akirac73
Well-Known Member
"Price is what you pay. Value is what you get." - Warren Buffet
That being said, looks like Gtime will be a high price - low value kind of player. I say pass...
Omnibus Gordon Hayward Thread (To clean up the Board some)
- Thread starter BabyPeterzz
- Start date
That being said, looks like Gtime will be a high price - low value kind of player. I say pass...
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
I "liked" both of these posts because they both make sense and I really don't give a crap what Gordon Hayward makes. I'll be happy when they match that contract or negotiate their own with him because I think he's a decent player and the kind of guy you want (as long as he's not your #1 option.)
The case for paying Gordon Hayward the MAX
The case for paying Gordon Hayward the MAX:
Maximum contracts under the 2011 CBA are much less crippling than under the previous deal. First of all, the maximum raises that a player can receive in free agency are 4.5% instead of 7.5%. The Jazz still have the Bird Right option of giving Hayward 7.5%, but the market cannot force them to do so. The 4.5% is not compounding, so there’s a good chance the revenue increases –which are compounding—outpace a 4.5% raise.
Modern Salary Cap History:
During the 16 year period of the 2000 season up to this coming one, the salary cap has increased from $34,000,000 to $63,600,000. That’s 87%, or average annual raises of 3.99%. This is a conservative baseline estimate to use for four reasons*. First, going back to 1990 saw average annual raises of 7.46%. Second, the 2011 CBA significantly reduced the player’s share of Basketball Related Income (BRI) from 57% to 51.15%. This 10.26% reduction in player compensation (57-51.15 / 57) effectively froze the salary cap for a few years until it was fully priced in. If we base the salary cap on the previous CBA, the cap this season would increase from $63.6 million to $70.87 million. Adjusting our annual baseline raise calculation based on this normalized number, we have a 4.7% compound annual salary cap increase. This is not a wonky adjustment as the cap is based on projected revenue increases, and a 4.7% salary increase is a 4.7% increase no matter how large or small a share of that goes to the players.
Third, this 16 year period saw a severe recession reverse revenues from what has otherwise been a constant upward march for 3 straight decades. From the 2009 to 2010 seasons, projected revenue dropped by 1.6% instead of growing at our calculated 4.7%. Adjusting our baseline up again to smooth out this 6.3% differential, we come up with roughly 4.9% annual cap increases.
Fourth, television ratings have been on an upward trend for the league, and the upcoming new TV deal is expected to follow the trend that MLB and NCAA football has experienced. The league is expecting a big boom in revenues from that stream. I’m not going to speculate much here, but widely circulated reports suggest we can add at least another full 1% to our adjusted baseline, if not approach that magical 7% revenue increase area. I’m going to put in a 1% assumption on the increase for our purposes here, as that’s likely very “in the ballpark” of what NBA teams are using in their own baseline, best case, and worst case projections.
5.9%** vs 4.5%:
Because the cap increases are compound and max salary increases are not, the expected increase differential over the final three year period of a Hayward contract is a 13.5% raise for Hayward and a 18.8% raise for the cap. That takes a small, but not meaningless 5.3% sting out of the annual Hayward raises.
Let’s put some numbers on it:
Due to various different calculation adjustments to the 2005 and 2011 CBAs, Hayward is eligible for an estimated maximum first year salary of $14.976 million, and fourth year salary of $16.998 million. Both those numbers are huge in the 2013-2014 season, but they’re not all that bad in the 2017-2018 jackass–on-the-internet-estimated season. Revenue based on 5.9% raises will go up from $63.6 million to 75.53 million, putting Hayward’s pay at roughly 22.49% of the cap. Based on the 2013-2014 cap, that’s equivalent to a salary of $13.2 million. That would have been a very manageable, very tradable contract last season. Give Hayward a few more years of refinement and the Jazz will have no problem getting rid of guy who has given every indication of being a first class teammate and citizen. This is not a Rudy Gay, Andrei Kirilenko, or Hedo Turkoglu situation.
You may not agree with the number, but this is the analysis that NBA front offices are putting on the Hayward question, and the reason he’s going to get a contract that will turn the entire Jazz blogosphere into characters from Space Balls. And I haven't even mentioned the new ability of small market teams to overpay up into the luxury tax. The Jazz, and everyone else, is adding that into their calculations as well.
*5 – Higher salary gives better trading latitude four years down the line. 150% of $17 million can fetch the Jazz a better contract in return than 150% of 13 million.
