What's new
By:

7 more games for Hayward & Ty....

If we get the number two pick and don't keep Hayward, we are pretty stupid.

Imagine a new young coach with a team of Burke, burks, Hayward, kanter, favors and a second pick rookie. We would be awesome next year, let alone three years from now when we win the championship.
 
I'm w/ b_line. If the FA market had ANYTHING out there for US that was of equal value to Hayward, then maybe I'd understand using our cap on that. With the way our books are laid out, keeping Hayward at almost ANY price is a non factor since it will come off the books by the time the 2014 draftees come off their rookie scale. Hayward's a good #3 guy.


Maybe you all forgot that we are rebuilding and their would be pain? Did you expect him to just step into the #1 option (which he isn't built for) w/o any experienced/or not over-the-hill vets to help ease him in, and be awesome, while also leading us to the draft position we wanted so we could get his counterpart?

Some of you just can't help but bitch about everything.
 
Just because the money comes off the books for the 2014 pick doesn't mean you give Hayward $12 million especially after the inconsistent season he has had. You still have to pay Burks, Burke and Kanter. None of those guys are max guys but they are going to get nice raises. I wouldn't pay Hayward more than $10 million and I think that is a little bit too much. However, I hope the Jazz are not dumb enough to just let him walk,

Do you think Boston would do Burke and Hayward (sign/trade) + Avery or filler and their first round pick? We throw in a future pick say 2016 -top 3 protected. Jazz get the 2nd and 4th pick. Select two of the top 5. Wiggins/Exum/Parker/Embiid/Randle
 
he won't get 12 mil, so the discussion is moot.

What I'm objecting to is the notion that we should rejoice because some forumers think we'll let Hayward walk. Letting Hayward walk would be a very very bad thing. We have cap space. We let Al and Paul walk because we didn't. We're not in the business of developing assets to just let them expire with no return. Al and Paul netted cap space, which netted us draft picks and flexibility. Letting Hayward walk outright is a terrible idea.
 
cowhide said:
Just because the money comes off the books for the 2014 pick doesn't mean you give Hayward $12 million especially after the inconsistent season he has had. You still have to pay Burks, Burke and Kanter. None of those guys are max guys but they are going to get nice raises. I wouldn't pay Hayward more than $10 million and I think that is a little bit too much. However, I hope the Jazz are not dumb enough to just let him walk,

Do you think Boston would do Burke and Hayward (sign/trade) + Avery or filler and their first round pick? We throw in a future pick say 2016 -top 3 protected. Jazz get the 2nd and 4th pick. Select two of the top 5. Wiggins/Exum/Parker/Embiid/Randle
Click to expand...

LOL.. no way BOS would do that deal.
 
Overpaying Hayward will be one of the worst moves this rebuilding franchise could make. The Jazz will set a precedence in the minds of the other Jazz players/agents that playing poorly and not being able to fulfill leadership roles on the team is okay and still warrants a hefty salary raise. I'm not down with this. It'll be a ripple effect were average players expect max money and scrubs expect near max money. No thanks.
 
we won't overpay hayward. the most recent # from GM's is about 9 Mil a year. Everyone knows we'll match, so why do they try? He could be traded though if the deal was right.
 
I'm fine with $9M/year. If Hayward's camp still insists on the $12M+ he wanted prior to the season, I'd politely tell them GFY.
 
Sexual Favors said:
I'm w/ b_line. If the FA market had ANYTHING out there for US that was of equal value to Hayward, then maybe I'd understand using our cap on that. With the way our books are laid out, keeping Hayward at almost ANY price is a non factor since it will come off the books by the time the 2014 draftees come off their rookie scale. Hayward's a good #3 guy.


Maybe you all forgot that we are rebuilding and their would be pain? Did you expect him to just step into the #1 option (which he isn't built for) w/o any experienced/or not over-the-hill vets to help ease him in, and be awesome, while also leading us to the draft position we wanted so we could get his counterpart?

Some of you just can't help but bitch about everything.
Click to expand...

I like Lance Stephenson. That is all.

Sent from the JazzFanz app
 
Jazzfan0124 said:
No...one of them. You said both would stay.
Click to expand...

Ok. Ten dollars to be transfered through our baseball league in some way.

If you can name which one, I'll give another five if you are right. If you aren't then you pay 5.

So basically two different bets if you want. Or we can just do the bet that both stay for ten.
 
Hack said:
Ok. Ten dollars to be transfered the our baseball league in some way.

If you can name which one, I'll give another five if you are right. If you aren't then you pay 5.

So basically two different bets if you want. Or we can just do the bet that both stay for ten.
Click to expand...
Both will not stay. $10 bet. Deal.
 
b_line said:
If we get the number two pick and don't keep Hayward, we are pretty stupid.

Imagine a new young coach with a team of Burke, burks, Hayward, kanter, favors and a second pick rookie. We would be awesome next year, let alone three years from now when we win the championship.
Click to expand...

It depends on who's available. If we pick 2nd it's most likely a choice between Parker and Embiid. Hayward has proven he can't really play the 2. Our best lineups have Burks playing the 2 and Hayward playing the 3. Parker is just a better version of Hayward and I would rather see Burks play next to him than Hayward. If we took Embiid then we keep him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top