What's new
By:

Hayward has agreed to an offer with Hornets

JAZZGASM said:
Who is cheering the deal? I don't think anyone is exactly excited and cheering. Some thing keeping him is the better of two evils. AK was a different animal. He had loads of potential at the time. Who knew he'd be injured so often and lazy to boot? I wish we would have kept Matthews.

I just want the Jazz to get players that make the team better and fun to watch. Of the players available now that seem like a good long-term fit, Hayward and Parsons are the best available. (at least based on who will likely come here).
Click to expand...
AK was the SAME ****ing animal. Versatile point forward who had inflated stats on one of the worst nba teams in the league. How is that different than Hayward??
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
So for two years the Hayward deal is okay then... because we have to spend the money right?
Click to expand...

It doesn't immediately hurt the team, except...
1) It sets a dangerous precedent for negotiations with others (Jazz willing to overpay. Jazz willing to overlook terrible seasons, half-*** effort, bad attitude).
2) It MAY preclude other trades from happening. There is absolutely ZERO penalty for having an extra $15M in cap space at the deadline or into next summer. We don't know which players may become available.

So no, financially it's no big deal for 2 years. And even into the 3rd we're likely not in danger of exceeding the tax limit. Here's the thing, though. If Hayward truly hates Utah, he'll leave in 3-4 years anyway. And us matching might mean uninspired play until his contract year. Now I'm not saying he hates the Jazz; but he has not said or done anything since last year to indicate he wants to be here. If the Jazz cave and match the offer, I can almost guarantee Bartelstein holds out for the 5/30% max deal in 3-4 years. Utah caved before; Gordon will be an UFA. Hayward will do his circus tour again and only sign when the first foolish team with cap room gives him his $20M.
 
l Abach l said:
It's not even cheering. It's advocating for a deal that's not in the Jazz's best interest in order to win a championship. That's what we're after right?
Click to expand...

So basically several posters (such as you and Thriller) are going off, and insulting people, that others are no as pissed as you? Have fun with that.

The board has heavily leaned against matching this. Even Hayward fans such as myself.
 
JAZZGASM said:
Who was for not signing him last year? Letting a player be a RFA often bites you in the butt. It is not like this is a new concept...
Click to expand...

Sure, we all wanted him to sign at 4/$48. But he wouldn't. And as I recall, NO ONE said, ok, then just give him a max deal...whatever he wants, just git 'er done.
 
AK's deal only really sucked because he was constantly hurt and it was a couple years too long. Had he been healthy it wouldn't have been great, but what else were we going to do?

Nobody likes this deal... It's the choice between something crappy and something less crappy. I don't think it is as obvious as either side thinks it is.
 
Core4 said:
Sure, we all wanted him to sign at 4/$48. But he wouldn't. And as I recall, NO ONE said, ok, then just give him a max deal...whatever he wants, just git 'er done.
Click to expand...

And that stance has remained intact. Even those that think it happens, like myself, are not that high on it.
 
Stoked said:
So basically several posters (such as you and Thriller) are going off, and insulting people, that others are no as pissed as you? Have fun with that.

The board has heavily leaned against matching this. Even Hayward fans such as myself.
Click to expand...
Nope. Just think it's silly how some jazz fans think it was horrible to give AK the max, but are okay/advocates of Gtime getting the max.
 
Stoked said:
And that stance has remained intact. Even those that think it happens, like myself, are not that high on it.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is the worst-case scenario so you just wait until you are forced to do that.

Who really knows what Hayward even wanted last year... He may have asked for the Max... His agent is doing work.
 
l Abach l said:
AK was the SAME ****ing animal. Versatile point forward who had inflated stats on one of the worst nba teams in the league. How is that different than Hayward??
Click to expand...

1) AK's contract was for $26M MORE and a longer commitment.
2) AK was injury prone which limited his effectiveness. Even when we extended him his back had troubled him.
3) At the time, most experts believed AK was better than Gasol, who got a max contact at the time. It put the Jazz in a tough situation.
4) AK was a weirdo muppet looking russian who would rather read in the locker room instead of working on his game.
5) AK had Sloan to make him look GOOD. The 2004 team concept would have made Hayward look even better. Hayward had Corbin to make him look BAD.
6) The Jazz were ultimately hurt by the prohibitive length of the contract. Hayward's deal would be 3-4 years. The Jazz can look that far ahead and determine that it won't cause the same luxury tax pains that paying AK caused for 2009/10 and 2010/11.
7) THE SALARY CAP WHEN AK EXTENDED WAS $43M. It is at $63M now and projected to go up, and Hayward is getting paid less. It does not have the same impact on the team.

But besides that, you are right. Same animal. SMDH.
 
Stoked said:
And that stance has remained intact. Even those that think it happens, like myself, are not that high on it.
Click to expand...

The poll is 49 for/76 against.
I find that interesting. Last summer I don't think anyone was in favor of giving Hayward a max deal. So did he have a monster season to convince 40% of people otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top