Because dude, Utah is due to draft an amazing player who will be worth the max 4 years from whenever we draft that player so we cant max Hayward now or we will be screwed dude.
Move On From Hayward?
- Thread starter LoPo
- Start date
Because dude, Utah is due to draft an amazing player who will be worth the max 4 years from whenever we draft that player so we cant max Hayward now or we will be screwed dude.
LoPo
Well-Known Member
Remember, I like Hayward, but I would take the following players over Hayward (some as right now, some as long term projects and some as assets):
Ben Simmons
Brandon Ingram
Curry
Thompson
Butler
Wiggins
KAT
Draymond (hate the guy but I've got to be objective)
DeRozan - this one is very close - I could go either way here
Porzingis
Hood - I really like where he could end up. He has shown the ability to completely take over which I've never seen Hayward do. Still raw but still young.
Dirk - short lived but he's amazing
Lillard
McCollum
Kawhi
Aldridge - this one is close. I don't like him, but he'd be a massive asset.
LBJ
Kyrie
Chris Paul
Blake Griffen
Paul George
Giannis - this one is close, but I think he might emerge as an elite talent
Harden
Anthony Davis
Cousins
Durant
Westbrook
Wall
Beal
Devin Booker - this one is very close. Long term contract, lights out shooter, still pretty raw.
Overall, some of these names don't really sound firm and some are no-brainers. I would say this - a couple of these might go, but I'm willing to bet that there is at least one or two from the current draft who will emerge as Hayward or better quality. Just hard to know who that guy might be (Dunn?, Murray?, Murray?, etc.).
EDIT - not meant to be exactly 30. I looked at rosters and it just turned out that way.
You are insane! Devin Booker is not better than Hayward. Ben SImmons and Brandon Ingram haven't played a single minute in the league! Giannis is not better than Hayward. Wiggins is not better than Hayward. McCollum is not better than Hayward. Hood is not better than Hayward. Beal is not better than Hayward. Could some of them become better? Sure... They are not now.
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
Which, unfortunately, changes the way we have to look at things. Calculated risks need to be taken to acquire such a player. Unless you think Dante, Favors, or Gobert is that guy.
I can see taking Giannis, he just has so much potenial. I would take Giannis over Hayward (he has the same playmaking ability as Hayward just with a lot better length and athletic ability, he is a decent 3pt shot from being better than Hayward). Same with Simmons though to a lesser degree. And even if Giannis doesnt develop a workable 3pt shot, I can still see him being one of the few wing players who is able to overcome the complete lack of a 3pt shot and be a top 10 player.
Wiggins/Beal/Butler/McCollum/Booker/Dirk/Cousins/Aldridge/Hood/Porzingis/Derozan/Thompson/Ingram are all wrong to me tho.
Yeah, Giannis is close. Depending on how you see them I can understand thinking he's better. Right now I wouldn't but I can see him overtaking Hayward in the next year or two. But we are not talking about better trade value here. We are talking about who's better right now and who helps you win more games.
True, in the next year I'd still take Hayward over Giannis, but I wouldn't be surprised if Giannis makes some huge leaps pretty soon. He might not though and he might plateau around his current level, but I really like his skill level outside of shooting combined with his length. That bad thing about Hayward is that he is held back a bit from not being an overly long player.
If our goal is to get a superstar or two, we should hire Hinkie and sell out everybody. Favors and Hayward are for sure not that superstar. Gobert probably isn't either and he will command max too. If our attitude is - if you are not a superstar you don't get max, we should trade all of them and quickly before they lose value.
Yeah, a vocal section of Jazzfanz is basically advocating we become Hinkie era Sixers.
Man so our current chance at a championship is like 1-5%. The Philly strategy might put us in the 5-8% chance of championship. Is really worth all the pain? Not to mention the lost revenue for the team? I like having the Jazz in Utah and don't think risking that is worth the slight increase in chance of a championship.
BTW, don't get me wrong. If that's what you think Jazz' goal should be, I can absolutely understand it and respect it as a strategy for building a team. But if that is what you want, I will hold you to being consistent with it - meaning if you want Hayward out for that reason, I will hold you to apply the same standards for Gobert and Favors right now(the quicker the better, because both lose value the more their cheap contracts expire and the closer they are to being FAs), and possibly hold you to apply the same standards with Hood in a year or two if he doesn't show he can be a superstar, etc. until we get the superstars we crave, then we can start surrounding them with more ... earthly talent...
edit: Oh and also... I will hold you to not moaning about letting them go when they go on to play for contenders and start winning games in the playoffs and championships.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Good post. I think you get the curry, lebron, westbrook, durant, kahwi, irving, etc first and then you get the help. (Kanter, aldridge, hayward, etc)
Getting the help is the easy part. Hood, lyles, favors, gobert, exum all might be just as good or better than Hayward anyway. Trade Hayward for a better shot at the top end talent (top draft pick increases that chance) since he is likely the best peice we currently have to use to get a top pick.
Then we can always max hood, Gobert, favors, or Exum or whoever like those other teams.
I don't think Exum, or hood would fetch a top pick. Favors or Gobert might but they won't be making 32 million next year so might as well hang on to them.
Use Hayward to get another shot at drafting a player better than anyone we currently have. Then spend less money on a good player (bazemore type. I doubt he gets 32 million per year).
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Interesting and thoughtful question.
I have no idea but I'm curious how many all star games he was in and if he was ever maxed.
Good comp though. I hope that throughout this discussion people are not thinking that I think Hayward sucks. I don't think that at all. I think we should use him to try to get an even better player (top draft pick could possibly do it) rather than pay him 32-39 million.
I'm curious how good iggys teams were before curry and klay.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I think he said he would take those players over Hayward.
I don't think he said they are better.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
My thoughts exactly
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Why get rid of good players on cheap contracts though?
If Hayward was going to make 12 million like favors next year or whatever Rudy is making then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
All I can say is Im glad these people don't run the Jazz.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Ya good post. If the jazz sign Hayward to max and he is our best player then we will make the playoffs a lot and get to 2nd round sometimes. I think that would be pretty great really.
If the jazz max him then I will still love the jazz and be happy with our team. We have lots of good young players and lots of draft picks stockpiled.
I just would personally go a different route and think that we could trade Hayward for #3 and pick up a good free agent (bazemore level player) and still get to the playoffs a lot and get to the second round but maybe #3 pick gets us a guy who takes us even farther.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
If Hayward averaged 4 more points a game, but gave up 4 more points a game, people here would be more likely to call him worthy of a max contract IMO. Same net result, but points are sexy.
That's why it drives me nuts when people are arguing for Jamal Murray, McCollum, Devin Booker and even Rodney Hood over Hayward. Hood is the best defender of the bunch, and he's merely average. McCollum is meh, and the other two are turnstiles...but they can score lots of points, so somehow that makes them more alpha. It's a pretty poor argument if you ask me.
That's why it drives me nuts when people are arguing for Jamal Murray, McCollum, Devin Booker and even Rodney Hood over Hayward. Hood is the best defender of the bunch, and he's merely average. McCollum is meh, and the other two are turnstiles...but they can score lots of points, so somehow that makes them more alpha. It's a pretty poor argument if you ask me.
Because unless you expect to be a contender next year, you will be faced with the same decision next year, only then the value you can get for those players would be lower(because their cheap contracts would be one year closer to ending and their new team would have one less year of service guaranteed from those players). There is a difference between acquiring a great player on 2 year cheap deal vs acquiring a great player on 1 year cheap deal.