Real GM: the case for Dante Exum

[Jazz4ever]

I agree with you, I just don't think it's the right decision. Why risk giving him the choice to walk out the door & then have to try to get someone of similar talent to walk through the door (which I agree is highly unlikely), when you can control the outcome (to a certain extent)? Obviously you take the risk of not receiving equal value in return if you trade him, but imo that's less of a risk than potentially losing him for nothing. By signing that offer sheet from CHA, he proved that him leaving via FA is a possibility. Losing him for nothing just as we are becoming legitimate contenders could potentially put us in a position in which we are good enough that we're unable to acquire the talent to replace him via the draft (or FA) but not good enough to actually win a championship. A small-market franchise such as this one shouldn't take that type of risk when it doesn't have to.

And then you heighten the risk losing Favors the next year because your team takes a 10 win drop in the standings, and he thinks your going in the wrong direction.
The Jazz just need to get really good these next two years and it will be that much harder for Hayward to walk away.

 

[karl malone]

And then you heighten the risk losing Favors the next year because your team takes a 10 win drop in the standings, and he thinks your going in the wrong direction.
The Jazz just need to get really good these next two years and it will be that much harder for Hayward to walk away.

Agreed, just don't see that happening within 2 years with Exum (or Burke) as our starting PG. I don't see it happening, but personally, I believe that we should either trade Hayward for long-term assets or Exum for short-term assets. I'd be more comfortable having the extra year to convince Favors (who I believe is more convincable) & trading Hayward for prospects/draft picks. If I had to bet though, I'd assume we do neither, keep both Hayward & Exum, & hope that we are able to become competitive enough, quick enough, to retain Hayward. I think it's clear that we intend to attempt to retain our entire core, I just think it's a major risk (& one that I personally wouldn't take).

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Agreed, just don't see that happening within 2 years with Exum (or Burke) as our starting PG. I don't see it happening, but personally, I believe that we should either trade Hayward for long-term assets or Exum for short-term assets. I'd be more comfortable having the extra year to convince Favors (who I believe is more convincable) & trading Hayward for prospects/draft picks. If I had to bet though, I'd assume we do neither, keep both Hayward & Exum, & hope that we are able to become competitive enough, quick enough, to retain Hayward. I think it's clear that we intend to attempt to retain our entire core, I just think it's a major risk (& one that I personally wouldn't take).

I think your idea is the bigger risk. No doubt that the timing of all of this is a big challenge, and it cannot be denied that Hayward is willing to look elsewhere, but circumstances will be different the next time Hayward goes into free agency and there are reasons to believe he would be interested in coming back. I'm sure the Jazz will be doing their best to predict (and influence) his mindset.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Agreed, just don't see that happening within 2 years with Exum (or Burke) as our starting PG. I don't see it happening, but personally, I believe that we should either trade Hayward for long-term assets or Exum for short-term assets. I'd be more comfortable having the extra year to convince Favors (who I believe is more convincable) & trading Hayward for prospects/draft picks. If I had to bet though, I'd assume we do neither, keep both Hayward & Exum, & hope that we are able to become competitive enough, quick enough, to retain Hayward. I think it's clear that we intend to attempt to retain our entire core, I just think it's a major risk (& one that I personally wouldn't take).

While I have doubts Hayward will return (or that he's worth $30M if he asks for that much), there's not a chance in hell I'm trading him. It sends the wrong message to the team to get back picks or lesser players in return. What we don't need is quantity: we have that. And Exum? Don't care if he takes a few more years to develop. We'll have him and Gobert under our control for their next contracts as RFA's.

I'd be ok with Lindsey saying he has to consider the entire team if/when Hayward gets his $30M from someone else. Teams are going to be spending like drunken sailors the next two seasons. Maybe if Hayward leaves, we can get a decent player for $15M. I think Hood will be a pretty adequate replacement for Gordon and Burks can be the other starter, leaving us in need of a third wing. Perhaps we even get one in the draft or via trade.

 

[karl malone]

I just don't see how a team that has difficulty signing high-level FA's can or should risk losing one of it's most valuable assets for nothing, & there's also no way I'm paying Hayward 30 mil under any circumstance. I understand not wanting to send the team the wrong message, but with everyone (besides Hayward) locked in for at least 3 years, I don't see it as a reason to not make the right long-term decision. In the end, I'm sure that we'll attempt to retain everyone & hope it's enough to win a championship. I just don't think it will be, especially if we're paying someone who essentially should be the 3rd best player on a championship caliber team 1/4 of our payroll. I don't blame everyone for not wanting to trade Hayward, as we're close to becoming a playoff caliber team, I just think that losing him for nothing/retaining him for 30 mil will ultimately keep us from being a championship caliber team.

 

[Stifle Tower]

^
So we become the Clippers of old who traded their players just as they became pretty good? Or the 76'ers? When are they going to start keeping their "veterans."

Can we get equal value back by trading Hayward? No. A team is not going to give us a player of equal caliber. They might offer a couple of solid rotation players and/or protected picks. If you place any credence in the way Utah finished the season, you probably see Utah winning close to 50 games and likely making the playoffs. Year after, they should be in the mix for home court advantage. Even if Hayward DOES leave, that shows other FA's Utah is on the rise.

Trade him and Utah takes a step back. And likely pisses off Favors and Gobert who want to win now. Hayward takes a $30M offer somewhere else, the rest of the team wishes him well and understands why DL doesn't match.

