Are the Jazz going to have to trade Hayward?

[Saint Cy of JFC]

So you think Favors is a max player?

Hayward arguably is, but SF is the most easily replaceable position. And IF Hood continues to improve upon what he did the latter part of the season, the drop-off from Hayward to Hood won't be as steep as it is at other positions. Also, the Jazz have been shopping or at least listening to offers for Favors for two straight years. And they heaped all kinds of praise on Lyles. I don't think it's a stretch (pun intended) for QS/DL to decide they want to go with Lyles to stretch the floor and complement Gobert inside.

Why is this a terrible take? Jazz can't POSSIBLY pay all these players $30M each. Utah will go NOWHERE by having a big-3 of Rudy, Gordon and Favors at $90M or so and filling in 10 other positions with scrubs and youngsters.

What's the alternative?

A maxed Rudy and some over-paid, but not max worthy role players? Unless the alternative is trading Favors and Hayward for a legitimate, no question about it, top 10 player, there is no better alternative than just signing Hayward and Favors for whatever it takes.

Pretty sure you were one of the clowns clamoring that we shouldn't have paid Hayward last year either and I warned you about how dumb that stance was.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

And it's a monumental stretch to think that Lindsey or Snyder are thinking about Lyles being able to replace Favors. FO's listen to offers for players all the time. What else are they going to do? That is kind of a major part of a GM's job description, ya know, entertaining trade ideas.

 

[Miggs]

The 2017-2018 cap is supposed to be about 108M. The LT 127M.

If the big three are at about 100M combined, that's only 30M in funny money for the rest of the core. I say 30M because I think the Millers would go up to the LT and a bit beyond but I'm not sure they'd do much more. Knowing that, 30M for 10-12 more guys including Hood, Lyles, Burks and Exum just doesn't seem feasible.

My hope is Hayward gets an offer at around 25M and we match. That would be a bargain all things considered.

 

[Miggs]

Is there ANY chance Hayward doesn't opt out? He'd be a freakin' God if he didn't.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Is there ANY chance Hayward doesn't opt out? He'd be a freakin' God if he didn't.

He tears an achilles in his 3rd year...

 

[Miggs]

The 2017-2018 cap is supposed to be about 108M. The LT 127M.

If the big three are at about 100M combined, that's only 30M in funny money for the rest of the core. I say 30M because I think the Millers would go up to the LT and a bit beyond but I'm not sure they'd do much more. Knowing that, 30M for 10-12 more guys including Hood, Lyles, Burks and Exum just doesn't seem feasible.

My hope is Hayward gets an offer at around 25M and we match. That would be a bargain all things considered.

God, if we could get the big three at 25M each or so to start, I'd be stoked.

 

[Stifle Tower]

What's the alternative?

A maxed Rudy and some over-paid, but not max worthy role players? Unless the alternative is trading Favors and Hayward for a legitimate, no question about it, top 10 player, there is no better alternative than just signing Hayward and Favors for whatever it takes.

Pretty sure you were one of the clowns clamoring that we shouldn't have paid Hayward last year either and I warned you about how dumb that stance was.

I said I didn't think he was worth the max (as did many), but I also said in one of my posts the Jazz had no option but to match. It would have been a PR nightmare to lose him. They had plenty of cap space and no one else even remotely close at the wing. Hayward was the face of the Jazz. And they could keep him just by matching

When he opts out, the Jazz will be in a completely different position, especially if some crazy team steps forward with a $30M/per offer. DL can simply say they made him a reasonable offer, but he decided to go elsewhere. And then plug in Hood - if Rodney shows he's ready to be a capable starter.

Hayward's a great player, but he's not a superstar. He can't carry a team. Hell, he isn't even an all-star. Same thing, to a lesser extent, with Favors. As illustrated in my table, the Jazz will have to make some very difficult decisions. And IMO, if you can have minimal drop-off by utilizing a player at $15M instead of $25M-$30M, that MIGHT be the way to go. Because you can then add another starter at $15M and not have a big hole in your line-up.

The "Big-3" model worked in Miami, and then had to be broken up. But they also had one of the BEST players in the history of the game. Even at that, LBJ, Bosh and Wade were NOT being paid max deals. Miami also had some decent players chasing titles that agreed to play for the minimum or close to it. That model hasn't worked anywhere else, because paying that much to three players generally results in weaknesses at the other starting positions and a terrible bench. GS won because they have key players not making the max, including a few on rookie deals.

 

[Siro]

Since there will certainly be a lockout by that time, we can only hope the players don't get their way and relax caps on players earnings. As it is, it will be nearly impossible to afford Gobert/Hayward/Favors. With increased caps, forget about it.

 

[Game6Conley]

yall can't be serious... 3 max front court players?? Isn't that basically what the Knicks did with Melo, Amare and Tyson Chandler??

 

[Miggs]

Of the three, who's the most expendable? I'd say Favors but there's a solid chance he's a 20/10 player by then and to walk away from a two-way player like that is nuts.

 

[Game6Conley]

Of the three, who's the most expendable? I'd say Favors but there's a solid chance he's a 20/10 player by then and to walk away from a two-way player like that is nuts.

Rudy's the least expendable.

The problem might solve itself if certain bench players can consistently post numbers earlier than expected.


Right now of the 3, I'd have to say Favors looks like the easiest to replace.

 

[karl malone]

Gobert is the only player on this roster that is currently deserving of a max contract. He is also deserving of the 5 year extension, which will make it that much harder to sell Hayward on taking the additional money (since it won't come with an additional year) over the opportunity to compete for a championship if we're not on the verge of becoming contenders. Hayward, Favors, & Gobert are all competitors & seem to enjoy playing together. As long as they believe that they have a legitamite chance at winning a title, I could see them collectively taking minor discounts in order to keep the core together.

Hayward is the first that we have to convince & we have two years to do so. Not using the future assets that we've stockpiled in order to fill an obvious hole on the roster (& subsequently missing the playoffs or barely making it because of not doing so when last year showed that the team is capable of much more when given a serviceable starting PG & depth) would send the wrong message to the team & could greatly reduce our chances of retaining Hayward & possibly even Favors. Betting Hayward's (& possibly Favors') future(s) with the team on Exum returning at 100% the following season & picking up right where we left off prior to the injury or Burke developing into a starting caliber PG is a risk we can't afford to take.

Even if Hood & Lyles are eventually capable of replacing Hayward & Favors, a small-market franchise such as this one can't afford to lose valuable assets without receiving anything in return. This upcoming season is supposed to be our transition year that shows Hayward (as well as the rest of our core & the entire league) that we're on the verge of becoming yearly contenders for the foreseeable future. I understand waiting until the trade-deadline to see if one of our PG's are able to fill the void or if QS is able to figure out an alternative solution, but if at that point we don't appear to be playoff bound, we need to either use those future assets on the present team or seriously consider continuing to build for the future by trading Hayward. His opt-out clause has put the FO in the position where they need to decide whether to compete now or continue to rebuild, & considering the amount of talent that has already been accumulated & the success that the talent has already had, the answer should be easy.