That may be true, but opportunities like Harden rarely come around for teams like the Jazz. I was pissed the second Harden was traded that the Jazz didn't trade for him. Now he is arguably a top three or two SG, certain All Star, and generally a stud. Can you think of any looming situation where the Jazz might get a player of his caliber? I can't remember a small-market team without a superstar really getting a top player in a trade, can you? If so, they're rare or the player is flawed in some way. My point is that the Jazz are at the mercy of the market for one, and risk souring their young players with crappy offers for two. They're not going to be able to pull the frugal card like they want. If they do, they will lose at least two of the youngsters or piss them off for dicking around.
Gordo: Jazz Leading Per Minute Scorer. Extension?
- Thread starter GVC
- Start date
That may be true, but opportunities like Harden rarely come around for teams like the Jazz. I was pissed the second Harden was traded that the Jazz didn't trade for him. Now he is arguably a top three or two SG, certain All Star, and generally a stud. Can you think of any looming situation where the Jazz might get a player of his caliber? I can't remember a small-market team without a superstar really getting a top player in a trade, can you? If so, they're rare or the player is flawed in some way. My point is that the Jazz are at the mercy of the market for one, and risk souring their young players with crappy offers for two. They're not going to be able to pull the frugal card like they want. If they do, they will lose at least two of the youngsters or piss them off for dicking around.
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
Eric Bledsoe is the closest thing coming up. Owner is fairly cheap and won't be willing to go into luxury tax hell to pay a backup PG huge money. The Jazz may have already decided they are not even going to draft a PG this year, and go hard after Bledsoe once Paul resigns.
Probably the closest thing, but I personally am not sold on Bledsoe at all as a starting PG. His handle is pretty bad. I'm all for taking risks, but he is a very weird player: blocks at a higher rate than many centers, rebounds more than he assists, does not get to the line at a high rate at all, and does not shoot the ball well. He's a much bigger gamble than a lot of players at the PG position. Frankly, I have no idea where we're going to get a decent PG, and I would be more hesitant to throw money at Bledsoe than players we already have on the team.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
My dream is the Jazz trade Hayward along with Millsap/Jefferson for a genuine star (or star package). Sell high. Absolutely no extension this summer unless the Jazz are crazy.
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
What would be crazier is if he averages 17/4/4 next year and Cuban decides to go gung-ho and max him. His numbers will likely rise without Al slowing down the offense next year. Understand that would be an absolutely no win, horrific situation, you either overpay or lose him for nothing. I wouldn't mind packaging him for a star, but try looking around for "available" stars and you'll quickly realize there are none on the block. Rudy Gay types are the best your going to get, overrated and overpaid players.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Hayward is currently riding a 5 game hot streak. His 3 pt shooting seems to be making everyone delusional. What I see is a guy making shots, but still has the same flaws -- can't drive, defended easily with pressure, no go to offensive move, not dependable for points. In other words, not what you pay 10 mil plus per year for.
This is Hayward's season (so far):
November: Disaster. Not even MLE quality.
December: Solid, but very uneven (about MLE, little less). See the 9 straight games between PHX and Clips to close the month.
January: Out of this world, but 5 games.
Nothing Hayward has done this season, especially given the last 2, justifies any extension this summer. In another month of games, this could change. But for now, this is silly talk.
And yet, he's better at the one thing the highest paid player on the team is supposed to be really good at.
//r00t 4 Jazz
Well-Known Member
I may be naive and/or cheap but with the new CBA I can't see some of the players getting as much as you think. The maximum salary of a player with 6 or fewer years of experience is either $9,000,000 or 25% of the total salary cap (2010–11: $14,511,000), whichever is greater.
So the Max is about 14.5mil, so while Marvin signed his extension under the old salary cap that is about what I think fits for Hayward right around the 8-9mil range. Some players got big contracts this off season only because of how short they were (1-2yr) and so I think you can throw those out as an example unless Gordo or the Jazz want to go that route (hope not). Or you can use similar players in previous years but minus how much the max contracts are now compared to then.
So if a similar player was a 10-11mil player a few years ago then now they will have to be a 8-9mil player to fit in the market, or that seems like a logical understanding to me. Of course like some one else said the middle players are likely to be hurt the most by this as teams will always pay the max guys max money, so they will either have to sign shorter high dollar deals or lesser longer guaranteed money deals.
So the Max is about 14.5mil, so while Marvin signed his extension under the old salary cap that is about what I think fits for Hayward right around the 8-9mil range. Some players got big contracts this off season only because of how short they were (1-2yr) and so I think you can throw those out as an example unless Gordo or the Jazz want to go that route (hope not). Or you can use similar players in previous years but minus how much the max contracts are now compared to then.
So if a similar player was a 10-11mil player a few years ago then now they will have to be a 8-9mil player to fit in the market, or that seems like a logical understanding to me. Of course like some one else said the middle players are likely to be hurt the most by this as teams will always pay the max guys max money, so they will either have to sign shorter high dollar deals or lesser longer guaranteed money deals.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
classic.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Yeah. If BS were a GM, he'd build the Sacramento Kings + CJ Miles.
habibadobe
New Member
I could see the Jazz giving Hayward a flat number for a little more to start, as they have liked doing that in the past. So the same money but 4 year 40 million at 10 per rather then 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5. I think they should try that with each of the young guys. These next few years we will have more cap room to work with. Dont want to end up trading one later to try to fill the roster with a few more role players.
You almost always have to overpay young players who show signs of promise/potential/improvement. You pay for what you think they will become, not what they currently are. If Hayward can keep up his January production (probably won't, but I think he can remain in the same ballpark) then I don't see why a 10 mill per year type of contract is that bad.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
I'm down with this dream but I just don't see a true star out there who we could get.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
What would it take to pry that Toronto pick from OKC? It's projected high but not that high based on Toronto's recent better play. Right now, it's sitting at #10 but I'm not sure what they need is another young player. Millsap might fit very well there imo. The problem is, in looking at contracts, it seems the only way to get that pick is to take Perkins back from them.
Doubt OKC would want to trade it with the center depth in this upcoming draft.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
The Blazers waited until Batum got an RFA offer, and matched for basically 11 per. Point is they waited. They still paid up on potential, but had an extra year of data, and he was a trade chip the whole year they were deciding.
Early extensions are for players teams are sure about -- the Griffins or even Holiday's. Hayward fits the Batum model.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Feel free to explain what's wrong about it.