What's new
By:
Filters

Quick quotes from Bobby Gonzalez about two Jazz players with team US practices.

da ThRONe

da ThRONe

Active Member
Bobby Gonzalez is a former collegiate coach and writer for Sheridan hoops. He had this to say about things he observed from team USA practice.

"While there is a point guard battle going on with the national team, the Select Team had young point guards who also did some damage today, further stressing that the future of the point position in the NBA is in good hands with Marcus Smart and Trey Burke."

"I like Gordon Hayward as a player but couldn’t help thinking he’s a nice role player. He’s a great piece of the puzzle to have, but I’m very surprised he became a max salary player this summer."

https://www.sheridanhoops.com/2014/...ooks-great-for-team-usa-but-there-is-pg-glut/
 
But....sigh.

What Hayward lacks in basketball superstar skills, he more than makes up for with his charisma and charm. The way he connects with teammates, fans and the media can be compared to other great American icons like Mr. Burns, Charles Emerson Winchester, Dennis Nedry, and Ray Zalenski.

I was glad to read that the new max money contract was not going to burden Hayward with feelings of responsibility or pressure to perform. It's nice that he will be able to play and live with that same careless, oops I meant carefree attitude.
 
mellow said:
But....sigh.

What Hayward lacks in basketball superstar skills, he more than makes up for with his charisma and charm. The way he connects with teammates, fans and the media can be compared to other great American icons like Mr. Burns, Charles Emerson Winchester, Dennis Nedry, and Ray Zalenski.

I was glad to read that the new max money contract was not going to burden Hayward with feelings of responsibility or pressure to perform. It's nice that he will be able to play and live with that same careless, oops I meant carefree attitude.
Click to expand...
Or maybe this is ONE guy from a minor publication. Bobby Gonzalez had success at Manhattan but was a .500 coach at Seton Hall. He's hardly the guru of men's basketball. I wonder what his evaluation of Scottie Pippen would have been. Look, I was one of the most vocal critics of Hayward's contract. Given his last season, there is ZERO doubt his contract is out of whack. But Charlotte offered max; Lindsey decided to match. Get over it.

Hayward is not going to be a dominant player on the USA team. His game is filling the stat sheet, not scoring 30+ points. In that respect, he's not going to get the big headlines every night. In some ways, I feel sorry for Gordon. No matter how well he does this year, he won't win with many fans because of his contract. Jazz have 13 guys who all merit minutes. I think we'll be like SA where NO one in the regular season played more than 30 mins and the highest scorer came in at <17/per. Which would mean this board will be full of posts hating on Hayward for not averaging 20/10/5 as a "max player" and fire DL threads.
 
Core4 said:
Or maybe this is ONE guy from a minor publication. Bobby Gonzalez had success at Manhattan but was a .500 coach at Seton Hall. He's hardly the guru of men's basketball. I wonder what his evaluation of Scottie Pippen would have been. Look, I was one of the most vocal critics of Hayward's contract. Given his last season, there is ZERO doubt his contract is out of whack. But Charlotte offered max; Lindsey decided to match. Get over it.

Hayward is not going to be a dominant player on the USA team. His game is filling the stat sheet, not scoring 30+ points. In that respect, he's not going to get the big headlines every night. In some ways, I feel sorry for Gordon. No matter how well he does this year, he won't win with many fans because of his contract. Jazz have 13 guys who all merit minutes. I think we'll be like SA where NO one in the regular season played more than 30 mins and the highest scorer came in at <17/per. Which would mean this board will be full of posts hating on Hayward for not averaging 20/10/5 as a "max player" and fire DL threads.
Click to expand...

I won't go as far as fire Lindsey. However max contracts should make GM's jobs fairly easy. Numbers aside because that is largely impacted by things like play style and pace. Just the overall impact of a max player is easy to see. If that guy doesn't have that ability to consistently have game winning impacts he's not worth the max and if another franchise is willing to make a bad decision you let them. In a salary cap league players contracts will always be an issue. Fans have every right to be critical of a player based on what he or she makes and not only the player themselves, but management whom thought said contract was a worthy investment.
 
