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

[stitches]

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...

 

[idiot]

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

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]

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...

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]

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?

And neither one of those guys got max deals. So what is your point?

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

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

No bench -- a bit like Portland the year before. The team was gutted to tank. Also, the key players are still quite young.

 

[stitches]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[stitches]

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.

 

[idiot]

And neither one of those guys got max deals. So what is your point?

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.

 

[Hantlers]

Is Hayward overpaid? Yes.

Do I care enough to argue about it? No.

Y'all need to shut up and just enjoy basketball, damn.

 

[da ThRONe]

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.

 

[fishonjazz]

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.

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