Hayward has agreed to an offer with Hornets

[jimmy eat jazz]

What a load of bull. Just because we've coached/nurtured him, makes it more important for us to keep him? Look around - the guy's looking to bolt us the first chance he gets.



If we're assessing him against all other FA's and he's the best available, therefore we match, then I'm totally fine with that. But don't get sentimental and start spilling stuff like "he's our guy".

So, the Jazz shouldn't get all sentimental about Hayward, but judging from your post, you're getting all sentimental about him trying to maximize his income, which I would bet sizable money you, and most of us here, would do if in the same situation.

I get why sports fans get all emotional over things connect to their teams, but, really, how many of us would consider the tender, easily hurt feelings of people totally unconnected to our lives in any meaningful sense when making career decisions?

This idea that Hayward should take less money otherwise Jazz fans are going to get all emotional/sentimental about it is nuts.

 

[Stifle Tower]

You know, the more I've thought about this, the more I'm convinced the Jazz need to match. He's been a very good player who has improved each season - except for the past one. And who could blame him for hanging his head? Jazz were awful. And Corbin spent more time resurrecting the career of Richard Jefferson than providing guidance for the young players.

No, Hayward is not worth the max right now. But he's going to rebound from a poor season. I think he'll return to his historic averages of 45%/38%. With better efficiency he should average 19-20 pts/per and still provide close to 5 rebounds and 4 assists. Jazz absolutely need him to run the offense with the first team. Trey is a shoot-first PG and Dante won't be ready to start for several months, much less lead the team.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

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).

2nd best we match. He will be overpaid a bit, but most on the board felt a 12 M per year contract would be good... paying him 16 M per isn't that damaging and doesn't hurt our flexibility too much. Hell we just took on two year of Novak (who is a 9th or 10th man on a good team) for about 3.5 M for two years. The fact is our cap space is not as valuable as it was last year so this is likely the best use of that space. The best salary dump deal that is out there was just given out and it netted Tyler Zeller and a protected first round pick... pretty meh. All this talk of sign this guy or that guy... its not that easy, you will have to overpay them too.

3rd we let him walk for nothing and try to do something else with our space. I just don't see anything that fits well and I think is doable.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

All good points. The part in bold is one that I've been bouncing around in my head since the announcement. Did he earn this contract? If the Jazz match, it will be because they think that he has the potential to earn the contract. It's not based on what he's done so far, but what they expect him to do moving forward. I think that the team set him up to fail. I think that they knew this team would be a dumpster fire under Ty Corbin as a lame-duck coach and they're not holding it against their players because of that.

I don't think that any of the young players have really been developed well at all - that includes Hayward. He was given the chance to be "the guy" on a team in transition, losing it's top two assets (Jefferson and Millsap) and not having any clear direction or system on offense or defense. What the hell did people expect to happen? I'm pretty sure that the results match the organization's intent. Hayward should have stepped up more as a leader and as a #1 option, but I think that playing for the worst head coach in the league - who's trying desperately to save his job - is bound to have a negative impact on any young player.

I don't think he's worth the full max contract. I had it pegged around $13 or $14 million. I'm 90% certain that the Jazz will match this contract. Can he live up to those lofty expectations under a new coach who is known for his player developmental skills? I sure as heck hope so.

I think that Gordon Hayward with a clearly defined role on his team and improved players around him is a guy that most teams would want to have. I ask myself what kind of contract we'd have to offer him if he had played for the Suns last year under Hornacek. . . I'm pretty sure that it would be a MAX contract and we'd be talking about him with the type of reverence some have shown towards Bledsoe, Parsons and/or Monroe. In fact, we'd probably be talking about how Utah is a Free Agency Dead Zone and "Why the hell would Gordon Hayward even want to come here when he has other options out there?" The plain and simple fact is that he doesn't have a choice and he doesn't have any options if the Jazz choose to match the contract. He's been professional about this whole situation and people continue to bash him for trying to maximize his value. In the world of highly competitive sports, it only takes one team that loves you to make a ridiculous amount of money. Gordon Hayward is worth this contract as much (if not more) than Roy Hibbert or Eric Gordon or Jrue Holliday were of getting their MAX contracts in RFA. At least Gordon Hayward hasn't gone out and begged the Jazz not to match the contract. He's played his hand perfectly and is about to get paid a lot of money because he bet on himself. I think he has a lot more intelligence and confidence than many posters around here are willing to admit.