 

[Hotdog]

I just don't see how a team that has difficulty signing high-level FA's can or should risk losing one of it's most valuable assets for nothing, & there's also no way I'm paying Hayward 30 mil under any circumstances. I understand not wanting to send the team the wrong message, but with everyone (besides Hayward) locked in for at least 3 years, I don't see it as a reason to not make the right long-term decision. In the end, I'm sure that we'll attempt to retain everyone & hope it's enough to win a championship. I just don't think it will be, especially if we're paying someone who essentially should be the 3rd best player on a championship caliber team 1/4 of our payroll. I don't blame everyone for not wanting to trade Hayward, as we're close to becoming a playoff caliber team, I just think that losing him for nothing/retaining him for 30 mil will ultimately keep us from being a championship caliber team.

The key part of your argument is what are we trading him for?? If we can't get back a player as good or better then what's the point? And it's too early to do it too. We can wait til the final year and still get something back if we think he's bailing.

Hayward is pretty damn good. I'm not trading him unless we get back a stud.

I bet he stays anyways. He's gonna be on a really good team with Gobert and Favors.

You can pretty much only have a big 3 anyways maxed out, then put replaceable cheap pieces around that.

 

[Doublea]

How much will Hayward's max be when he's up for a new deal? I don't think it's 30 million. Teams have to overpay to keep their guys. It also tells them they are wanted here and that they believe in them. We just need to hope that the millers will be willing to pay luxury tax when the time comes.

 

[Stifle Tower]

You can pretty much only have a big 3 anyways maxed out, then put replaceable cheap pieces around that.

And that's the argument for trading him (which I'm not advocating right now). As you said, Hayward is pretty damn good. But he's not a superstar; he's a fringe all-star making max money. Can Utah AFFORD to have him as a $30M player. Gobert likely is $30M too. I assume Favors comes in at 20 something, which is where Exum may land. So those 4, with cheap pieces around them...will they ever contend? I don't see it. Utah needs depth because they don't have superstars. Even Gobert right now isn't a superstar; he lacks an offensive game. Only way for the the Jazz to contend is have great depth all the way to the 8th/9th player in the rotation. We're close. I think we have that at the wings (Hayward, Burks and Hood) and perhaps at the 4/5 if Lyles or Pleiss develops. Resolve the PG spots and bake the cake. And then keep the team together.

 

[karl malone]

I was clear that I'd only trade Hayward in the right deal. I see his trade market as being much better than what you've described, but I may be wrong. I just don't believe Hayward will re-sign with us unless we give him a maximum contract, which I don't believe he is worth. I understand not wanting to upset our players, but I doubt Exum, Hood, or Gobert refuse long-term contracts in order to become UFA's, & both of Burks & Favors are under contract for 3 years (which would be enough time to develop whatever assets we were to receive in return for Hayward). I don't see how trading Hayward would make us the Clippers of old or the 76ers of current. I agree that there comes a point in time in which you must commit to your core players, I just believe that you have to be careful about which players you commit to & how much you commit to them. If you can't get a potential star in return for Hayward (+ additional assets if necessary), then you hang on to him & hope he is willing to accept a reasonable contract in order to remain with (what is hopefully by then) a potential championship contending team. I think we may view our current projected timeline differently though. I see us as a slightly above .500 team (44-46 wins) next year & a 50+ win team the year after. In a difficult Western Conference, that likely won't be enough to convince Hayward to take a pay cut. Unless you're committed to keep Hayward no matter what (which is likely around 30 mil), it makes sense to begin the process as soon as possible. I was extremely encouraged by the way we finished the season, but it was still too small of a sample size to assume that it will carry over to next season.

 

[Stifle Tower]

So essentially adding Burks and Hood and factoring in internal improvement from especially Exum and Gobert, but also from the rest only improves our win total by 6-8 games? To me, that represents significant failure and a few players would need to be traded.

 

[Hotdog]

I was clear that I'd only trade Hayward in the right deal. I see his trade market as being much better than what you've described, but I may be wrong. I just don't believe Hayward will re-sign with us unless we give him a maximum contract, which I don't believe he is worth. I understand not wanting to upset our players, but I doubt Exum, Hood, or Gobert refuse long-term contracts in order to become UFA's, & both of Burks & Favors are under contract for 3 years (which would be enough time to develop whatever assets we were to receive in return for Hayward). I don't see how trading Hayward would make us the Clippers of old or the 76ers of current. I agree that there comes a point in time in which you must commit to your core players, I just believe that you have to be careful about which players you commit to & how much you commit to them. If you can't get a potential star in return for Hayward (+ additional assets if necessary), then you hang on to him & hope he is willing to accept a reasonable contract in order to remain with (what is hopefully by then) a potential championship contending team. I think we may view our current projected timeline differently though. I see us as a slightly above .500 team (44-46 wins) next year & a 50+ win team the year after. In a difficult Western Conference, that likely won't be enough to convince Hayward to take a pay cut. Unless you're committed to keep Hayward no matter what (which is likely around 30 mil), it makes sense to begin the process as soon as possible. I was extremely encouraged by the way we finished the season, but it was still too small of a sample size to assume that it will carry over to next season.

Well tell us who you would target to trade him for.

Warning - flames from every direction most likely.