Bawse Dawg
Well-Known Member
Bartelstein, it's just a joke about Jews, I repeat, a joke.
You are plummeting down the list.
Bartelstein, it's just a joke about Jews, I repeat, a joke.
You are plummeting down the list.
Schindler's list?
Aaaaand you've reached the bottom.
He is basically saying that he does not like the part of Hayward contract that allows him to opt out and get a much larger contract. Makes sense to me. I wish he couldn't opt out too.2) Saying he'll be right about not liking this contract if Hayward decides to do the smart thing and maximize his earning potential is stupid. I mean, that logic is horrifyingly idiotic.
3) Of course I want Hayward as cheap as we can get him, but to get mad at the guy and dislike him because of it is a bitchmade attitude, and I detest it. It would make more sense to get mad at our GM. But yeah, let's get mad at a player for doing the logical thing.
Yeah, that Hayward guy would be such an ******* if he went out and tried to get the most money that he could. Doesn't he care about me?! I mean, who does that? Who would try to maximize his value like that? What an *******.
As for this he said "I think we are very jazzed with the tease quin gave everyone in the open practice. Up-tempo, free flowing offense should fit Hayward much better. I think Gordon is really going to like Quin."1) He didn't nail that evaluation.
I remember this.I read through half the thread, and didn't see a post of mine but I was all in for Hayward. Happy we kept him.
He is basically saying that he does not like the part of Hayward contract that allows him to opt out and get a much larger contract. Makes sense to me. I wish he couldn't opt out too.
Read his post again. He doesn't say that he dislikes Hayward or is mad at Hayward.
You put these words in his mouth
He is simply saying that he does not like the contract but he would eat his words (admit the contract is ok and he was wrong) if we can keep Hayward at his current money. He simply does not relish the thought of paying 20 million or more to Hayward. Me either.
Quote the part of his post saying that he hates Hayward or is mad at him
Hayward is a 4th best player on a Championship team.
So NO - we cannot pay him MAX for that kind of production.
So there is a difference between liking a player and having fun seeing him on our team and not wanting to pay too much. You cannot draw a parallel between voting not to match and desiring to "get rid" of a player. That is a false dichotomy.
Oh Jesus, give me a break. Locke's such a freakin' hack. Yeah, he's such a special talent that he shot, what, 40%, 30% last year? He's such a special talent that he couldn't hit the ****ing ocean on any big three point shot where there wasn't a defender within five feet of him. He's such a special talent that he has as much leadership and cajones in him as the banana I just ate for breakfast. Locke can eat a big, fat dick and take off on the horse that Gordo rides out on.
That's fair.Ok you're right about the dislike and mad part (I never said hate from what I remember). But to say we shouldn't have signed the contract because he can opt out and get more money is silly. Look, there are pretty much two options: Hayward doesn't opt out because he won't get more money, or Hayward does opt out because he can get more money. If he opts out, that means that Hayward is playing really freaking well and he's probably worth the extra money.
I just thinking saying the contract was a mistake solely because of the fact that he can opt out is silly.
As for this he said "I think we are very jazzed with the tease quin gave everyone in the open practice. Up-tempo, free flowing offense should fit Hayward much better. I think Gordon is really going to like Quin."
I think that is correct to say.
I guess.You picked half of it and completely ignored the rest, which is what I was talking about.
I mean, lets be honest, saying a player is going to enjoy a more up-tempo, free-flowing offense is kinda obvious.
So I was I. But at the time I didn't know the cap would be increasing by a ton.
Also, I don't think that "so far" is the right term. We were wrong. He's clearly worth it considering the upcoming new cap. Also Hayward is a lot better this year than last.
I guess.
But he also guessed what kind of numbers Hayward would need to put up to "earn" the money in stifles eyes. He got pretty close on the numbers..... but ya it wasn't a true prediction, just a proposed scenario that ended up being pretty close
Probably the response that best fits my attitude. Also from an asset base, with the cap going up, it was clearly the best option to keep him. It will be interesting to see what the Jazz do in 2 years. He'll likely opt out. So does Utah give him a $20M+ contract? Will he like Quin and the rest of the team enough to give us a hometown discount so we can keep more players? Hayward is a really good player. But he hasn't - and likely won't - reach the level of a superstar. I still think there's a good chance he leaves Utah for Boston. He can be reunited with his old coach and be an all-star in the EC.
Probably the response that best fits my attitude. Also from an asset base, with the cap going up, it was clearly the best option to keep him. It will be interesting to see what the Jazz do in 2 years. He'll likely opt out. So does Utah give him a $20M+ contract? Will he like Quin and the rest of the team enough to give us a hometown discount so we can keep more players? Or will Utah sense that like DWill, it's better to get some kind of package for Hayward instead of losing him for nothing.
Hayward is a really good player. But he hasn't - and likely won't - reach the level of a superstar. I still think there's a good chance he leaves Utah for Boston. He can be reunited with his old coach and be an all-star in the EC.