Hayward has agreed to an offer with Hornets

[b_line]

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 $350K. I'm demanding $500K, 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.

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).

If Hayward demands full max in 2017, then he is probably worth it. If the Jazz think he is worth that, then they should just offer him a five year deal right now, and get it over with.

Also, you are being ridiculous about asking Hayward to take a discount so the team can get better. The only players who have ever done that in their prime just opted out of their contracts in Miami.

And you taking less money for your family's sake is entirely different from what I asked you. Would you ever take less money so the company could make a larger profit, even if you knew that company was one of the top ten most profitable companies in your field? When you are in your best money making days? When this might be the only chance you have to make a lot of money?

 

[Diamond77]

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.

I don't agree bro! Hayward didn't deserve this huge contract on the court! He spent 4 seasons with the Jazz....it is enough time to evaluate a player...now it's time that another team gamble on him! He was supposed to step up his game last season....but he failed...so if there is meritocracy the Jazz should not match the offer!

 

[fishonjazz]

But isn't this the case now anyway? If the Jazz don't match, perhaps they send some kind of message, but Burks and Kanter will still have seen that they can decline an extention, play out the contract and get a huge offer from anyone. Doesn't matter if it's the Jazz or the Bobcats.

Good point

 

[fishonjazz]

It's not hard to see why his shooting percentages dropped.

I just read that his shooting percentage has dropped every year though. How is that explained?

 

[b_line]

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)

I get that you like Burks, and you are my bro. But there is no way in hell Burks is better than Hayward.

I like me some Burks too, but Hayward is so much better all around than Burks. Hayward has playmaking abilities that Burks will never have, Hayward's defense is better, and Hayward has better size.

 

[Game6Conley]

well didnt he lose his shooting coach? (Hornacek?)

 

[fishonjazz]

A RFA on a team with a team with a ton of cap-space. Would have to sign him to a huge offer to get Magic not to match.

According to btp, no one has cap space next year doe

 

[Coach Ellis]

Adrian WojnarowskiVerified account
‏@WojYahooNBA
Jazz prepared for possibility of max sheet for Hayward and remain unwavering about revelation it's coming: They plan to match and keep him.

If they truly do plan on matching the contract. . .

A. Be quiet about your actual intentions. Once the offer sheet is signed, not a word about it until they match or decline. Make everybody wonder what the real plan is.

B. They should try to extend Burks and Kanter first. Send the impression that they will spend the money on them instead and that they won't in fact match Hayward's contract if they can get them locked up long-term to avoid this same issue next year. The Jazz can still match the contract, but take care of those two before giving them any more leverage - which they're sure to have. The Jazz will improve this year. Barring injury, Burks and Kanter will be better and they will be highly desired players next offseason.

C. Wait the full three days to match the contract. After LeBron, Melo and Bosh all make their decisions, free agency is going to be nuts. Guys are going to go hard and fast. Match the contract after a lot of the dust has settled and the Hornets are screwed in terms of having cap space in one of the better free agency offseasons. The Jazz warned everybody that they would match, but the Hornets went all-in right at the outset. It should have to cost them three days of other teams making moves to improve their team to pay for it. Plus, waiting also tells other teams that the Jazz will back up their intentions.

 

[Game6Conley]

According to btp, no one has cap space next year doe

The Jazz could. without Hayward they could afford to sign 3 marquee players next year and then match Burks and Kanter to go over the cap to fill out a solid rotation of 9 or 10 players

 

[fishonjazz]

if we want a player of Hayward's caliber,

We already have players of haywards caliber doe

 

[b_line]

We already have players of haywards caliber doe

Who? Favors is the only one who is as good or better than Hayward at this point. Exum might be, but I have a hard time believing Burks, Kanter, Hood or Gobert ever get there.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

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.

Now imagine you work for a company that is okay, but not great. Your in a fairly crappy area of the country and are offered that 500k by another similar company in a comparable area of the country. Only that this company has had more recent success. You'd be a frickin moron to pass on that if your company doesn't match.

Players don't take salary cuts to stay on lottery teams. They take salary cuts on perennial contenders. And no one turns down 16 M over 4 years that is in Hayward's place. These guys aren't fans of the Jazz they are employees... they should not be asked to take a pay cut for the greater good... especially when we can just trade them when something better comes along.