Hayward, Kirilenko, and the myth of "The Max"

[freakazoid]

Within a year, Hayward will be regarded as one of the worst contracts in the league. Whoever pays that contract will be the laughing stock of the NBA, and for a rebuilding team like Utah, it could set us back years. I honestly believe we're about to find out just how much the Millers are involved in this. The absolute only reason for matching is ticket sales. If DL is trusted to rebuild the team in the right way, no ****ing way he matches this. No ****ing way.
-
All of that is true, and it doesn't matter one bit that AKs contract may have been worse. That argument makes zero sense.

 

[fishonjazz]

And I'll stand by my belief that Utah has one of the dumbest fan bases

Ute fans?

(Jk i know what ya meant)

 

[fishonjazz]

If Hayward's getting maxed, why shouldn't Burks and Kanter?

I love the argument that this deal occurs in a timeless vacuum where the Jazz just have cap space they need to spend for all of time.

(Nods head)

 

[fishonjazz]

So, you screw up some facts, and the person that presents the accurate information is proof of the dumbness of the fan base? I'm sorry your feelings got hurt, but someone being mean =/= someone being dumb. I hope this isn't a revelation to you.

Im kinda dumb.

What does =/= mean?

 

[billyshelby]

Within a year, Hayward will be regarded as one of the worst contracts in the league. Whoever pays that contract will be the laughing stock of the NBA, and for a rebuilding team like Utah, it could set us back years. I honestly believe we're about to find out just how much the Millers are involved in this. The absolute only reason for matching is ticket sales. If DL is trusted to rebuild the team in the right way, no ****ing way he matches this. No ****ing way.
-
All of that is true, and it doesn't matter one bit that AKs contract may have been worse. That argument makes zero sense.

Freak, good to hear your voice.

Yeah, I think this is coming from ownership. Even though the team will stink overpaying Hayward, they're terrified to take a "catastrophic" step back by not signing him.

Anyone objective or dispassionate would realize that next year is a loss anyway, continuing to collect assets and preserve flexibility is the only option, and that message could be easily sold to fans.

The Millers should make a bold statement by not following the herd, but I suspect they are too afraid.

 

[Bodhi]

I love the argument that this deal occurs in a timeless vacuum where the Jazz just have cap space they need to spend for all of time.

This is the best post of the 32 Hayward threads.

 

[Hedda Gambler]

Huge offer which we will match. Well done Hayward, now it is time for you to live up to that contract.

Regarding the trade kicker, I don`t see how it will have any impact on the first three years of his deal. He is already earning the max for a 4 year player, and with 4,5% raises each year, the cap would have to be raised substantially for him to be able to get an increase. In his 4th year though, if he opts in, he would have 7 years of service in the NBA and would be eligible for 30% of the cap, and his trade kicker would be applied.

 

[NUMBERICA]

This is the best post of the 32 Hayward threads.

I don't understand how this isn't talked about more. I understand the argument that not utilizing the cap that you CAN spend is a wasted opportunity. But all opportunities cost others, and the ramifications of your choice has to be extrapolated or investigated. That's due diligence.

There also seems to be a lack of understanding of what the "Salary Floor" actually is. A team that doesn't meet the floor pays the difference between salary paid for the year and that floor as basically a roster bonus for everyone on the team (where the sum gets split evenly). So not getting your committed salaries to that threshold can be a missed opportunity, but only if the salary of the players involved are short-term enough to not interfere with creating a contender. So that's why Richard Jefferson, Beans, and Rush worked as dead salary; it was just a year. I'm not saying Hayward will be DEAD salary or that he's comparable to the players mentioned. In fact, I mention it specifically because it is so different. Do we know what's going to happen one, two, or three years from now? How DOES this affect ongoing negotiations? How does this affect Favors, anyway? The Jazz do not need to set a precedent for gleefully matching max deals for second or perhaps third tier players, do they? Since when could a small-market team that doesn't have the revenue stream of a major market's afford to pay for AT LEAST two (or possibly three) ADDITIONAL max guys (because Hayward would've been the 4th or 5th best on any of the conference semi-finalists*)? The only way I can understand the end-game in this scenario is that the Jazz think they can trade him. But that creates uncertainty with a big lien on it that I don't really like.