da ThRONe said:
I won't go as far as fire Lindsey. However max contracts should make GM's jobs fairly easy. Numbers aside because that is largely impacted by things like play style and pace. Just the overall impact of a max player is easy to see. If that guy doesn't have that ability to consistently have game winning impacts he's not worth the max and if another franchise is willing to make a bad decision you let them. In a salary cap league players contracts will always be an issue. Fans have every right to be critical of a player based on what he or she makes and not only the player themselves, but management whom thought said contract was a worthy investment.
Click to expand...
Players are assets. Jazz have Gordon for 3 years. I have no doubt he'll opt out after year #3 in order to seek a much bigger contract as a 7 yr player.
Year 1: money had to be spent or paid out as "bonuses" to guys on roster if Utah was under the floor. Who else is on the market, Monroe? Bledsoe?
Year 2: next summer a spot can be cleared for almost anyone prior to matching or signing for Kanter/Burks (if the Jazz want to keep one or both).
Year 3: At worst, Utah may be handcuffed for one season by Hayward's contract. But last I saw, guys like Lebron, 'Melo and Kobe weren't breaking down doors trying to play for Utah. Or, as an expiring contract or in a Kevin-Love type situation where a team wants to acquire him and he promises to either not opt out or extend, he'd have good trade value.

The alternative option was to let him go to Charlotte and get NOTHING in return.
 
Core4 said:
Players are assets. Jazz have Gordon for 3 years. I have no doubt he'll opt out after year #3 in order to seek a much bigger contract as a 7 yr player.
Year 1: money had to be spent or paid out as "bonuses" to guys on roster if Utah was under the floor. Who else is on the market, Monroe? Bledsoe?
Year 2: next summer a spot can be cleared for almost anyone prior to matching or signing for Kanter/Burks (if the Jazz want to keep one or both).
Year 3: At worst, Utah may be handcuffed for one season by Hayward's contract. But last I saw, guys like Lebron, 'Melo and Kobe weren't breaking down doors trying to play for Utah. Or, as an expiring contract or in a Kevin-Love type situation where a team wants to acquire him and he promises to either not opt out or extend, he'd have good trade value.

The alternative option was to let him go to Charlotte and get NOTHING in return.
Click to expand...

1st mistake is assuming Hayward will opt out in 3 years. By the end of this contract 17 million may be several times more than what Hayward could get in the open market.

Next this is assuming you can predict what all your players will become or command when they hit the open market. People here love Burks what if he develops into a all-star/all-nba player(which isn't a huge stretch when you consider there aren't many marquee 2 guards in the league). Certainly he will demand a max contract if he anything near that level.

As far as what's available sure only Monroe and Bledsoe are what's left this year (and I'm sure most Jazz fans would want both), but you don't know how the landscape will look next off season or the one after that so game planning is completely futile. So instead of just saying "Why not we have the cap space" management should be making wise decisions. Giving max money to complementary players isn't a wise choice. That all you can control as a GM.
 
Core4 said:
Players are assets. Jazz have Gordon for 3 years. I have no doubt he'll opt out after year #3 in order to seek a much bigger contract as a 7 yr player.
Year 1: money had to be spent or paid out as "bonuses" to guys on roster if Utah was under the floor. Who else is on the market, Monroe? Bledsoe?
Year 2: next summer a spot can be cleared for almost anyone prior to matching or signing for Kanter/Burks (if the Jazz want to keep one or both).
Year 3: At worst, Utah may be handcuffed for one season by Hayward's contract. But last I saw, guys like Lebron, 'Melo and Kobe weren't breaking down doors trying to play for Utah. Or, as an expiring contract or in a Kevin-Love type situation where a team wants to acquire him and he promises to either not opt out or extend, he'd have good trade value.

The alternative option was to let him go to Charlotte and get NOTHING in return.
Click to expand...

No the alternative was to up the first offer if the difference wasn't much or trade his butt before he becomes a free agent because you know he wants the max and you should also know he isn't worth it. Once he got on the open market, the Jazz lost their ability to negotiate besides leaving the decision up to some knucklehead organization to give him the max. The Jazz also had the ability to match which in my opinion was stupid. However, it allowed the Jazz front office to save some dignity since they screwed up the initial offer/negotiations.
 
da ThRONe said:
I won't go as far as fire Lindsey. However max contracts should make GM's jobs fairly easy. Numbers aside because that is largely impacted by things like play style and pace. Just the overall impact of a max player is easy to see. If that guy doesn't have that ability to consistently have game winning impacts he's not worth the max and if another franchise is willing to make a bad decision you let them. In a salary cap league players contracts will always be an issue. Fans have every right to be critical of a player based on what he or she makes and not only the player themselves, but management whom thought said contract was a worthy investment.
Click to expand...

IAWTP

Paying Hayward the max, whether that max was offered by another team or by us, is not a very good idea.
 
da ThRONe said:
1st mistake is assuming Hayward will opt out in 3 years. By the end of this contract 17 million may be several times more than what Hayward could get in the open market.