*6 – The Jazz have to spend the money anyway, and cannot afford to lose assets for nothing. There are no free agents in this class that are attainable by the Jazz who are worth more than Hayward. Plenty of teams have plenty of cap space, and nobody is currently rumored to be offering much in facilitating trades. If anything, the cap spacers are lining up to take guys like Jeremy Lin off your hands (Philly).
*7 – The Jazz need to not improve for a while. The draft is their best shot at bringing in contender talent. A very tradeable contract like Hayward and draft picks is their second best. Might as well maximize the trading latitude if it’s not toxic, and this one is not.
**You may think the projections are hoaky, but the GM’s across the league are considering these calculations into their decisions. Besides, cut them down a couple % and you still have a very serviceable, tradable contract.
The case for paying Gordon Hayward the MAX:
Maximum contracts under the 2011 CBA are much less crippling than under the previous deal. First of all, the maximum raises that a player can receive in free agency are 4.5% instead of 7.5%. The Jazz still have the Bird Right option of giving Hayward 7.5%, but the market cannot force them to do so. The 4.5% is not compounding, so there’s a good chance the revenue increases –which are compounding—outpace a 4.5% raise.
Modern Salary Cap History:
During the 16 year period of the 2000 season up to this coming one, the salary cap has increased from $34,000,000 to $63,600,000. That’s 87%, or average annual raises of 3.99%. This is a conservative baseline estimate to use for four reasons*. First, going back to 1990 saw average annual raises of 7.46%. Second, the 2011 CBA significantly reduced the player’s share of Basketball Related Income (BRI) from 57% to 51.15%. This 10.26% reduction in player compensation (57-51.15 / 57) effectively froze the salary cap for a few years until it was fully priced in. If we base the salary cap on the previous CBA, the cap this season would increase from $63.6 million to $70.87 million. Adjusting our annual baseline raise calculation based on this normalized number, we have a 4.7% compound annual salary cap increase. This is not a wonky adjustment as the cap is based on projected revenue increases, and a 4.7% salary increase is a 4.7% increase no matter how large or small a share of that goes to the players.
Third, this 16 year period saw a severe recession reverse revenues from what has otherwise been a constant upward march for 3 straight decades. From the 2009 to 2010 seasons, projected revenue dropped by 1.6% instead of growing at our calculated 4.7%. Adjusting our baseline up again to smooth out this 6.3% differential, we come up with roughly 4.9% annual cap increases.
Fourth, television ratings have been on an upward trend for the league, and the upcoming new TV deal is expected to follow the trend that MLB and NCAA football has experienced. The league is expecting a big boom in revenues from that stream. I’m not going to speculate much here, but widely circulated reports suggest we can add at least another full 1% to our adjusted baseline, if not approach that magical 7% revenue increase area. I’m going to put in a 1% assumption on the increase for our purposes here, as that’s likely very “in the ballpark” of what NBA teams are using in their own baseline, best case, and worst case projections.
5.9%** vs 4.5%:
Because the cap increases are compound and max salary increases are not, the expected increase differential over the final three year period of a Hayward contract is a 13.5% raise for Hayward and a 18.8% raise for the cap. That takes a small, but not meaningless 5.3% sting out of the annual Hayward raises.
Let’s put some numbers on it:
Due to various different calculation adjustments to the 2005 and 2011 CBAs, Hayward is eligible for an estimated maximum first year salary of $14.976 million, and fourth year salary of $16.998 million. Both those numbers are huge in the 2013-2014 season, but they’re not all that bad in the 2017-2018 jackass–on-the-internet-estimated season. Revenue based on 5.9% raises will go up from $63.6 million to 75.53 million, putting Hayward’s pay at roughly 22.49% of the cap. Based on the 2013-2014 cap, that’s equivalent to a salary of $13.2 million. That would have been a very manageable, very tradable contract last season. Give Hayward a few more years of refinement and the Jazz will have no problem getting rid of guy who has given every indication of being a first class teammate and citizen. This is not a Rudy Gay, Andrei Kirilenko, or Hedo Turkoglu situation.
You may not agree with the number, but this is the analysis that NBA front offices are putting on the Hayward question, and the reason he’s going to get a contract that will turn the entire Jazz blogosphere into characters from Space Balls. And I haven't even mentioned the new ability of small market teams to overpay up into the luxury tax. The Jazz, and everyone else, is adding that into their calculations as well.
