What's new
By:
Filters

Hayward getting extension???

If you have too many good players that are appropriately paid, then trading them isn't that big of a problem. Overpaying players creates a domino-effect of other problems (stuck with underperforming players which makes it difficult to pay players you actually want to keep).

I really, really hope this is a bunch of non-sense. I'd rather let Hayward walk for nothing than pay him the max. Absence of an asset > a negative asset.
 
Furthermore, if Hayward is worth that kind of money, what is the practical downside to having him ****ING EARN IT ON THE COURT? He hasn't, maybe he will/would, but he hasn't. You negotiate an early deal when they've obviously earned it or when you think you're getting a discount. If you own agency rights and think a player is worth the max, THEN YOU HOLD OUT AND IF YOU HAVE TO MATCH A DEAL WITH SMALLER RAISES THEN YOU ACTUALLY SAVE MONEY by holding out.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Overpaying players creates a domino-effect of other problems (stuck with underperforming players which makes it difficult to pay players you actually want to keep).
Click to expand...

What if Kanter goes 20/10 THIS year? Seriously, what if the guy gets bezerker good and the Jazz have to then play penny-pincher against their BEST player? What if the Jazz get a god damn stud in the draft and Hayward and Favors are underperforming?

NUMBERICA said:
Absence of an asset > a negative asset.
Click to expand...
 
Holy ****...I'd put this ridiculous contract in the same realm as Kirilenko, Ostertag, and resigning Memo. I'm still not convinced Hayward is anything more than a solid role player, I would have at least let him prove himself this season before throwing that kind of money at him...this is a really stupid/pre-mature move IMO.
 
If Hayward gets the max then I'm not sure whose deal would be worse: his or AK's disastrous, franchise-toppling nightmare.
 
How can the organization be so irrational? I refuse to believe these rumors!
 
I will be lost for days if Hayward gets the max. I will seriously be adrift. And all of our proclamations of Hayward being the ruin of this franchise on draft night will have come true. If he "only" gets >$12 mil/year then I will... uhh... feel a little better I guess.

Jazz HAVE to be smarter than this. Favors and Hayward aren't these massively tantalizing mysteries anymore.

Maybe one day we'll dig up this thread and laugh our asses off at me for being crazy (unlike the thread about Memo's extension where I was absolutely ****ing right).
 
UGLI baby said:
Im ok with up to 4/48 mil for Hayward.

The max for 5 years would be absolutely disastrous.


£¥£
Click to expand...

I'd live with 4/48, but to give essentially the same deal as Favors who in my opinion is more valuable, more upside, and has better market value would still upset me.
 
I'm thinking these rumors are Hayward's camp expectations for what the deal should be. Meaning the jazz won't accept it.
 
NUMBERICA said:
What if Kanter goes 20/10 THIS year? Seriously, what if the guy gets bezerker good and the Jazz have to then play penny-pincher against their BEST player? What if the Jazz get a god damn stud in the draft and Hayward and Favors are underperforming?
Click to expand...

The good thing about that is that Favors' contract will be up by the time that rookie's contract is up.

I agree with your points though
 
bovice said:
The good thing about that is that Favors' contract will be up by the time that rookie's contract is up.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I think you're right (depending on if this is a 5-year deal or not, which doesn't really change how this will affect Kanter or maybe even Burke if he ends up being good)? I'm going to accept that so I can sleep.
 
Lindsey can't be this dumb can he?

Hey Dennis if you're READING this - Hayward getting the MAX is the stupidest idea and all of us here on JazzFanz HATES IT!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top