I don't think that Chandler Parsons, Eric Bledsoe or Greg Monroe have earned MAX contracts either, but with all the cap space out there this offseason, it wouldn't surprise me to see any of them get a deal similar to what Hayward is getting. They're all getting overpaid regardless. . . Do you really think that Phoenix, Detroit or Houston will just not match because the market has inflated their value?

A lot of angst might be saved if we all just recognized this simple truth: Being a MAX player in today's market doesn't mean some is a MAX PLAYER, it simply means someone is willing to pay him a maximum salary. In different market conditions, being a MAX player could well have a different meaning. For better or for worse, Hayward entered the market in an offseason where there is a butt load of money available together with slim pickings for quality FAs. His agent anticipated this and advised Hayward correctly. What annoys me is that the Jazz FO didn't anticipate this. If, as some reports indicate, the initial talks broke down because the Jazz wanted to pay $12 million, while Hayward wanted $13 million, then this is on the Jazz FO. They lacked the foresight to anticipate what the market would be (unlike Hayward's agent) and because they got all tightfisted over a relatively paltry amount, they are going to end up paying a lot more, or lose their valued asset. Very short sighted in my opinion. Should have just paid him the extra $1 million per year rather than be penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[Hantlers]

Hayward is a scumbag for taking as much money as he can get? I swear some of you aren't connected to reality.

 

[bjunior]

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).

2nd best we match. He will be overpaid a bit, but most on the board felt a 12 M per year contract would be good... paying him 16 M per isn't that damaging and doesn't hurt our flexibility too much. Hell we just took on two year of Novak (who is a 9th or 10th man on a good team) for about 3.5 M for two years. The fact is our cap space is not as valuable as it was last year so this is likely the best use of that space. The best salary dump deal that is out there was just given out and it netted Tyler Zeller and a protected first round pick... pretty meh. All this talk of sign this guy or that guy... its not that easy, you will have to overpay them too.

3rd we let him walk for nothing and try to do something else with our space. I just don't see anything that fits well and I think is doable.

12m is also overpaying, but you can leave with it

16m is too much to give

 

[b_line]

When Hayward was on the floor Favors shot 54% when Hayward was off the floor Favors shot 46%. The same goes for almost everyone on the Jazz last year. Trey Burke’s EFG% was 46.5% with Hayward on and 39.8% with him off. Same applies to Jefferson 55.6/51, Alec 50.5/47 and Kanter 50.5/46.

Interesting point from Locke

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

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.

Guys should get everything they can... doesn't make them selfish at all. If we match and he plays well enough that he can opt out and get more how is that a bad thing. It will mean he outplayed his contract.

 

[b_line]

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.

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.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

12m is also overpaying, but you can leave with it

16m is too much to give

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.

 

[Stifle Tower]

All good points. The part in bold is one that I've been bouncing around in my head since the announcement. Did he earn this contract? If the Jazz match, it will be because they think that he has the potential to earn the contract. It's not based on what he's done so far, but what they expect him to do moving forward. I think that the team set him up to fail. I think that they knew this team would be a dumpster fire under Ty Corbin as a lame-duck coach and they're not holding it against their players because of that.

We once had another player who had not yet earned a max deal, but was given one. I remember clearly what Larry H. said at the time: (He) isn't a max player now, but he will be by the end of his contract. No, GH's contract won't be as devastating to the salary structure of the Jazz...except, it means we're "all in" on GH and can't look for other very good starting SF's at the deadline, next summer, etc. as any remaining dollars need to be saved for raises for Kanter, Burks, Burke and Gobert. Yes, I do believe we can fit all those players under the tax for three years. But if/when Gordon opts out in Year 4 and wants a new max deal, we'll have to let him or someone else walk. In the meantime, we could have spent 3 years bringing in a replacement on a reasonable contract which would allow the Jazz to also keep/bolster their roster elsewhere.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

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.

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.