*5 – Higher salary gives better trading latitude four years down the line. 150% of $17 million can fetch the Jazz a better contract in return than 150% of 13 million.
*6 – The Jazz have to spend the money anyway, and cannot afford to lose assets for nothing. There are no free agents in this class that are attainable by the Jazz who are worth more than Hayward. Plenty of teams have plenty of cap space, and nobody is currently rumored to be offering much in facilitating trades. If anything, the cap spacers are lining up to take guys like Jeremy Lin off your hands (Philly).
*7 – The Jazz need to not improve for a while. The draft is their best shot at bringing in contender talent. A very tradeable contract like Hayward and draft picks is their second best. Might as well maximize the trading latitude if it’s not toxic, and this one is not.
**You may think the projections are hoaky, but the GM’s across the league are considering these calculations into their decisions. Besides, cut them down a couple % and you still have a very serviceable, tradable contract.
Last edited:
You haven't said why Hayward?
Why not throw the MAX at some other players? Someone like Greg Monroe for example to me is much more deserving than Hayward. You can pair him with Favors, Kanter off the bench. That's a solid 3 man rotation.
Why not throw the MAX at some other players? Someone like Greg Monroe for example to me is much more deserving than Hayward. You can pair him with Favors, Kanter off the bench. That's a solid 3 man rotation.
l Abach l
Well-Known Member
Not a bad idea
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Half the time I don't really know what to think about Franklin, but I think that was a well-reasoned and supported post. Contracts for young, up-and-coming players are not nearly as toxic as they used to be. I'm not sure if I think he'll get quite that much, but for many of the reasons he mentioned, plus the fact that I think Gordon Hayward is going to thrive under Quin Snyder. . . I see them matching the contract regardless of what it is. Either that, or they'll negotiate one for themselves that both sides essentially think is fair market value.
Of course, Portland threw a MAX offer at Roy Hibbert and Indiana matched it. They can't seem to wait to be out from under that contract and he's one of the top defensive players in the league.
Of course, Portland threw a MAX offer at Roy Hibbert and Indiana matched it. They can't seem to wait to be out from under that contract and he's one of the top defensive players in the league.
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
I'm just not a huge fan of Greg Monroe. I like him, but don't love the idea of having him. He's just not strong enough on defense for a big man to justify that kind of contract - and it's easier to justify a top dollar contract for a big man over a wing IMO.
Bawse Dawg
Well-Known Member
Did anyone actually read all of that?
Monroe won't actually need to be that great defensively next to Favors. He is a great passer of the ball and that's gonna really help Favors getting those easy buckets/dunks.
All I'm saying is I'd much rather have Monroe for MAX than Hayward, and it's not even close.
Great point. Personally I like Gobert, and I think Hayward is an elite supporting player... does a lot. By the time we land / develop the man, Hayward's contract won't be a lead weight.
I think the Jazz FO realizes this. Let the market dictate his wage, then match. If it's the max so be it.
There is something to be said about letting talent grow together. I want to see that happen here, and think the biggest change we needed was a coach. Let's see his system, then plug in the missing pieces. Maybe the Jazz get lucky and save a million a year on Hayward by going this route.
Summer league Vegas Style needs to start soon. Only so many Hayward conversations we can have.
Ellipse
Well-Known Member
A team can generally afford to have two max players on the team. Do we really think we can be a championship team if one of those slots is used for Hayward? Big deal, so it won't bankrupt the Jazz to pay him max money for 4 years, but then what happens in 4 years? Will he accept a pay cut to re-sign with us or do we let him go? We sure as hell can't re-sign him at max money unless our team is composed of absolute garbage. So what does giving him max money now mean for the team's future? It means nothing since this team isn't going to be anywhere near championship caliber during his 4-year "extension." If Hayward expects a max contract, then the Jazz should cut it losses and send him packing now because he will be too expensive to keep in four years anyway.
mellow
Well-Known Member
Boom!
Rick Bonnell @rick_bonnell 1 minute ago
Gordon Hayward has agreed to an offer sheet with the Charlotte Hornets, the Observer has learned.
Read more: https://hoopshype.com/twitter/media.html#ixzz36wWJW01n
Rick Bonnell @rick_bonnell 1 minute ago
Gordon Hayward has agreed to an offer sheet with the Charlotte Hornets, the Observer has learned.
Read more: https://hoopshype.com/twitter/media.html#ixzz36wWJW01n