Move On From Hayward?

[karl malone]

The Exum injury has essentially forced this FO to make a very important decision based on a small sample size. These are the scenarios in which I see this situation unfolding.

#1: We don't trade Hayward & we play well enough to convince him to re-sign on a max contract.

#2: We don't trade Hayward & we don't play well enough/are unable to convince him to re-sign.

#3: We trade Hayward & continue to draft in the lottery while waiting for our young talent to develop.

There are risks involved in all 3 scenarios but IMO it is pivotal for a small-market franchise to maintain as much control over the outcome of a situation as possible, especially when dealing with their most valuable assets (look at the difference in direction UTA & DEN appear to be headed largely based on the handling of their disgruntled superstars).

Not trading Hayward would not only take that control out of our hands, it would create a situation where the best case scenario would be giving a max contract to a player who, despite what the market may dictate, is undeserving of (which could potentially affect our ability to add/retain players in the future). There is also the possibility of Hayward leaving regardless of how well the team performs. IMO the potential risk(s) of keeping & attempting to retain Hayward far outweigh the potential reward.

I understand that there is a reluctancy to trade him & end up on the "treadmill of mediocrity" but IMO there is as much of a chance of that happening if we were to max him (albeit a more successful treadmill of mediocrity) or let him walk for nothing (a less successful treadmill of mediocrity).

Unless we are able to condense several assets (Burks/Hood/Lyles/#12/future 1st's) & acquire an impact player in order to take that next step, I would prefer to control what prospects we acquire in a Hayward trade rather than the alternative of hoping for the opportunity to overpay in order to retain him.

This is an unfortunate situation & I would love to see this team win a championship with Gordon Hayward on it, but as currently constructed, I don't see this roster ever truly contending for a championship (especially with Hayward taking up 25-30% of our cap space).

I know there is concern that this could turn into a "perpetual rebuild" but with all of the young controllable talent, future draft assets, & available cap space that this team has at it's disposal, I believe the turnaround would be an extremely quick one.

 

[Coach Ellis]

A well reasoned thought process, but at some point you have to KEEP your top player instead of trading him before he can leave. Otherwise, nobody of merit or value will ever want to play or stay in Utah. Can't keep trading away your top players because you're worried they'll leave. I think it's a mistake to trade Hayward and would rather extend him with the current core group. It's stupid to develop a group of players for as long as the Jazz have had Hayward and Favors, to then get rid of them before that investment has a chance to pay off. Despite how much some people are ready to move on, finding a young two way wing like Gordon Hayward will be extremely hard to do. Everybody keeps bitching about his offensive deficiencies, but it's damn hard to find defensive wings that can match up with an opponent's top scorers like he can. Highly underrated and difficult to find them.

 

[Jamezz]

The FO doesn't have the balls to move on from Hayward after praising him for all these years. I hope this doesn't end like it did with Sap and Big Al.

 

[Jamezz]

A well reasoned thought process, but at some point you have to KEEP your top player instead of trading him before he can leave. Otherwise, nobody of merit or value will ever want to play or stay in Utah. Can't keep trading away your top players because you're worried they'll leave. I think it's a mistake to trade Hayward and would rather extend him with the current core group. It's stupid to develop a group of players for as long as the Jazz have had Hayward and Favors, to then get rid of them before that investment has a chance to pay off. Despite how much some people are ready to move on, finding a young two way wing like Gordon Hayward will be extremely hard to do. Everybody keeps bitching about his offensive deficiencies, but it's damn hard to find defensive wings that can match up with an opponent's top scorers like he can. Highly underrated and difficult to find them.

Sorry to say but if Hayward is our top player we're in for mediocrity for years to come, I really think Hayward has reached his ceiling or is very close to it, a borderline all star. I hope that the FO doesn't see him with the same eyes as you do or that Exum tops him at some point.

 

[karl malone]

A well reasoned thought process, but at some point you have to KEEP your top player instead of trading him before he can leave. Otherwise, nobody of merit or value will ever want to play or stay in Utah. Can't keep trading away your top players because you're worried they'll leave. I think it's a mistake to trade Hayward and would rather extend him with the current core group. It's stupid to develop a group of players for as long as the Jazz have had Hayward and Favors, to then get rid of them before that investment has a chance to pay off. Despite how much some people are ready to move on, finding a young two way wing like Gordon Hayward will be extremely hard to do. Everybody keeps bitching about his offensive deficiencies, but it's damn hard to find defensive wings that can match up with an opponent's top scorers like he can. Highly underrated and difficult to find them.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate & recognize just how valuable & rare Gordon Hayward's skillset is. I also agree that there absolutely comes a point in time in which a franchise must commit to it's core, especially when the team allocates as much time & as many resources as we have to this group of players. I just believe that teams, especially small-market franchises such as this one, need to be extremely selective & cautious of who they commit to.

