Hayward has agreed to an offer with Hornets

[Zombie]

Because he opts out and then as a player with 7 years in the league can demand a contract for Lebron-type money.

This is my biggest objection. Jazz have plenty of money now. But what happens in 3-4 years? Clearly, Hayward has shown he isn't willing to take a bit less. If we invest another 3 years in him, make him the focal point (which he couldn't do last year), then in 3-4 years he'll want to get paid MAX again. And the percentage he can be paid is 30% of whatever the cap is at that point. Want to keep him? Well, he'll be an UFA and if you thought the circus was bad this year, just wait for Hayward's "Decision 2017." Heck, maybe he'll make a video game out of it. Bartelstein will demand the 30% with 7.5% raises as the premium Hayward wants for staying in Utah. Is he a top-5 player in the league by 2017? If you believe he'll be, then by all means match this deal.

Let the scumbag go. I don't care if the Jazz don't get any compensation. We need players who WANT to be in Utah. WE need TEAM players. BY his actions, Hayward has shown he's a ME-FIRST guy.

As many have said, matching a max deal sets a bad precedent for every other young player on the team. Want to play half-*** and mope every game? Doesn't matter; Jazz will still pay me.

This post is ridiculous and childish. Get a grip dude.

 

[Coach Ellis]

Because he opts out and then as a player with 7 years in the league can demand a contract for Lebron-type money.

This is my biggest objection. Jazz have plenty of money now. But what happens in 3-4 years? Clearly, Hayward has shown he isn't willing to take a bit less. If we invest another 3 years in him, make him the focal point (which he couldn't do last year), then in 3-4 years he'll want to get paid MAX again. And the percentage he can be paid is 30% of whatever the cap is at that point. Let the scumbag go. I don't care if the Jazz don't get any compensation. We need players who WANT to be in Utah. WE need TEAM players. BY his actions, Hayward has shown he's a ME-FIRST guy.

As many have said, matching a max deal sets a bad precedent for every other young player on the team. Want to play half-*** and mope every game? Doesn't matter; Jazz will still pay me.

This is the thing that bothers me about the whole situation. Fans are by their very nature, emotional. . . hence the fanatic origin of the term. But for all intents and purposes, people are reading way too much into things and are really over-reacting about this. Gordon Hayward is not a scumbag. He's a professional basketball player who did not choose to be drafted by Utah and struggle under the worst coach in the NBA for the past three seasons. He has the option and the right to negotiate the highest contract that he can get. This is life-changing money for nearly anyone in the world. Why would he take less? The Jazz just have to decide if he's worth as much to them as his apparently is to the Hornets. I expect that they will.

He plays basketball. He hasn't shot anyone, hasn't raped or molested anyone, doesn't use drugs, doesn't drink and drive (which almost killed me and my son), doesn't slap his wife around, doesn't beat little children. I work with at risk kids who have some of the worst home situations you can possibly imagine. Did it in New York City and now again in Utah. Doesn't matter. I've seen the same crap everywhere I've worked. You and I have a very different definition of scumbag. I can understand being upset about the offer sheet and not wanting the Jazz to commit that much money to a player that hasn't earned that kind of contract yet, but lets not be ridiculous about it. You're way too good of a poster for that type of over-reaction.

 

[peakbagger1971]

4 years 63 million

 

[b_line]

Exactly... all this he is selfish, never works, plays video games all the time and is an arrogant ******* needs to stop.

If you don't think he is worth it that is fine, but he seems like a good dude... if anything I think he is a bit under-confident.

That's the funny thing. If Hayward was as big a dick about the game as Kobe is, everyone would be clamoring for the Jazz to match the offer sheet.

I don't think he is worth the max, but I also don't know if losing Hayward is worth the "flexibility" the Jazz will retain.

 

[bjunior]

So one Steve Novak salary spot is too much to give. I think we saw in that trade how much our cap space is worth... Hayward is the best use of that space for now.

you extend burks and kanter and that's it, you don't have cap space

now imagine a situation that this team will be 1-2 assets away or 1 all-star player away from being a contender

the jazz will be stuck for years, this happens to teams all the time

 

[Hantlers]

You don't let your best player walk because of several million dollars a year.

Again, who do we get to replace Hayward that we don't have to overpay for? I have no idea why some of you, mainly Core4, are taking this so personally, but it's stupid as hell.

 

[ijazz]

Best case scenario... we can work out a sign and trade and get Vonleh (I'm not sure it is possible because of CBA reasons... if he hasn't signed yet I think we can though).

Only chance for a S&T would be today before midnight.

As soon as Hayward actually signs the contract with Hornets at 12:01am he will either be a Hornet or Jazz, S&T is not possible.

