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

[schneider]

I'm still undecided. I think our first option should be a sign-and-trade. If that's not possible, then we should probably just sign him and be done with it. What we can't do IMO is letting Hayward go for nothing.
Hayward's contract won't matter when it comes to re-signing Burks and Kanter (unless both of them absolutely explode, which is very unlikely). We can re-sign them for 15 million each, sign a couple of rookies and still be under the luxury tax (with 10 players under contract).
And when it's time to re-sign Burke and Gobert, Hayward will be an expiring and in his prime. Not worth 17 million, but either looking at a major paycut or being an asset in a trade.
Hayward is obviously not worth 15.75 million a year. Even if he improves a lot, he likely won't be worth more than 13 million a year. I just don't think his contract will cripple us as much as people think.
If there was a player we could throw money at that's better than Gordon, I would be all for it. But we know that if Gordon and Parsons are getting max contracts, any player that's considered better than them will be matched by their respective team if signed to a max offer sheet (Bledsoe, Monroe and whoever eles I can't remember).

Re-signing Hayward for so much money sucks. Losing him for nothing just sucks more IMO. Lindsey gambled and it didn't pay off. It happens.

 

[Stifle Tower]

The other part of this equation is the fact that no one wants to come to a 25-win team. What was so attractive about Charlotte or Cleveland to Gordon - besides the fact they were willing to pay him?
Those teams are further along in the rebuild, at least based on their records.

Utah is going to take a quantum leap forward this season. Jazz may even hang around the 8th spot as Phoenix did. I don't see Utah making the playoffs, but they should, IMO, be a .500 team (or close enough). And as they build on that, I think some FA's would start to consider playing for Utah. Not everyone...we know the types of players who won't come. And that could very well coincide with the end of the contracts of Favors and Hayward. Then we can choose between going after a FA or giving one or both of those two new contracts.

 

[sirkickyass]

Turns out your getting bested by a foreigner in reading comprehension. Turns out you can't read and memorize for 10 sec or comprehend the meaning of my words. TUrns out I'm not arguing with myself.

Le Sigh. You may want to take a day or two off from the board. In reading through your response to several posters it appears that you've resorted to rudeness rather than actually engaging in meaningful conversation. At this point it appears you've just dug in your heels.

Boston has multiple options. Right now they're still stockpiling assets which may hint to be a long term rebuild.
Then Boston might pitch their former championship banners, which could result in them preemptively ending rebuilding which may or may not return results for them.

Sacto has drafted Stauskas and McLemore rotting on the bench now. What's the purpose for them to pursue Burks when there's 15 unrestricted who fill a need actually.
Same for Enes next to Cousins. They like Gay and will go after him and maybe other guys. Maybe Dragic to improve at PG.

So in other words, you acknowledge that there are teams that will have max cap room, which is what you originally asked for. That's all. We're done.

Keep in mind as you go through this analysis that you would have looked at Asik and Lin last offseason and concluded that Houston wouldn't be a player for a starting PF. Transactions happen, and rosters won't look the same in 12 months as they do now. The same is true of cap sheets. Cap room isn't easily acquired and other teams have to pay to rent it.

It looks to me like the median case scenario for Hayward is an Indiana era Mike Dunleavy. That guy was good, but no one thought he was a max player or even really an all-star. At his peak he was making Tony Parker money (equivalent salaries in Dunleavy's peak years while Parker was on non-rookie deal). Even Michael Finley was a two-time All-star and he got amnestied on a deal like this one.

 

[Deron Williams]

After reading opinions on both sides of the issue including smart guys like Lowe/Pelton who seem to think the smartest course of action is to match, I still think the Jazz should let Hayward walk. To me the bottom line is the Jazz will have $60-$80MM per year depending on the cap/tax line to buy as much value as possible. Using $15MM of that space to pay Hayward more than he's worth just means the remaining $45-$65MM has to be spent that much more wisely to create the surplus value necessary to make the Jazz contenders. The easiest way to generate surplus value is to have a megastar like LeBron, KD, etc. who is worth way more than his max contract slot. The Jazz don't look to have a player of that caliber right now, so they're already a bit behind the 8-ball--they need to spend their resources even more wisely to make up that gap, not throw away a few extra million per year b/c they're afraid of losing an asset "for nothing."

