Move On From Hayward?

[fishonjazz]

Love plays one side of the court. Hayward does everything for this rebuilding team. If not for injuries it's possible he carries this rebuilding team as high as a fifth seed. Did I mention this was a rebuilding team also 4th youngest team in the entire NBA. I believe he will be even better with Exum back and Lyles in his second year, and Hood possibly taking on more responsibility to where teams can't just focus 100% attention on Hayward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree to disagree.
He has not improved much at all over his career statistically no matter who his teammates have been. Only thing that has consistently improved are his minutes and salary.

 

[fishonjazz]

These are very good points and questions. Hayward is a good player. But so was AK yet the contract destroyed out chances of building something that could contend. The same could be said about Ostertag long ago. His contract kept us from adding that much needed additional piece.

We can't be scared when we have a solid foundation built and throw money at a guy because we think we can't do better. As Jazz fans, we sometimes pucker up when we shouldn't and throw too much cash when we shouldn't. I just know that Hayward isn't a $25 million player. He's just not. He will never be that guy who carries us with the star power needed to get that 50-50 call. Or be that guy to get emotional to lift the team. Or be the guy to be unstoppable when we need an unstoppable force.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

Good post.
I especially like the part about "throw money at a guy because we think we can't do better."

One part of your post was wrong though. You said you don't think he is a 25 million dollar guy. Well I saw someone ran the numbers and was saying he would start out at 32 million and finish his last year at like 39 million. That's insane

 

[fishonjazz]

Chris Kaman was an all star. That must mean he's better than Hayward. Trade Haywards *** and lets go get Kaman .. we wouldn't have to give up much ! Kobe was an all star .. surely that means that this year he was a better player than Gordon ??

I didn't say those players were better. Try to read the conversation before getting in it.

Thee jazz fan said that Hayward has not yet been an all star simply because he has been on bad teams.

So I gave examples of other players on bad teams who were all stars. Never said they were better than Hayward like you are insinuating.

 

[fishonjazz]

Love plays one side of the court. Hayward does everything for this rebuilding team. If not for injuries it's possible he carries this rebuilding team as high as a fifth seed. Did I mention this was a rebuilding team also 4th youngest team in the entire NBA. I believe he will be even better with Exum back and Lyles in his second year, and Hood possibly taking on more responsibility to where teams can't just focus 100% attention on Hayward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You said Hayward has not been an all star cause his teams have sucked. I gave you names of all stars on teams that sucked. Proving you can make the all star team even when the team you play for sucks.

 

[BENTLEY]

My feeling is that Hayward has played his entire career under a rebuilding team, and had he played for the Spurs, Thunder or some other playoff team, he'd be a multiple time allstar. Hell, it took Deron on a very good team four years to make an allstar team. There are a lot of good players that wish they could put up the numbers Hayward does. He is vastly underrated by his own fans.

He has been held back by the fact that he plays on a rebuilding team wher all focus is on stopping him and he doesn't get noticed as he plays in Utah. I don't see him as a low end allstar.

Or he's vastly OVERrated by the homer fans. This post reeks of apologist excuses.

 

[BENTLEY]

Fish and Lopo are killing it with their objective posts.

 

[BENTLEY]

So many blind, not-objective apologists on here making excuses for Hayward.

Some people on here try to assess Hayward objectively, rather than blindly praise him and excuse him for the team's continual losses.
And so the homers and apologists call the objective people Hayters. But that's not accurate. I give Hayward props for getting better this past year. He is great defensively. But he's not a #1 and never has been. He is not clutch. He's hit a clutch shot - once or twice, but not consistently. Not enough to justify max money.

So yeah, being objective, if Hayward has value around the league then maybe the Jazz can get something in return for him in a trade - in the hopes of landing a legitimate max money alpha.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Are we supposed to trade every player for an "alpha"? This narrative of Hayward is bananas. If the Jazz can keep him they should. If they're not confident they will, they should be proactive. And yeah, if there's a superstar out there and Hayward in the deal gets it done, then do it. But the idea that because Hayward isn't a top-5 player means he can't be worth the max and has to be what amounts to being dumped is ****ing stupid. Objectively.

Who is this superstar that the Jazz will acquire with sucky suck dumb Hayward? It sounds like he should be worth a lot on the market.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

So many blind, not-objective apologists on here making excuses for Hayward.

Some people on here try to assess Hayward objectively, rather than blindly praise him and excuse him for the team's continual losses.
And so the homers and apologists call the objective people Hayters. But that's not accurate. I give Hayward props for getting better this past year. He is great defensively. But he's not a #1 and never has been. He is not clutch. He's hit a clutch shot - once or twice, but not consistently. Not enough to justify max money.

So yeah, being objective, if Hayward has value around the league then maybe the Jazz can get something in return for him in a trade - in the hopes of landing a legitimate max money alpha.

You are asking people to be objective yet you dont think Hayward is even worth his current contract.........

 

[Coach Ellis]

Are we supposed to trade every player for an "alpha"? This narrative of Hayward is bananas. If the Jazz can keep him they should. If they're not confident they will, they should be proactive. And yeah, if there's a superstar out there and Hayward in the deal gets it done, then do it. But the idea that because Hayward isn't a top-5 player means he can't be worth the max and has to be what amounts to being dumped is ****ing stupid. Objectively.

Who is this superstar that the Jazz will acquire with sucky suck dumb Hayward? It sounds like he should be worth a lot on the market.

My favorite one is how people will post some dumbass trade idea to get a top 3 draft pick using Hayward, Favors or Hood (plus every other valuable trade asset the Jazz have) and then justify it by saying that any of our players would be great pickups for attracting a free agent. . . but the Jazz shouldn't keep them and pursue that same free agents themselves.

No, it's much better to keep hitting the reset button every three years looking for a "star" in the draft and trading away your top players because you're afraid to pay them. This argument was old back when Hayward went through RFA and it's even older now.

 

[da ThRONe]

My favorite one is how people will post some dumbass trade idea to get a top 3 draft pick using Hayward, Favors or Hood (plus every other valuable trade asset the Jazz have) and then justify it by saying that any of our players would be great pickups for attracting a free agent. . . but the Jazz shouldn't keep them and pursue that same free agents themselves.

No, it's much better to keep hitting the reset button every three years looking for a "star" in the draft and trading away your top players because you're afraid to pay them. This argument was old back when Hayward went through RFA and it's even older now.

You're not taking into consideration the Salt Lake market. Hayward is a greater selling tool in say Boston than SLC.

I don't think the discussion should be about Hayward's talents. The discussion should be can the team contend paying Hayward so much of the cap you it's incapable of affording to get/keep other players within his talent range. Can you get into deep playoffs runs paying Gordon 30mil+ a season. If you think the answer is no and he won't stay for a reasonable price you trade him. If the answer is yes you sign him. Honestly I don't see how after 7 seasons anybody can think Hayward is a guy you can give 30mil+ to and still be able to compete for WCF/Finals runs.

 

[LoPo]

I think Hood could be an alpha. Lyles or Exum could be an alpha. #3 could be an alpha. Hayward and Favors are not alphas. They are not worth max contracts. If we are looking for a definition of "dumbass" then we found it. In Websters, it says "Utah giving Hayward $30 million per year was a pretty dumbass move."

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app