Hayward, Kirilenko, and the myth of "The Max"

[fishonjazz]

Tl;dr

 

[candrew]

So far the pro-Gordon arguments seem to revolve around the following:

The max is not a big deal
The max is really not the max (5 years from now)
The Jazz have nothing better to do with their money.

These are not arguments, these are exercises in bad economics.

I like Gordon...LIKE him. Yes I know many players are over-paid but unless you can make even an inkling of an argument that player X is worth Y amount of cash then you have no argument.

 

[silesian]

Irony

Worthless ****ing thread; bitching/moaning about bitching/moaning while misrepresenting others' opinions and misstating verifiable facts. Jesus.

Ironic observation: bitching/moaning about bitching/moaning about bitching/moaning

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[GVC]

So you were 'technically correct,' which we all know is the best kind of correct. Nevermind the point he was making about the two situations dissimarity, which your nitpicking didn't address at all really. But you scored some cheap points so good for you I guess.

What point was he making that hasn't been covered numerous times in numerous threads, many of which have already been merged? He didn't provide any new information or argument, and the information he did provide was wrong. On top of that is this:

I'm seeing a ton of Jazz fans complain...Not too surprising. Most fans on here go for the easy, low hanging fruit when the decide to bitch about something...is a misguided, lazy argument...all of the knee jerk complainers...Those who can't stomach that will just have to be content bitching and moaning for the next 4 years.

So...Why did the OP start this thread?

Is Hayward's contract as bad as AK's? No, but that's only because of the changes in the CBA. No contracts will be as bad as the 6 and 7 year monstrosities from the 1999 CBA. As such, Hayward and the value of his contract should be compared to contracts signed under the new CBA. It's entirely possible that, if Gordo continues to be the player he's always been, his contract becomes a neutral or negative asset, and the Jazz would be better off with the cap space and improved draft pick. This team doesn't have the talent to compete as constructed, and it's incredibly unlikely that it will over the next 3 or 4 seasons. Locking mediocre talent into large deals will affect the Jazz's ability to make the roster changes needed to build a good team. There's plenty of room to disagree on the correct course of action. The OP has his head too far up his own *** to recognize this.

 

[freakazoid]

Freak, good to hear your voice.

Yeah, I think this is coming from ownership. Even though the team will stink overpaying Hayward, they're terrified to take a "catastrophic" step back by not signing him.

Anyone objective or dispassionate would realize that next year is a loss anyway, continuing to collect assets and preserve flexibility is the only option, and that message could be easily sold to fans.

The Millers should make a bold statement by not following the herd, but I suspect they are too afraid.

Yep, we've already seen what can happen when ticket sales trump rebuilding the right way. I know you didn't agree with me at the time, but if our rebuild had been started when it should have, I think Trey turns into 2 top ten picks + whatever assets we would have gotten from Al and Sap. Probably a weak pick for Al but Sap could have brought something nice. I admit it would have been an extremely bold move that would have pissed off a lot of the fans, but they'd be over it by now if we had rebuilt as fast as Houston.
-
Anyway, I won't be surprised at all if they match, so let's just hope Exum goes for rookie of the year.

 

[freakazoid]

Not saying a disagree but how is this setting the Jazz rebuild back? It wont limit signing any of the players currently on the roster. It wont prevent us from drafting rookies and signing them. Is there a good free agent that we are going to sign in the next couple years that will make the rebuild successful in your opinion?

It does limit signing current players because everyone expects to get paid when you overpay someone else. All the values go up on the guys coming up. Cap space is extremely valuable. It may not seem like a big deal this year, but in the big picture it absolutely is. In the next two years when we pay other people, all of the sudden we have almost no flexibility and all our money committed to players that are good, but not great. Next thing you know, we've just built a team that might get into the playoffs, but can't get past the first round and very little ability to improve. Just not a smart move for a rebuilding team.
-
Forget about free agents. That will never be a strong point for Utah. The only way to get FAs here is to build a good team first, or to have cap space at a time when few other teams do. The real value of having cap space is to take advantage of teams who have overspent and are desperate to cut salary. You know, the way Utah will be if we pay players like Hayward silly money.
-
I will say one thing. If Utah has somebody blow up this year, then the Hayward contract won't be so bad and could work out. However, if overpaying Hayward just leads to worse draft picks while limiting our flexibility in trades, then yes, it's a major hindrance to a rebuild, without a doubt.

