Search results

I'm coming around to this deal. Hill is a good fit for the team on a tiny contract. If the Jazz has gotten some type of agreement they can re-sign Hill to an extension this is a gamble but one worth while.

Still only have a chance to keep him beyond next year. Sure this improves the team chances still a gamble.

This is a great post. Hayward is about as good of player can be without being great. If you had 5 players on a team as good as Hayward you would have a chance to win a title if things broke well for you. The problem is you can't afford to pay five players 25+ million. So if Gordon doesn't...

The argument that letting the market decided what a played is worth is one that rarely works in favor of that team. There's only so much pie to be shared. In this league it's about value. Warriors are who they are because Steph play has obliterated his contract. Cleveland is where they are...

Here's the thing you give Hayward a max and his play doesn't jump or even takes a slight dip and there's no significant cap bump than he becomes less tradable.

But even those contracts are cost control compared to guys on their third contracts.

It's not one or the other it's both. The market for players are going up however if you're paying B+ Hayward like A Leonard then you are creating a losing situation. Eventually you'll have to pay all your other B or C+ players. And sooner or later somebody's leaving. Since Gordon is a B+ he's...

You're not taking into consideration the Salt Lake market. Hayward is a greater selling tool in say Boston than SLC. I don't think the discussion should be about Hayward's talents. The discussion should be can the team contend paying Hayward so much of the cap you it's incapable of affording...

Stop making excuses. Your argument is that of the exact player Fish described. A fringe All-Star.

You trade them if they expect to be paid like a superstar without having a superstar impact. You can't pay them all max deals so if they all prove to be really good like Hayward, but expect to be paid like they are elite if you're a GM and you're smart you trade them for value rather than paying...

Burke's numbers to start the season was impressive while Neto was poor. So yes he could have and should have started Burke.

That was the coaches decision to play a guy that wasn't ready.

Doubt it Hayward is essentially a starving man's LeBron. I didn't see the Cavs trading Wiggins and Bennett for Hayward.

Agreed it would take a third team like Sacramento willing to ship out a player like Cousins. Getting back this year 3rd next year Nets pick, M. Smart, T. Thompson, and some other assets may be enough to enticethe Kings or Pacers to trade away their star players.

They already have. Love is a better player than Hayward. Some people fanhood really make them blind.

Ok so if Boston isn't in as good of a position, why did they have a better record and have the number 3 pick. They have the better GM, coach, star player, future assets and a more desirable market. Yeah I'm taking Boston 100 out of 100 times.

Really if your Ainge why not just wait one season and keep the 3rd pick or if you trade it trade it for someone like Kevin Love under contract.

The Lakers wouldn't trade there young talent anything short of a Paul George type player. Favors and Hayward would not get it done.

I would say this time around it was more Durant than even Westbrook. Russ had his moments, but Kevin really took a lot of unnecessarily poor shots that cost the Thunder.

I'd take it a step further and say selfish play by Durant is why they lost. Game 6 should have been a Thunder win, but when GS made it's push KD shot OKC out of the game with terrible shots. Adams nor Ibaka, was to blame.