilst Hayward was, allowing him to do more and pad his stats. This is especially the case for Parsons, being surrounded by famous ballhogger and flopper James Harden.
These are some similar replacements to Hayward. We may need to really consider them if Hayward gets a poison pill offer.
Click to expand...

I'd take any of those two players over Hayward - No Questions Asked.
 
l Abach l said:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1331120

It's interesting to see what non Utah Jazz fans think Hayward's value is. I think that the general consensus on realgm is that he is worth around 7-9 but will get paid around 12-14. I he comes back, but I definitely don't want another AK47 situation.
Click to expand...

So are you implying that the Jazz FO should base its contract decisions on the "collective wisdom" of message board posters?
 
jazzrule said:
[h=4]Jeff Green[/h]Not sure if anyone has noticed, but Hayward's stats are eerily similar to those of Greens (for 2013-14 season).
JG: 16.9PPG (41.2FG, 34.1 3PT, 79.5FT) 1.7AST, 4.6RPG,0.7SPG, 0.6BPG, 2TOPG in 34.2 minutes
G-Time: 16.2ppg(41.3%FG , 30.4% 3PT, 81.6% FT), 5.2APG, 5.1RPG, 1.4SPG, 0.5BPG, 2.8TOPG, 36.4MIN/Game
Obviously, Haywards stats look fractionally better. But they're basically the same. So why not sign and trade Hayward for Green if Hayward wants too much? Green is earning about 9mil/year, so that would be a decrease if Hayward wants a Max (or close to Max).
[h=4]Chandler Parsons[/h]He's going to be a RFA, but if Houston get their man (Melo, James?) they'll let Parsons walk. I'm not sure how much teams are willing to pay for Parsons, but if the contract is below Haywards, why not? He impressed me during the season by scorching up numerous teams.
Statline (13-14): 16.6PPG (47.2FG%, 37 3PT%, 74.2 FT%) 4.0APG, 5.5RPG, 1.2SPG, 0.4BPG, 1.9TOPG in 37.6Mins
He's basically a better shooter, and his stats are also quite similar to Hayward. So if Hayward does walk, he'll be another great/similar replacement.
Even though Jeff Green and Parsons stats might not be as impressive as Haywards (though extremely similar), you have to remember they're not the focal points of their offense, whilst Hayward was, allowing him to do more and pad his stats. This is especially the case for Parsons, being surrounded by famous ballhogger and flopper James Harden.
These are some similar replacements to Hayward. We may need to really consider them if Hayward gets a poison pill offer.
Click to expand...

Again, do you, or anybody, think that if Parsons or Jeff Green were handed the reigns and asked to be the #1 option that their scoring and scoring efficiency would be materially better than Hayward's?

Does anyone ever consider context when making comparisons between players? The world is dynamic not static. Change the situations and outcomes will vary--often significantly.

It amazes me how 'experts' almost invariably fall into the same trap. For example, if a penalty is called or not called in particular situation, it effects everything that follows. Not quite as extreme as the 'butterfly effect,' but the assumption that the sequence of events remains the same, even if we change the events within the sequence, is simply not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top