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

[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.

 

[NUMBERICA]

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

Additionally, he's being asked to play a role for significant stretches that he's perpetually gotten worse at (being a 3, in layman's terms) and is a particularly moody player being asked to do things he doesn't do well on a bad and increasingly dysfunctional team. But as a 4 on a winner, I think he's still there.

Hayward's just not that talented and does no single thing at a high-level. I didn't know the market for jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none was the max.

 

[Lakers_Slapper]

Within a year, Hayward will be regarded as one of the worst contracts in the league. Whoever pays that contract will be the laughing stock of the NBA, and for a rebuilding team like Utah, it could set us back years. I honestly believe we're about to find out just how much the Millers are involved in this. The absolute only reason for matching is ticket sales. If DL is trusted to rebuild the team in the right way, no ****ing way he matches this. No ****ing way.
-
All of that is true, and it doesn't matter one bit that AKs contract may have been worse. That argument makes zero sense.

Wow, for once, I say.... I agree..

 

[Lakers_Slapper]

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.

Well yes we can resign our own draftees without hitting the luxury tax but that is assuming that we don't sign any other outside talent. Why would we not want to look outside what we have to build our team? Plus it limits us on our options when we are over paying for a player (like Hayward) toward the end of his contract as far as looking and signing other options. It does limit us if we are signing our own players based off of their restricted free agent contracts that they found made to them by by other teams. Yes we have a contract floor that we have to spend, but there are many other options for us instead of spending that kind of money on Hayward.
We could let Hayward walk and sign Deng for the same money, at least he has proven he can contribute on a team with talent.
Charlotte may have offered the contract but that doesn't mean that its a good offer for us to max. The owner of the Hornets is Michael Jordan, the same guy that drafted Kwame Brown with the top pick. Not exactly a reputation of good decisions that you could stand by.

 

[Hedda Gambler]

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.

This is getting silly. If Burks and Kanter do break out this year, it would be a fantastic thing for us. They would have to be respected and Hayward would get a lot more room. His % would go back up as he could concentrate on doing his thing instead of being asked to be our primary ball handler. We would have a lot of flexibility regarding trades and Hayward would definitely be moveable if we really needed to move him. Batum is a good comparisson as he puts up equal numbers and was said to be very overpaid when he got his deal.

In short - if our guys break out and we have to pay them - great. I would worry a lot more if they all pan out to be players that can be re-signed for 8-9 million.