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

[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.