fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Quick quotes from Bobby Gonzalez about two Jazz players with team US practices.
- Thread starter da ThRONe
- Start date
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
How so?
Richard Jefferson: "Among small forwards playing in more than 15 games and 15 minutes per game, he ranked dead last in defensive efficiency."
Danny Granger: "...knee problems and several surgeries have slowed Granger down in recent years. The one-time All-Star has played in just 46 games since the conclusion of the 2011-12 season because of health problems."
I would HOPE those guys are getting paid league minimum. Do you really want either as even a backup? Give me the best D-League SF and I'd gladly insert him for 15 minutes over those washed up vets.
AS for Marvin, yes, I suppose you could argue for $7M he might give the Jazz serviceable play. In 25 mins, he averaged 9 pts on 44%/36% shooting. Decent rebounder, but doesn't facilitate (1 assist/game).
Sure, if you believe last season was reflective of how Hayward's career will now go, then it was a terrible signing. On the other hand, if you believe it was an aberration due to a crappy coach with no offensive system; if you believe as Coach K, that Hayward is one of the better US players in the NBA, and you believe 16/5/5 wasn't too bad given all that happened last season, then Gordon just might live up to a large part of that contract.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
He proposed how much money a team would have to pay for those players and GVC stated how much they are actually getting paid and the numbers were not even close....... hence pwnd.
(GVC also mentioned that they are on short contracts)
da ThRONe
Active Member
If Hayward was such a difference maker why were you guys the worst team in the West?
He's a difference maker between winning 15-17 games and winning 25, not a difference maker between winning 15 and 40. Very few players are difference makers of that sort. Even Carmelo couldn't pull it off last season. You actually have to have some talent surrounding you on the floor and the coaching staff to actually trust that talent instead of starting way past his prime veterans like Jefferson.
Starting Jefferson at this stage of his career can be a difference maker in the negative...
2011-12: Kevin Love, 23 years old, best player a team that finished last in their division; Stephen Curry, 23 years old, 3rd best player on a team that finished even behind Love's team in the final standings. And your point about the season of the 23-year old Hayward is what?
da ThRONe
Active Member
My comment wasn't meant to be in insult to Hayward. However max contracts should be reserved for players that are the difference makers of 15-40 games variety.
da ThRONe
Active Member
And neither one of those guys got max deals. So what is your point?
No bench -- a bit like Portland the year before. The team was gutted to tank. Also, the key players are still quite young.
That's your opinion. But then again, you'd probably have about 5 players on max contract in the entire league. No single player can deliver you 40 wins by himself. If you'd put Carmelo on the last year's Jazz roster instead of Hayward, he wouldn't have made us 40 wins team. Neither would have Love. Neither would have the huge majority of max deal players currently in the league. Youth, lack of experience, lack of talent, complete lack of direction by the coaching staff... those are all reasons why we were as bad last season. Not just Hayward. Even though basketball is one of the sports where individual players matter the most, it is still a team sport and you still have a single player usually playing about 36MPG, while the whole rest of the roster has 204MPG on the floor. I don't know if you realize how much you are asking from a player to single handedly turn you from a 15 wins team to 40+ wins team without having considerable help from the rest of the team.
And just so you don't get it mixed up - I don't think Hayward is currently worth a max deal, I do think he's overpaid, but I do think that in the right system and with the right coaching he can actually improve close to deserving that contract. The question is not if he deserved that contract with his play, he obviously didn't and I don't think many would argue with that. The question is, having in mind the current situation with the Jazz, when it comes to current and long-term finances, the market that we have, the roster, etc. did it make sense to keep him, even if we had to overpay, or would we be better off to let the Hornets overpay him. For me, the answer to this one is unequivocal - yes, it made great sense to keep him and I am happy that we kept him instead of letting him go.
da ThRONe
Active Member
The biggest problem with the coaching staff last year was the fact that they tried to use Hayward as a number one option. He isn't even a number one option. If we are going not label guys as 25win difference maker at least those players should be able to have quality numbers as a number 1 options. While Hayward complied some raw stats that is showed his all around game he was insanely inefficient and the team lost a lot of games.
