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

[fishonjazz]

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.

IAWTP

Paying Hayward the max, whether that max was offered by another team or by us, is not a very good idea.

 

[green]

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.

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?

 

[da ThRONe]

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?

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.

 

[green]

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.

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?

 

[freakazoid]

I wonder what his evaluation of Scottie Pippen would have been.

I'm guessing it would have been somewhat negative if Scotty had been paid more than the best player on the team.

 

[GVC]

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.

eh? The three of them combined will make about $10mm this coming season, and none of their contracts extend beyond 2 years.

 

[Stifle Tower]

I'm guessing it would have been somewhat negative if Scotty had been paid more than the best player on the team.

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.

 

[green]

eh? The three of them combined will make about $10mm this coming season, and none of their contracts extend beyond 2 years.

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.

 

[fishonjazz]

eh? The three of them combined will make about $10mm this coming season, and none of their contracts extend beyond 2 years.

Pwnd

 

[Stifle Tower]

Pwnd

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]

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.

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]

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?

If Hayward was such a difference maker why were you guys the worst team in the West?