Relatedly, the losing Hayward "for nothing" argument also rings hollow to me. It ignores the idea of opportunity cost. That is, the $15MM the Jazz would spend on Hayward could also be spent in innumerable other ways--everything from renting out the cap space for assets, to doing what Dallas did last year and signing mid-level FAs like Ellis and Calderon. Some of those ideas could prove better than ponying up the cash for Hayward; others could prove worse.

To me the bottom line is that I don't think there's any chance Hayward is the smartest possible use of $15MM dollars. As a small market team, it's imperative that Utah make every dollar count, both in the present and going forward. I'd prefer that they take a chance in either trying to fill out the roster with other, cheaper FAs and/or renting out the remaining space rather than settle for the safe, but 99% likely to be mediocre outcome of paying Hayward the max.

All of that said, I like Hayward both as a person and as a player. If he winds up back in Utah, I will hope he proves the above analysis wrong and if he goes to Charlotte, I will wish him nothing but the best.

 

[Greasy84]

I wouldn't match. Bad contracts are like a cancer to an NBA team. They hurt team chemistry. They hamstring an organization, and they tend to spread. This is significantly more money than Hayward is worth. It's a bad contract. Logic also dictates that, after 4 years, this is as about as good as he's going to get. The odds of Hayward making a substantial leap in productivity are incredibly low. How many players have done this after four years? I wouldn't bet on him, and neither should the Jazz. He is what he is .. a top 3 player on a 26 win team.

 

[slc]

Have Jazz FO confirmed they will match this contract?

 

[Hekate]

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

Yes!! We are there. Off by .01 but I will take it.

 

[The Midnight]

Have Jazz FO confirmed they will match this contract?

Ask Stoked - apparently they gave him a call to confirm this 3 days ago.

 

[Doublea]

Have Jazz FO confirmed they will match this contract?

Pretty much.

 

[Notes]

I voted "NO" but I'm nearly positive the FO will match it.

 

[BTP]

Le Sigh. You may want to take a day or two off from the board. In reading through your response to several posters it appears that you've resorted to rudeness rather than actually engaging in meaningful conversation. At this point it appears you've just dug in your heels.

Just shows how unconscious you are about the tone you're setting the way you engage into conversation with me. Now that you're seeing your mistakes you try to change the topic. NIce try, lawyer.

So in other words, you acknowledge that there are teams that will have max cap room, which is what you originally asked for. That's all. We're done.

Keep in mind as you go through this analysis that you would have looked at Asik and Lin last offseason and concluded that Houston wouldn't be a player for a starting PF. Transactions happen, and rosters won't look the same in 12 months as they do now. The same is true of cap sheets. Cap room isn't easily acquired and other teams have to pay to rent it.

It looks to me like the median case scenario for Hayward is an Indiana era Mike Dunleavy. That guy was good, but no one thought he was a max player or even really an all-star. At his peak he was making Tony Parker money (equivalent salaries in Dunleavy's peak years while Parker was on non-rookie deal). Even Michael Finley was a two-time All-star and he got amnestied on a deal like this one.

So show me a team with real cap space that's shown willingness to compete right away.

The Rockets have been trying to deal with Asik, Lin since they signed Howard. And already last year it was clear that they needed different guys. I was also a big supporter of the rumoured Asik for Ryan Anderson swap. So don't put words in my mouth, just because you're incapable of arguing against my points.

 

[trigg3r]

I voted no. That being said, I have to put my faith into DL that he is making the right decision by matching(which I believe he will do). No reason for me to get mad about it when it happens. I will just hope for the best.