 

[Hedda Gambler]

It does limit signing current players because everyone expects to get paid when you overpay someone else. All the values go up on the guys coming up.

This is just wrong. It was not us that offered Hayward the max, it was Charlotte. And no, it does not limit us signing any of or own players. We can re-sign any of our own draftees and still not hit the luxury tax until Hayward`s deal is up.

 

[Ron Mexico]

It does limit signing current players because everyone expects to get paid when you overpay someone else. All the values go up on the guys coming up. Cap space is extremely valuable. It may not seem like a big deal this year, but in the big picture it absolutely is. In the next two years when we pay other people, all of the sudden we have almost no flexibility and all our money committed to players that are good, but not great. Next thing you know, we've just built a team that might get into the playoffs, but can't get past the first round and very little ability to improve. Just not a smart move for a rebuilding team.
-
Forget about free agents. That will never be a strong point for Utah. The only way to get FAs here is to build a good team first, or to have cap space at a time when few other teams do. The real value of having cap space is to take advantage of teams who have overspent and are desperate to cut salary. You know, the way Utah will be if we pay players like Hayward silly money.
-
I will say one thing. If Utah has somebody blow up this year, then the Hayward contract won't be so bad and could work out. However, if overpaying Hayward just leads to worse draft picks while limiting our flexibility in trades, then yes, it's a major hindrance to a rebuild, without a doubt.

The only player that is currently on the Jazz that this contract could hinder is Burke. I dont see him as a major part of this teams future. I think Exum is our hope of being great and will eventually be the starting PG. When Exum is up for a contract Hayward will have expired. Burks and Kanter are the only players that could "blow up" this year and demand a big contract. But Jazz have the cap space to sign both of them to big contracts if that happens.

If you are not worried about free agents only about the players on this team then the only thing this contract hurts is our future drafts. If Hayward is retained we dont get as good of a draft pick next year. I personally dont see us getting a top 5 pick and probably not even a top 10 pick either way. If Jazz are not getting a high pick then that player is really unlikely to be a star and very unlikely to be better than Hayward. I would rather move forward with him helping the young player get better. Our players are better with Hayward on the court and I think will develop faster which is better for the rebuild. If you let hayward go because the contract is too big I am not upset but I dont think it hurts the rebuild to keep him. I think it sets the rebuild back a year or two and slows the young players development if Hayward leaves.

 

[Doublea]

This is just wrong. It was not us that offered Hayward the max, it was Charlotte. And no, it does not limit us signing any of or own players. We can re-sign any of our own draftees and still not hit the luxury tax until Hayward`s deal is up.

Sounds like a good way to be a mediocre team.

 

[billyshelby]

I will say one thing. If Utah has somebody blow up this year, then the Hayward contract won't be so bad and could work out. However, if overpaying Hayward just leads to worse draft picks while limiting our flexibility in trades, then yes, it's a major hindrance to a rebuild, without a doubt.

What if Burks blows up this year, or (as I think) becomes our leading scorer? And what if Kanter (getting 30 plus minutes) increases his numbers to 14/9? Gortat just inked 12 million per for 5 on less than those numbers, and he's much older.

In this scenario, Hayward's contract makes re-signing both Burks and Kanter impossible. And we'll be giving up one of those players, both better than Hayward, just because no one will take Hayward's bloated deal.

To me, if Hayward doesn't drastically improve, he's Josh Smith -- this CBA's version of the albatross contract that prevents teams from keeping or adding talent.

 

[GVC]

To me, if Hayward doesn't drastically improve, he's Josh Smith -- this CBA's version of the albatross contract that prevents teams from keeping or adding talent.

Josh Smith still makes a considerable impact on the defensive end; he's better than Hayward.

 

[Lakers_Slapper]

Most fans on here go for the easy, low hanging fruit when the decide to bitch about something.

Have you seen Hayward?? It looks as though he is yet to have low hanging fruit.