AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Is the extra $3 million a year really going to haunt the Jazz long-term?
Cavs offer Gordo MAX deal (maybe)
- Thread starter Shad
- Start date
Is the extra $3 million a year really going to haunt the Jazz long-term?
Litany
Well-Known Member
Well, Hayward has no elite skills, shot 41% FG, 31% 3-pt, had a 16 PER, and is below average defensively (according for Pelton and Lowe) and he is apparently worth a max. So Burks who is elite at getting to the line, decent 3 pt shooter, 36% I believe, and is an average defender will expect a max from the jazz. Kanter is big and young so he will see Hayward and expect a max.
My point is Hayward isn't a standout talent and if gets a max they'll think they will get that or close. Max contracts all around boys.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkf
Litany
Well-Known Member
It's more like 4 a year plus the extra 2 in Burks deal as Kanters deal it will cost them so more like 8. So yeah it will. It means this is our team for four years. Apart from adding diante Garrett's this is it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkf
It depends on what they want to do long term. So yes it could. Not smart business to make a bad deal because it's only 1 bad deal. You try to make the best deal all the time.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Parsons made $925,000 last year. The Rockets 100% would not decline his option (as a very underpaid player) without his commitment to re-sign after they chase Carmelo in free agency. You can go over the cap to re-sign your own players, and Houston still has his rights.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
It's a little unfair to use the statistics from Hayward's worst shooting year under the worst coach and worst offensive team in the league.
When you might be paying three or four other guys that much more because of it? And $3 million in cap can be used in a lot of different ways.
That would be tampering.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Just because one player signs for a couple million over their "worth" doesn't mean every player on the team can/will do the same thing. Another team has to be willing to offer it to them. I can't think of ONE instance that a team "set a precedent" by overpaying someone and then being strong-armed into overpaying other players on the team. You're just making this BS up as you go along.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
How are we suddenly overpaying other players because of this? What 3 or 4 other guys are you talking about. I swear, one person pulls a BS point out of their &@@ and suddenly everyone buys into it.
You can all but guarantee that they will try. This is what agents do.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. "Chandler, we're declining your option because we want to improve the team in free agency. We really want you here and plan to make a very strong offer to you once we have other pieces in place. We hope you decide to stay with us."