Anyway, I don't know. Maybe there is a wisdom to "I just don't like it" sometimes.


*let that sink in

 

[fishonjazz]

Since when could a small-market team that doesn't have the revenue stream of a major market's afford to pay for AT LEAST two (or possibly three) ADDITIONAL max guys (because Hayward would've been the 4th or 5th best on any of the conference semi-finalists*)?

Droppin knowledge

 

[Hedda Gambler]

It is quite astonishing to me how many of you guys seem to think that not matching will do wonders for team morale. How exactly is it going to help Favors if we choose to let Hayward go? The fact that Gordon got his max offer will not go away and he will still be making more money than Favors. The only signal we are going to send out is that our young talent will have to go elsewhere to get paid.

And for all of you people thinking that Burks will get the max based on his history of play - lol. If Burks had anywhere near that kind of value around the league, we would have had Wiggins now and Burks would be playing in Cleveland together with the #5.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Within a year, Hayward will be regarded as one of the worst contracts in the league. Whoever pays that contract will be the laughing stock of the NBA, and for a rebuilding team like Utah, it could set us back years. I honestly believe we're about to find out just how much the Millers are involved in this. The absolute only reason for matching is ticket sales. If DL is trusted to rebuild the team in the right way, no ****ing way he matches this. No ****ing way.
-
All of that is true, and it doesn't matter one bit that AKs contract may have been worse. That argument makes zero sense.

Not saying a disagree but how is this setting the Jazz rebuild back? It wont limit signing any of the players currently on the roster. It wont prevent us from drafting rookies and signing them. Is there a good free agent that we are going to sign in the next couple years that will make the rebuild successful in your opinion?

 

[Doublea]

Not saying a disagree but how is this setting the Jazz rebuild back? It wont limit signing any of the players currently on the roster. It wont prevent us from drafting rookies and signing them. Is there a good free agent that we are going to sign in the next couple years that will make the rebuild successful in your opinion?

You gotta look down the road.

 

[NUMBERICA]

It is quite astonishing to me how many of you guys seem to think that not matching will do wonders for team morale. How exactly is it going to help Favors if we choose to let Hayward go? The fact that Gordon got his max offer will not go away and he will still be making more money than Favors. The only signal we are going to send out is that our young talent will have to go elsewhere to get paid.

Because they don't want to pay a third-tier player a max contract? That's proof that the Jazz won't pay for the best? I hope you don't think the players are THAT stupid.

Further, the actions of the Utah Jazz as it pertains to their actions have particular impact on their future negotiations. The real bottom line here is that if the player is worth it, the Jazz will retain any player they develop. Is Hayward worth it, when considering that this isn't renting out cap-space?

 

[Hedda Gambler]

Because they don't want to pay a third-tier player a max contract? That's proof that the Jazz won't pay for the best? I hope you don't think the players are THAT stupid.

Further, the actions of the Utah Jazz as it pertains to their actions have particular impact on their future negotiations. The real bottom line here is that if the player is worth it, the Jazz will retain any player they develop. Is Hayward worth it, when considering that this isn't renting out cap-space?

Every player looks out for themselves and want to make as much money as they can. If you`re not on Lebron`s level and can dictate what your team mates should make, I don`t think you give a flying **** about much else than your salary. In time, Burks, Burke, Kanter, Gobert, Hood and Exum will seek the most money they can get. Wether we match on Hayward or not does not mean anything. They are all free to test the market when they are RFAs and will istruct their agents to get paid - as they should.

And no - matching Hayward does not impact future negotiations. We never offered him that much money and it was Hayward who decided to take the risk of testing the market. He got his big reward along with Parsons. The NBA is a marketplace and as long as we are not the ones driving up the market, we are doing our part.

 

[NUMBERICA]

when they are RFAs

The goal should be for that not to happen. I don't think it's wholly unfair to say that should be the goal for both sides.

I would be interested to know what the last positions of each side were in the extension talkes when both sides left the table.

I'm not entirely blaming Hayward. But his little parade is ****ing the Jazz one way or another (and for clarification, I don't consider paying a player their worth on a championship team getting ****ed, but that is not the scenario here). I don't particularly appreciate it.

