Move On From Hayward?

[fishonjazz]

Could Hayward be a better shooting version of Andre Iguodala? I think they have a similar impact on games.

And yes, I would pay the max to Iggy in his prime.

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]

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.

I think he said he would take those players over Hayward.
I don't think he said they are better.

 

[fishonjazz]

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.

My thoughts exactly

 

[fishonjazz]

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.

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.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

All I can say is Im glad these people don't run the Jazz.

 

[fishonjazz]

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.

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]

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.

 

[stitches]

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.

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.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

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.

It's the same reason why people think Hood is better than Hayward. They see a couple of games where these players get super hot and can't miss from deep, so they think they are the better players.

 

[Jazz4ever]

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.

People exaggerate it but there is a benefit of having a true #1 scorer (even if just average defender). Everyone knows their roles, the game is simpler in crunch time. No senseless back and forth passing. The Jazz have led the league in passes but last or near last in assists for two years now.

 

[fishonjazz]

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.

Good point.
I have just done research and found that almost every team in the league drafted their best player. Lebron was a free agency signing. Harden, cp3 and 2 or 3 others were traded for.

So with that knowledge if we max Hayward then we are kind of saying he is our guy and we will try to get help around him. Which makes us an early exit playoff treadmill team imo.

I think Hayward is not special and is somewhat easily replaceable so I would rather use him to try to get a top end talent guy. If we did trade him for a #3 pick or something then I think we would still be an early exit playoff team anyway with a better chance at something more.

If Gobert or favors gets us a better pick (#1 or 2) than Hayward then I would be fine with trading them instead. I don't think they do.

 

[RandyForRubio]

People exaggerate it but there is a benefit of having a true #1 scorer (even if just average defender). Everyone knows their roles, the game is simpler in crunch time. No senseless back and forth passing. The Jazz have led the league in passes but last or near last in assists for two years now.

The Jazz were also last in possessions per game. If you put them exactly at league average, Hayward averages 21 ppg based on his points per possession. Go towards the top of the possessions in the league, and he's at 22 ppg, and nobody is saying he isn't an alpha. Like I said, the whole points argument people are making is a dumb, and uneducated stance.