What's new

Jazz 2017 Salary Cap Issues - Forcing Trades this Draft??

Fine, then we only dump Pleiss and Burke and are at 99M or about 106M (if you include our 2016 and 2017 1sts), still below the cap, for 10 guys.

The point is the sky isn't ****ing falling and to trade Hayward, Favors or anyone else of value on this team for 65 cents on the dollar (because that's basically what we'd get) is ****ing dumb because the chances are we will be able to finda way to keep this core ( as I see it) together. Burks can walk.

I agree with all that. Everybody assumes moving Hayward/Favors you get equal value. You don't. Best case is you get a CHANCE at getting equal value or better value and the chances are slim. I like Burks on this team but I would understand when numbers get tight if he isn't as much of a priority as the starting 5.
 
Fine, then we only dump Pleiss and Burke and are at 99M or about 106M (if you include our 2016 and 2017 1sts), still below the cap, for 10 guys.

The point is the sky isn't ****ing falling and to trade Hayward, Favors or anyone else of value on this team for 65 cents on the dollar (because that's basically what we'd get) is ****ing dumb because the chances are we will be able to finda way to keep this core ( as I see it) together. Burks can walk.
Nobody said the sky was falling. I'm being opportunistic. We have a trade partner at #3 who wants Hayward. Hayward could walk next year. Our success depends on kids yet Hayward is in his prime. Its a safe play. Trading Hayward is actually a safer play than keeping him.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
 
I agree Favors and Hayward are in the elite company for their production so far in their careers.

Hayward: For players that average 19 Pts/5 Rebs/3 Assists, there are only 11 players, 10 if you don't include Griffin who didn't play many games.
Favors: For players that average 16 Pts/8 Rebs, there are only 12 players, 11 if you don't include Griffin who didn't play many games.


Hayward.jpg



Favors.jpg
 
Nobody said the sky was falling. I'm being opportunistic. We have a trade partner at #3 who wants Hayward. Hayward could walk next year. Our success depends on kids yet Hayward is in his prime. Its a safe play. Trading Hayward is actually a safer play than keeping him.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

There is little chance of the #3 pick in this draft becoming something better than Heyward. If he is disgruntled, you trade him at the deadline. You need a player for Heyward not a mediocre pick. If Boston wants him now, they will want him at the end of the deadline, and I would rather dip into Boston's 2017 pick stash anyway. . .
 
The 2016 #3 is better than no player to start 2017. If we did trade with Boston, we would get something back. Maybe Bradley but at least Jerekbo.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
 
I've said this 1000 times but I'll say it again, thank god no one on this board is our GM.
 
The 2016 #3 is better than no player to start 2017. If we did trade with Boston, we would get something back. Maybe Bradley but at least Jerekbo.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

Why are you assuming Hayward is going to leave?
 
The 2016 #3 is better than no player to start 2017. If we did trade with Boston, we would get something back. Maybe Bradley but at least Jerekbo.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

That trade will be available in January as well.
 
I've said this 1000 times but I'll say it again, thank god no one on this board is our GM.
You're probably one of those who never wanted to trade AK, Booz or Deron either.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
 
That trade will be available in January as well.
Hayward is practically an expiring contract. His value is highest right now. We would get pennies on the dollar at the deadline.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Back
Top