Hayward is a great player &, in this market, demanding of a max contract. I don't think there is any disputing that. The dispute IMO is whether or not a team can win a championship while paying him the max. Unless paired with a generational talent or a superstar on a rookie contract, I believe the answer to that question is clearly no.

As far as damaging our reputation with other players by consistently trading away our best players (Hayward would be the 2nd in recent years), I don't believe that should factor into our decision of whether we should trade or attempt to retain Hayward. Until it creates a constistant winning atmosphere, Utah is (& always will be) near the bottom of the preferred FA destination list. As far as retaining our own star players down the road (IMO) we will need to take the OKC approach by drafting & developing them, surrounding them with equivalent talent, & having sustained success with them.

To commit a significant portion of our payroll to Hayward because A) we've spent 6 years developing him & B) trading him would affect our perception in the eyes of future players would be a mistake. The only reason Gordon Hayward should be signed to a mega-max contract is because we truly believe that he is going to be the leader & star player on a championship caliber team.

 

[ijazz]

do you think that's why he signed the offer sheet from Charlotte?

Nope. Different point in his career. He did not control his destiny, Jazz did. That was about money.

This will be the true test if he practices what he preaches.....

 

[Rgiss]

Not sure why everyone acts like 30 M is a bad deal. If he gets offered that much money he either balled out, Salary cap will remain at about 105, proving himself as a star, or played another fringe all star season, showing that he's reached his peak, meaning that if he gets 30 M, the salary cap will not be a problem as it will still be growing past 110 M. There is no way he gets a Max contract playing like he did this year again, players of the past 2 or 3 years only got max's because the cap has been growing by tons every year, meaning the max is more like 20% of the cap space rather than 25% or so

 

[fishonjazz]

Not sure why everyone acts like 30 M is a bad deal. If he gets offered that much money he either balled out, Salary cap will remain at about 105, proving himself as a star, or played another fringe all star season

I disagree.
The year before his last contract ended was the worst year of his career. He was rewarded with a max contract.

Harrison barnes just finished stinking up the playoffs yet many still think he will get the max.

I believe that Hayward could play crappy next year and still get maxed.

Also, the 5 year max wouldn't be simply 30 million from what I have heard. It would start at 32 and end up at 39 million in his 5th year.

 

[Rgiss]

I disagree.
The year before his last contract ended was the worst year of his career. He was rewarded with a max contract.

Because everyone saw the salary cap about to jump and threw max contracts at everybody. Hayward's 25% "Max" is worth 17% of our cap this next season. When the cap settles, teams won't be throwing out the max like candy. If he doesn't ball out, and settles in as a fringe all star, he'll only get the max if the salary cap is foresee ably about to jump again. Otherwise, I bet he gets around 25 M, around 5% down from the max he could get. If he balls out and becomes a true star, he'll get the max.

Harrison barnes just finished stinking up the playoffs yet many still think he will get the max.

See above. Salary cap still rising. Giving him the 25% 23.5 Million this year will be worth 22% of the max next year, and it's only growing due to ads and the nike jersey switch. All that said, I think he lost himself the max in the finals, and will get around 19 Mill.

 

[fishonjazz]

Because everyone saw the salary cap about to jump and threw max contracts at everybody. Hayward's 25% "Max" is worth 17% of our cap this next season. When the cap settles, teams won't be throwing out the max like candy. If he doesn't ball out, and settles in as a fringe all star, he'll only get the max if the salary cap is foresee ably about to jump again. Otherwise, I bet he gets around 25 M, around 5% down from the max he could get. If he balls out and becomes a true star, he'll get the max.



See above. Salary cap still rising. Giving him the 25% 23.5 Million this year will be worth 22% of the max next year, and it's only growing due to ads and the nike jersey switch. All that said, I think he lost himself the max in the finals, and will get around 19 Mill.

It's already been foreseen that the salary cap is going way up. Doesn't matter what Hayward does next season imo... He getting maxed regardless.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Hayward is a legit max player. Sorry to everyone that is bummed that the Jazz have a player of that caliber.

 

[Rgiss]

It's already been foreseen that the salary cap is going way up. Doesn't matter what Hayward does next season imo... He getting maxed regardless.

Which comes to my other point, why does it matter if we give him 30 Mill a year if it ends up being closer to 25% of our cap rather than 30% the next season?

BUT, salary cap will likely not be going way up after the year he is a free agent,so it's likely that unless he's a top 15 or so player in the league, that he doesn't get the 30M max, and rather gets around 25M

NBA teams were informed Thursday of the latest salary-cap forecasts as well as ‎projected jumps in the luxury tax threshold from its current figure of $76.8 million to $81.6 million next season, $108 million in 2016-17 and $127 million in 2017-18, sources said.

In subsequent years, sources said, league officials are projecting a slight decrease in the cap, down to $100 million in 2018-19 (with ‎a $121 million tax line), $102 million in 2019-20 (with a $124 million tax line) and $107 million in 2020-21 with a $130 million tax line.

https://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12711616/teams-told-nba-salary-cap-hit-100m-2017-18-season