If you think Hayward can/will get significantly better and live up to his max deal that's one thing. Saying that anything he's done thus far has warranted is a mistake IMO of course.
I agree, I don't think Hayward should be a number 1 option in the long-term. The reason he was last season is simple - we didn't have anyone better for that role. And we probably won't have anyone better this season either, unless Burks makes a huge jump. But I do think he's worth keeping for the price and again, having in mind the salary cap situation right now and what it's projected to be in a couple of seasons. By then I am hoping that we've found our number 1 option(maybe Exum develops into a beast, maybe we luck out next season and draft Okafor). Hayward to me is the prime example for a player you shouldn't think of as number "x" option. He does so many things that it is really hard to realistically evaluate his contributions by looking at his scoring. He might be a third option (when it comes to finishing), but also be in the top 3 players on the team for pretty much every other metric - assists(possibly second behind whoever is the starting point guard), rebounds(probably 3d behind the C and PF), steals(might be in the running for first here)... he just does everything, you don't usually get "third options" that do as much as Hayward does.
Unless Shamsports info is wrong, Love was a max deal. It was a max for a four-year deal, but not for a 5-year deal (the Wolves, perhaps foolishly, decided not to give him that). For different reasons, Hayward's is also a max 4-year deal, rather than the max-5 that the Jazz could have given him.
But that's not the point. The point is that we can't tell by, by how well his team did when he was a 23-year old player, how valuable a player will be throughout their next contract, which is what you seemed to be implying we could do when you pointed to the Jazz's poor record. Who would disagree now, that both Curry and Love deserve the max in their current contracts (whether they have them or not), despite being on poor teams (and in Curry's case not even being the top player) when they were 23?
Nobody thinks Hayward "deserves" the salary he's getting based on his past production. But it's an entirely open question as to whether he'll live up to that salary in the coming years.
da ThRONe
Active Member
I'll just say this as a Pelicans fan I remember people calling me crazy and a troll because I thought it was wrong not to trade Gordon when he refused to sign going into RFA. Then they mocked me for saying how it was the a terrible decision to match the Suns max offer to Eric Gordon. We had plenty cap space and he was the center piece of the Chris Paul trade. Fast forward 2 years and our fan base would tell you Eric Gordon contract is the biggest thing that is holding the franchise back.
Hayward at best has shown he's a third wheel on a quality team. Most of what Hayward gives a team could be match for a fraction of the price. You may be able to get away with winning big while paying Hayward the max if you have a Shaq and Kobe type "Batman and Robin" situation. When you can't secure that level of talent at the top then franchises have to really be cost conscious about how they spend their cap space or those franchises will more than likely remain at the bottom of the standings.
Hayward at best has shown he's a third wheel on a quality team. Most of what Hayward gives a team could be match for a fraction of the price. You may be able to get away with winning big while paying Hayward the max if you have a Shaq and Kobe type "Batman and Robin" situation. When you can't secure that level of talent at the top then franchises have to really be cost conscious about how they spend their cap space or those franchises will more than likely remain at the bottom of the standings.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Yes we did. Look at Alec Burks numbers during the five game stretch in January where Gordon was hurt. Burks numbers were better than Haywards and MUCH more efficient
Even when Hayward was healthy and Burks was coming off the bench Alec was a better number one option. (Still put up similar numbers to Hayward with much better efficiency)
Not saying Burks was the better player btw but he was the better guy to have as your number one option
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
It sucks that now that Hayward got that max deal he will probably be put into the number one option role again next year.
QuinSnydersHair
Well-Known Member
I find this to be nonsense. Burks has more of the makeup that we see in number ones than Hayward IMO. Burks attacks and is fearless. Hayward tries to attack and sucks at it and is a scared bitch. I like neither one more than the other but to say we didn't have anyone better last season and Burks would have to make a huge jump this season is just nonsense to me. That is all based on perception, not the reality of how they play and perform.
seattlejazzfan
Well-Known Member
Yep. Burks has both the personality and skill set of a #1. Whether he is talented enough to be an efficient #1 offensive option is the question.
Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2