 

[Stifle Tower]

You must be pretty stupid. How in the world is Hayward a scumbag? Do you go to work every day and tell them to give you less money so you can make the company happier? If he is in high demand, and someone is going to pay him, he should absolutely get the money. If you don't want the Jazz to match the contract, say that, but to deride Hayward as a person for doing what every other person in the entire league has done is just asinine.

Yes, I accepted a job for less pay so I could be in a better situation for my family.
But this is different. Say I had seven good colleagues at my place of employment. And to make this realistic, we'll pretend I'm making $200K - more than enough to "provide" for my family. I'm up for a raise. One of my colleagues has already signed a new deal for $400K. I've been offered the same, but turned it down. I'm now demanding $600K, knowing full well that it almost surely means one of the remaining 5 will be released by the company in 3 years time; they have a set amount of salary they can pay and can't afford all of us, especially if I get so much.

Look around the league at the guys who took much, much less to keep their teams together. Hayward isn't exactly a pauper if he agrees to Favors-type money ($12M per). He could have even given Utah a chance to make it a 5 year deal for the same amount of money. Instead, they've put in a couple of "toxic" options: the trade kicker and the opt out.

The question is: does Lindsey want to pay Hayward 30% of the cap with 7.5% raises in 2017? Because that is what Hayward is likely to demand. This contract makes that very, very clear with the opt out (which coincides with his 7th year in the league).

And for the record, I was once on board with the "match at any cost" crowd. Jazz have abundant cap space, they don't have a replacement, yada yada. But the opt out clause, along with the terrible precedent is sets for everyone else is BAD. Hayward's attitude absolutely SUCKED last year. A team LEADER, a max contract guy, would have been FIRED UP at the end of the year. He would have been spitting blood as he left, saying the season was unacceptable and he was going to do everything he could to turn it around next year and expected everyone else to up their games. Instead, he quietly skulked out of town. And it was up to Lindsey to just say Hayward needed to have more fun on the court.

Sorry, I completely loathe Hayward. Teams that overpay often regret it a couple of years later. IF you're happy with Hayward making $20M+ in 4 years, then by all means, welcome him and his 3-year "bargain" contract with open arms.

 

[fishonjazz]

I am not angry with him at all. No ill feelings. He took more money that's fine.

Having said that I don't want I to match. He isn't worth that kind of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkf

This

 

[fishonjazz]

Duncan is the fourth highest paid player in NBA history and was 36 when he signed his current, smaller contract. Did Stockton and Malone take less money when they were in their primes? I was too young and didn't follow contract negotiations back then. I googled some articles and saw that Stockton got a 6 year $14mil contract which they said was high for a point guard in the early 1990s and Malone signed an 8 year $24mil which made him the 2nd or 3rd highest paid power forward in the league. In 2002-2003 Stockton made $7.9 mil on a 2 year 14.87mil deal and Malone made $19.25mil on a 4 year $66.5mil deal according to insidehoops.com. Malone's contract was 38.2% of the team's salary and Stockton's was 15.6% of the total.

Just playing devil's advocate here. I know Hayward is nowhere near Stockton/Malone as a player, but did they really take paycuts in their primes? Interesting how much more players get paid now.

From what i remember (which could definately be wrong btw) stockton and malone were a little underpaid for alot of thiet careers.

Not that what they did has any bearing on this hayward deal though

 

[fishonjazz]

Love how Cy rags on fish and I about being Burks homers....

But you are quite the Hayward Homer and think we should def match!!!

Btw if burks was being offer this same contract i would be saying that its dumb to match it still. (And i think burks is better than hayward)

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

you extend burks and kanter and that's it, you don't have cap space

now imagine a situation that this team will be 1-2 assets away or 1 all-star player away from being a contender

the jazz will be stuck for years, this happens to teams all the time

I'm not sold on Kanter and have no idea what Burks will be worth in a year, but let's assume we are at the cap with that group. The next guy needing an extension will be Exum (or maybe Burke, but still to early). Hayward's deal will run out before Exum is extended.

So are we using Hayward's max space to sign the missing all-star in the next 4 years? I just don't see Hayward as the reason we couldn't acquire that extra piece... It is likely that we wouldn't be able to sign a free agent that is the missing piece. If we did sign them then we would have to overpay... kind of like we are overpaying now.

So we use the cap space in a trade to acquire a star? I don't remember the last time this happened. You have to give up assets to get the star and I think Hayward could be one of those assets. The cap is rising significantly over the next three years. Unless Hayward Derrick Rose's his knee we will be able to trade that contract anytime during the next 3 years.