Poll: Should the Jazz Match Hayward's $15.75 a year/4 year Contract?

[Fishsticks]

you give a max deal to a perennial all star. so my answer is hell-friggin-naw

i hate overpaying dudes. not in football, not in baseball, and not in basketball.

gotcha broke doin it wrong eh?

 

[Stifle Tower]

you give a max deal to a perennial all star. so my answer is hell-friggin-naw

i hate overpaying dudes. not in football, not in baseball, and not in basketball.

You realize it's not real money in Fantasy sports, right?

 

[Borat]

It would be a mistake to match this offer. Jazz are not going to contend in next 3-4 years. Hayward is not a missing piece to championship, nor is he a player to build the team around. This is the time to stockpile assets and get difference makers through the draft. With MAX contract Hayward is not an asset, but a liability. He cannot be traded and will occupy CAP space which can be traded for picks.

 

[fishonjazz]

It would be a mistake to match this offer. Jazz are not going to contend in next 3-4 years. Hayward is not a missing piece to championship, nor is he a player to build the team around. This is the time to stockpile assets and get difference makers through the draft. With MAX contract Hayward is not an asset, but a liability. He cannot be traded and will occupy CAP space which can be traded for picks.

Good post, especially...... Hayward is not a missing piece to championship, nor is he a player to build the team around.

 

[franklin]

Honestly, you can't blame Hayward for the woes of the Jazz last year. It was one of the most dysfunctional displays of basketball I have ever seen. It reminded me of watching D-league games (unwatchable). It has been established that Hayward is not a #1 option (hopefully Exum is). We all know Hayward can do very well in a good system. If we can't get Parsons, who else do we replace him with? Losing him will be a huge dent in the quality of this team.

If the Jazz believe they can actually replace him for less, then great. Otherwise, re-signing him is a no-brainer.

Hayward was pretty much the only player keeping the Jazz off the hardwood last season. Everyone of the other youth, who were supposed to grow, wildly underachieved expectations.

You are correct in that Hayward will look more like a wizard when he's in a system where players can actually read and react as a group. Favors cannot, Burks cannot, Kanter is pathetic at rotations, and Trey was a rookie. Hayward was essentially relying on veteran Richard Jefferson to keep the slightest semblance of an NBA offense. Jefferson was not a whole lot of help, obviously.

If DL can build a group of competent read-react players around Hayward and Exum then Gordon will surprise everyone with his play. If he cannot then this irrational bitchfest from people who only care about the box scores and advanced stats will continue.

 

[ijazz]

Good post, especially...... Hayward is not a missing piece to championship, nor is he a player to build the team around.

Bingo.

Why give his minutes and development to be a 10-14th place team at best.

Hayward will be gone in 3 or 4 years.

Keep in mind he is probably pissed how he was treated.

He certainly started the season down on the no contract

 

[CALJAZZFAN]

Hayward was pretty much the only player keeping the Jazz off the hardwood last season. Everyone of the other youth, who were supposed to grow, wildly underachieved expectations.

You are correct in that Hayward will look more like a wizard when he's in a system where players can actually read and react as a group. Favors cannot, Burks cannot, Kanter is pathetic at rotations, and Trey was a rookie. Hayward was essentially relying on veteran Richard Jefferson to keep the slightest semblance of an NBA offense. Jefferson was not a whole lot of help, obviously.

If DL can build a group of competent read-react players around Hayward and Exum then Gordon will surprise everyone with his play. If he cannot then this irrational bitchfest from people who only care about the box scores and advanced stats will continue.

Some good points, but he's still good enough for a max deal. $9-10M per year is more in line with what he's worth (taking into account incremental improvement on an ongoing basis).

 

[Tarkanian]

Haywards amazing ability to make everyone else better led us to being one of the worst offensive and defensive teams in the league.


If we really had a max player on our roster last year, i dont think we would have finished with the 4th worsr record. Tank or no tank

finally someone said it.
I was perusing the pages until the last one to write this and fishonjazz, in all his wisdom, put it bluntly.
If Gordo were a MAX player Utah would not have sucked that hard.
He was usually a non-factor to tell the truth.
Someone (=Cyrone me guesses) told about team improvement when he was around.
I call that BS for Jazz were a ****ty team nite in nite out.
Good riddance!

 

[oldtimer]

Voted no. Just dont think he's worth the contract.

 

[Hekate]

Some more votes and we are at Hay's shooting percentage from last year.

 

[Crawlnstall]

So we have three days now to match, is that right?

 

[Coach Ellis]

Interesting thought. However, I've never seen details on how the money is divided among the guys on the roster. Divided evenly? Divided in proportion to their salaries? Other? It may well be that there is a clause saying that moneys given to players that way can't be used to exceed the max.

Here's the only stuff I found on Larry Coon's site:

https://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q15


So again, no details.

Wondered why no team has ever done this yet, and I think I've figured it out. Gotta look to find the supporting links - was on my phone when I looked it up - but essentially, the reason teams ALWAYS spend up to the salary floor is because of revenue sharing. The quick and dirty explanation. . .

Revenue sharing is based on how much teams can make in each individual market. Each team puts approximately 50% of their local revenue into a pool. Then teams get up to the average team salary allocated to them to cover player salary expenses. If you simply don't make as much (like a small market team like the Jazz), the big market teams help subsidize the cost of acquiring players above that 50% threshold. That's essentially what the salary cap # represents. 50% of your revenue, plus subsidizing if you're way below that number. What happens if a team ends up below the 90% salary floor? That money is pooled and distributed among the players on the team based on a formula that I've never come across. The problem is that teams that are below the salary floor threshold DO NOT GET any additional revenue sharing from the tax-paying teams. Two years ago, there were 12 teams that were tax-payers. Since the money from revenue sharing essentially covers the majority of player salaries, going under the salary floor takes the tax payer revenue strait out of the OWNERS pockets. The system is set up to make it so that teams pay up to the floor no matter what, but if they get there on their own, they also can get a check from the tax paying owners that is strait up profit. That's why teams make trades for bad contracts and pay for players that sit the bench. They have to pay the same amount regardless, but if they're on the lower end of the market spectrum, not getting to the floor costs them real money out of their own pockets.

Expect the Jazz to ALWAYS get up to the salary floor. . . even when they're "going lean". There's no reason not to use your cap space efficiently (either by adding free agents or by serving as a cash dump for another team.) That money from revenue sharing gets spent no matter what and if you don't get to the floor, you don't get cash from tax payers.