 

[stitches]

Because they don't want to pay a third-tier player a max contract? That's proof that the Jazz won't pay for the best? I hope you don't think the players are THAT stupid.

Further, the actions of the Utah Jazz as it pertains to their actions have particular impact on their future negotiations. The real bottom line here is that if the player is worth it, the Jazz will retain any player they develop. Is Hayward worth it, when considering that this isn't renting out cap-space?

The problem is, the only way the Jazz are getting top tier level talent is through the draft! I don't see the Jazz being able to sign ANY player that is worth max contract outside of what we get through the draft!

What the Jazz do now have little to no impact on what players will do in the future. What the Hornets did(with Hayward) and what the Mavericks did(with Parsons) will have a definite impact! It's not the Jazz matching the offer that would convince players that they can get max contracts, since the Jazz refused signing such contract until they absolutely had to and are going to match only because they can afford it. It's the fact that there are teams like the Hornets and the Mavericks in the NBA that are willing to pay max money for non-top tier players that would convince non-top-tier players that they have a shot at getting the max in free agency.

Practically Jazz's decision right now has absolutely nothing to do with sending any kind of message either way, besides - if we like you enough and we think we can afford your contract we are going to match any offer. Well, duh! That's the default assumption I would guess that anybody would make anyways. This decision has absolutely nothing to do with future negotiations with players, when it comes to signals that the Jazz would make with this decision. This decision should be only about whether we think Hayward is worth signing:
- taking into consideration his input in the past,
- taking into consideration his potential input in the next 3-4 years
- taking into consideration his value for this team(!!! - yes, his value for the Utah Jazz is much higher than his value would be for, say, a big market team that can sign top free agents at will)
- taking into consideration if this contract would hinder the ability of the team to offer contracts to other potential stars pending contracts in the next several years(Burks, Burke, Kanter). I am sorry to say it, but I don't see any of those as more valuable asset than Hayward right now and in the foreseeable future, unless all of them seriously up their level in the next season.

 

[fishonjazz]

Tl;dr

 

[candrew]

So far the pro-Gordon arguments seem to revolve around the following:

The max is not a big deal
The max is really not the max (5 years from now)
The Jazz have nothing better to do with their money.

These are not arguments, these are exercises in bad economics.

I like Gordon...LIKE him. Yes I know many players are over-paid but unless you can make even an inkling of an argument that player X is worth Y amount of cash then you have no argument.

 

[silesian]

Irony

Worthless ****ing thread; bitching/moaning about bitching/moaning while misrepresenting others' opinions and misstating verifiable facts. Jesus.

Ironic observation: bitching/moaning about bitching/moaning about bitching/moaning

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[GVC]

So you were 'technically correct,' which we all know is the best kind of correct. Nevermind the point he was making about the two situations dissimarity, which your nitpicking didn't address at all really. But you scored some cheap points so good for you I guess.

What point was he making that hasn't been covered numerous times in numerous threads, many of which have already been merged? He didn't provide any new information or argument, and the information he did provide was wrong. On top of that is this:

I'm seeing a ton of Jazz fans complain...Not too surprising. Most fans on here go for the easy, low hanging fruit when the decide to bitch about something...is a misguided, lazy argument...all of the knee jerk complainers...Those who can't stomach that will just have to be content bitching and moaning for the next 4 years.

So...Why did the OP start this thread?

Is Hayward's contract as bad as AK's? No, but that's only because of the changes in the CBA. No contracts will be as bad as the 6 and 7 year monstrosities from the 1999 CBA. As such, Hayward and the value of his contract should be compared to contracts signed under the new CBA. It's entirely possible that, if Gordo continues to be the player he's always been, his contract becomes a neutral or negative asset, and the Jazz would be better off with the cap space and improved draft pick. This team doesn't have the talent to compete as constructed, and it's incredibly unlikely that it will over the next 3 or 4 seasons. Locking mediocre talent into large deals will affect the Jazz's ability to make the roster changes needed to build a good team. There's plenty of room to disagree on the correct course of action. The OP has his head too far up his own *** to recognize this.