What's new

Hayward has agreed to an offer with Hornets

You're comparing apples to oranges. The only thing we know is Hayward is guaranteed to take up around 23% of the cap for 3 years. After that, he can opt out like James, Lebron and others are doing and seek a 5/30% deal.

Saying their situations is exactly the same is comparing apples to oranges. AK was taking (IIRC) up to 42% of the cap his last two years (the contract was backloaded. Dont ask me why the Jazz thought that wouldn't bite them in the *** I know, I know, time value of money...) As you point out, Hayward takes about half of that.

If I had to choose AK at 42% of the cap or Hayward at 23%, I'd say Hayward is a much better deal.

Edit: If he wants to opt out and seek a lebron contract, we can cross that bridge in a few years. For now, matching an offer will take up just over 20% of the cap, which we are going to have to pay 90% of the cap in salaries anyway for 3-4 years.
 
Predict the 24 answers.. (could be fun)

Lol

1. They are going to anyways so to hell with it
2. White Privilege (all rights and proceeds are property of Cyrone Torbin)
3. It will not affect the teams overall ability to resign Kanter & Burks
4. Hayward will play better under an actual system
5. Last year was an abberation of a year for hayward
6. Only Hayward, God and lebron averaged 16, 5 & 5
7. Hayward has a dirty secret on DL
8. Lindsey needs a scapegoat when things go south
9. They plan to trade Kanter and or Burks
10. He's not AK
11. Exum is our star and they want Hayward to be his Pippen
12. Gail has a thing for Hayward

There is the first 12 to get things started.
 
I just recently read that Hayward wanted 13 mill and the Jazz were holding firm at 12. Think it was Grantland...

That better not be the case... If so that's just dumb on our part.
 
That better not be the case... If so that's just dumb on our part.

I remember reading something similar last year. I think I also read that is was somewhere between 13 and 14. Probably still too high, but based on prior experience, what did they think would happen?
 
I remember reading that Hayward's agent was using Paul George's extension as a comp, and that they were asking for the max extension. The other number I heard was 4 years/ $58mm
 
This is why you trade players that don't refuses to sign before RFA. It seems that every year there's some franchise with cap space and a terrible front office that just throws money away.

If the player isn't good enough to out right offer the max or isn't reasonable enough to take something close to his true value he'll just hurt the team cap situation in the long run.
 
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.
1)***** Ak’s contract was only 2 years longer. No way Hayward is traded after his third year. His contract was $86/6 years, or 14.3M per year. Hayward’s is $63/4, which is $15.75M per year. Gordon is getting paid more per year than AK was. I want to add that it was only in AK’s 2nd year of the max contract that we made the WCF, so that goes to show how fast a team can change after big signings. AK’s max signing affected the team going forward from that point, with 5 seasons that the Jazz could’ve used that salary cap space for other needs.
2)***** Silly argument. Every player has issues in the NBA. AK’s first 3 seasons he played 82, 80, and 78 games. After he signed the max, he played 69,70,72,67,58, and 64 games. Gordon on the other hand has played 72, 66, and 72 games in his first 3 seasons respectively. Who’s to say he won’t get hurt? Again, lame argument
3)***** And at our time, experts believe Gordon is nowhere NEAR the level of any other max player in the league.*
4)***** And the guy who’d rather play league of legends and starcraft (Platinum league – that takes a very long time reaching that) than work on his game is better?
5)***** Then why did AK look worse after D Will, Boozer, and Company arrive? He was taught by sloan. The system didn’t change. He just NATURALLY became the 4th option and 5th option.* Corbin tried to run the same system as Sloan.
6)***** Again, false. As I stated before, it was the 2nd year of his MAX contract that we went to the WCF. His 3rd and 4th year were prime years for the jazz to contend had we spent money on other players.
7)***** That’s a valid point that it doesn’t have the same impact on the team, however, the salary cap was $43M and then it jumped up $7M the next year to $50M.* The salary cap this last year was $59M and will rise $63M. The salary cap is always changing, but that doesn’t make signing right if the player is getting overpaid.*** https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/info/salary_cap
8)***** The year before AK signed the max, he was averaging 16ppg, 3 blocks, 3 assists, 6 rebounds, and shooting 49% from the field, which is better than what Hayward had his year before he got the max. Both are overrated versatile point forwards who had good stats during their contract years on crappy lottery teams.
 
Jazzfanz existed and had alot of the same posters when ak signed that deal? (When was that, like 2004)

It certainly existed, and many of us are still here. I wouldn't say there are a LOT of posters from that era still here, though. Maybe 10-20?
 
If you mean our willingness to pay $12M, I agree.

If the difference was really $1 M per year then that was dumb...

You wouldn't pay $12 M for Hayward?
 
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?
I think most voted to max because of the whole "but we have to spend the money anyway and he is the only player we can spend it on" crowd.

Im sure if the poll said "do you think hayward earned a max deal?" Then there would only be one person to vote yes
 
Back
Top