Next this is assuming you can predict what all your players will become or command when they hit the open market. People here love Burks what if he develops into a all-star/all-nba player(which isn't a huge stretch when you consider there aren't many marquee 2 guards in the league). Certainly he will demand a max contract if he anything near that level.

As far as what's available sure only Monroe and Bledsoe are what's left this year (and I'm sure most Jazz fans would want both), but you don't know how the landscape will look next off season or the one after that so game planning is completely futile. So instead of just saying "Why not we have the cap space" management should be making wise decisions. Giving max money to complementary players isn't a wise choice. That all you can control as a GM.
Click to expand...

What if Burks takes a step back this year and ends up getting CJ Miles money? What if Kanter shows he can't hit the three, pass or protect the rim and ends up signing with LA on a 3 year 12 million deal?
 
green said:
What if Burks takes a step back this year and ends up getting CJ Miles money? What if Kanter shows he can't hit the three, pass or protect the rim and ends up signing with LA on a 3 year 12 million deal?
Click to expand...

None of those things make giving Hayward the max a good idea. Even if Burks and Kanter fail to develop unless Favors, Burke, Exum, Hood, or some addition to the team whether it's via the draft, trade, or free agency can become a star player than as the GM you likely won't last longer than Hayward contract.
 
da ThRONe said:
None of those things make giving Hayward the max a good idea. Even if Burks and Kanter fail to develop unless Favors, Burke, Exum, Hood, or some addition to the team whether it's via the draft, trade, or free agency can become a star player than as the GM you likely won't last longer than Hayward contract.
Click to expand...

First off, if you let Hayward walk, you have just fired yourself and Snyder, because you won't win many games the next two years.

Now, you decide to let Hayward walk. Then what do you do? Resign Jefferson, Marvin? Go after someone like Granger? How do you fill the SF position? Or do you let Hood be your starter and go after someone like Garcia to play SF?

If you go after Marvin, Jefferson or Granger, you are going to have to pay them close to 10 million on a 2-3 year deal. If you sign Marvin or Granger or Garcia, you will also need a backup SG as well. So, you have now spent 10-12 million to replace Hayward, when Hayward will cost you 14 this year. Is Granger/backup SG better at 12 then Hayward at 14? Nope.

If you go with Hood as your starting SF, you have essentially just fired Snyder and put yourself in the top 5 lottery again. You won't win with this lineup:

Burke
Burks
Hood/Jefferson/Marvin
Kanter
Favors

Who plays defense? Who passes the ball? Heck, who is your secondary ball handler? Letting Hayward walk for nothing sets you back three years as a franchise. Resigning Hayward MAY, might, maybe will hinder one year when it comes to salary cap scenarios. And no, I'm not worried about Burks or Kanter getting max deals, because they most likely won't, and if the do, I match the offer and have until February the next year to decide who to trade. No big deal.

Matching Hayward gives Snyder a good player to work with, keeps fans happy, keeps a guy you developed and lets you enjoy the fruits of your work, doesn't hurt you financially.

Letting Hayward walk doesn't help you at all. Is there even one positive for letting him walk? So you can tell your next employer, because you lose a ton of games the next two years, that you played hardball?
 
green said:
If you go after Marvin, Jefferson or Granger, you are going to have to pay them close to 10 million on a 2-3 year deal.
Click to expand...
eh? The three of them combined will make about $10mm this coming season, and none of their contracts extend beyond 2 years.
 
freakazoid said:
I'm guessing it would have been somewhat negative if Scotty had been paid more than the best player on the team.
Click to expand...

Who on the Jazz has been better over the last couple of seasons? His floor was going to be Favors' contract.
Lindsey was simply hoping Hayward would end up like Bledsoe - that the threat of matching ANY offer would discourage one from being made. He gambled; he lost.
On the other hand, imagine the outrage on this board and in the media had DL given in to Hayward's demands last summer. Everyone would have slammed Lindsey for giving Gordon $12M/per, saying he could have been signed for less as a free agent.
 
GVC said:
eh? The three of them combined will make about $10mm this coming season, and none of their contracts extend beyond 2 years.
Click to expand...

Marvin will make 14 the next two years. Granger and Jefferson are both low (2 and 1 million) but I doubt Utah gets either of those players for that low of a deal. Utah had to overpay Booker to come here.

My point still stands. Even if you pay them 5 per to come here, you have signed your death warrant as a GM and Snyder's as a coach. They will get worse the next 2-3 years, you probably won't get a star FA to come here, you can't trade them for an all-star (while with Hayward you potentially could if the right scenario came along), and you have put yourself into the top 5 pick again and another really, really young player that will develop after you've been fired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top