What's new
By:

Hayward has agreed to an offer with Hornets

Bodhi said:
This.


Is it a risk? Yep. Are his percieved "issues" overblown? I believe so.

But, nah, taking risks is for either true winners or true losers, we want to be the Utah Mediocre's.
Click to expand...

Risk is fine... I'd just personally rather not go all in on this guy. We just aren't close enough to being a winner to take that kind of risk.

Lance reminds me of JR Smith. There is the cute funny stuff he does where you just go "thats so Lance" and laugh, but there is more to it than just that crap. I don't think you want to give long-term money to guys like that. Something weird went on with that team last year and I'm not sure Lance was the problem, but I'd be scared out of my mind to pay this guy guaranteed money hoping he'll mature/behave.
 
Stoked said:
Oh I agree with you, not a fan of the deal. Especially the kicker. But this doesn't ruin the team as some have suggested (not you).
Click to expand...
It may not ruin the team, but it certainly doesn't help the team.
We can't know what decisions later this summer (or in the next couple of years) will be negatively impacted by overpaying right now. People are acting like this deal is in isolation. Either we keep Hayward or we lose him. If he is NOT with the team that spot isn't empty... We will fill that spot with another player. The question is... can we A) get a player who will have a similar impact on the team for less money, or B) can we find someone who will make a greater difference tot he team for $16 mil? If the answer is NO to both questions we have to match... as much as I hate the idea.
(Personally I think the answer is Yes to A and possibly to B as well...)
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Risk is fine... I'd just personally rather not go all in on this guy. We just aren't close enough to being a winner to take that kind of risk.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are talking about hayward.

stephenson is a couple of years younger than hayward btw
 
b_line said:
One question I have is can the Jazz make their own contract with a guaranteed fourth year, or do they only have the option of the exact offer charlotte gives him once the offer is signed?
Click to expand...

There's a reason it's called MATCHING the offer, not CLOSE-TO-THE-SAMING the offer.
 
gandalfe said:
There's a reason it's called MATCHING the offer, not CLOSE-TO-THE-SAMING the offer.
Click to expand...

oh, really. Thats cool you are so clever. I was wondering if the offer exceeds the previous offer if they could do that. Anyone with actual knowledge of how the CBA works know this? I would assume that the Jazz still have the option to offer a 5 year deal, and don't have to match the 4 year deal if they want to lock him up longer term.

Also, I am not suggesting they should give him a five year max with 4.5% raises. Just a question.
 
Growlor said:
It may not ruin the team, but it certainly doesn't help the team.
We can't know what decisions later this summer (or in the next couple of years) will be negatively impacted by overpaying right now. People are acting like this deal is in isolation. Either we keep Hayward or we lose him. If he is NOT with the team that spot isn't empty... We will fill that spot with another player. The question is... can we A) get a player who will have a similar impact on the team for less money, or B) can we find someone who will make a greater difference tot he team for $16 mil? If the answer is NO to both questions we have to match... as much as I hate the idea.
(Personally I think the answer is Yes to A and possibly to B as well...)
Click to expand...

Well thought out post. I think the answer to the bottom two questions is no this year (looking at what is available). My only reservations are what will be available for us next year (and the year after that), but no one can project that with good accuracy.

My thing is really this... if we lock up hayward and then have the opportunity to draft a stud SF we will be able to trade Hayward (worst-case scenario a salary dump). If he plays well and we find something better we will be able to trade Hayward for quite a haul. I see nothing out there that gives us that much potential for our cap space this year and think we can regain the flexibility if we need to.
 
Growlor said:
It may not ruin the team, but it certainly doesn't help the team.
We can't know what decisions later this summer (or in the next couple of years) will be negatively impacted by overpaying right now. People are acting like this deal is in isolation. Either we keep Hayward or we lose him. If he is NOT with the team that spot isn't empty... We will fill that spot with another player. The question is... can we A) get a player who will have a similar impact on the team for less money, or B) can we find someone who will make a greater difference tot he team for $16 mil? If the answer is NO to both questions we have to match... as much as I hate the idea.
(Personally I think the answer is Yes to A and possibly to B as well...)
Click to expand...

Best post of the day. This deal is not done in isolation. You match it and you have $16M reasons to regret it in Years 3 and 4 when it hamstrings you from doing anything else, including possibly affording new deals for others. You regret it when the agents for Burks, Kanter and Gobert want HUGE deals based on the fact that their clients have shown POTENTIAL and the Jazz have cap space available right now.
 
fishonjazz said:
Sounds like you are talking about hayward.

stephenson is a couple of years younger than hayward btw
Click to expand...

The age is not the problem with Lance...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top