Poll: Should the Jazz Match Hayward's $15.75 a year/4 year Contract?
- Thread starter Nate505
- Start date
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
Might be true. At the same time, he is multi-talented. You don't let him just walk with no replacement. If we can get Parsons or someone else that can fit the role well, great. Hayward plays at a high level in the right system. Steve Nash is a great example. He played better in his later years after he lost athleticism because he found a good system. Nash was better than Hayward, but the same principle applies.
I think they'd be better off signing him and potentially regretting it than letting him go and regretting it.
Like the ******** Surfers said, it's better to regret something you did, than something you didn't do.
![[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]](/data/avatars/m/2/2497.jpg?1511131091){kind=avatar}
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
I'm sure it'll be a delicate negotiation. I don't think you go after very much, but you definitely walk away from this contract after grabbing something.
I think that the opposite would be better for the tank. Hayward is clearly the better player.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
As a fan, I look at the situation like this. The team is better with Hayward than without him. Period. Unless the GM can see a viable replacement option, losing him will be a step backwards for the team. I feel like I am making the same arguments when the Jazz had to make the decision with Matthews. Hell, many of you did not want Millsap matched.
I will eat my words if I am wrong, but the Jazz will regret it if they let him go.
I will eat my words if I am wrong, but the Jazz will regret it if they let him go.
I have interpreted that line of reasoning more as it pertains to hamstringing the Jazz's overall cap situation vs. bad contract relative to the player.
Yep, you can buy Luol Deng plus a good shooter or another need with the Gordo-Max. It's arguable that Deng himself only brings more things to the table than Hayward, especially defensively, plus we could use his veteran leadership.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];866387 said:
If I am MJ, I read this as the Jazz want Hayward, or they don't. If I offer the guy a max contract (we all agree it is a ton of money) I am not giving up anything else for the guy. If the Jazz mention a S&T with Charlotte, it just weakens our position to show that they are willing to let him go.
They should not even contact the Hornets. Hopefully that will prompt the Hornets to offer something by getting them to think we are just going to match. I doubt it would work. Again, MJ is too competitive, and I think he is willing to gamble letting Hayward go. It won't cost him anything.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
"Fans" are also correct when they get concerned about the flexibility of their team and the tradability of its assets. It seems to me like you're over-simplifying the **** out of the situation.
Until proven otherwise, I will take DL at his word and Locke seems to think the Jazz will match, so until evidence to the contrary and for purposes of discussion, the original question still stands.
In my experience when I am pretty sure that a course of action is obvious, yet really smart and competent people disagree with me, than I take serious notice.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];866403 said:
I don't disagree. It is a ****load of money. The question becomes, what can the Jazz do to improve this team? Let one of your best players go with no viable replacement to give you flexibility in case someone better comes along down the road?
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
So you get steamrolled in negotiations on teh reg?
This whole drama is being played out on the negotiating table.