What's new
By:

Real GM: the case for Dante Exum

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.
 
Last edited:
^
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.
 
karl malone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Hack said:
You can pretty much only have a big 3 anyways maxed out, then put replaceable cheap pieces around that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
karl malone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Warning - flames from every direction most likely.
 
I think they need to change the salary structure pay scales.

Make it so guys like Lebron can earn a lot more, and guys like Hayward don't get 30 mil a year.

Something like, if you make first or 2nd team All NBA, then you get a lot more. Dont, then your max deals can only be like 15% of the cap. 1st team can be 40%, 2nd team 30%

Something like that would solve a lot of problems. Lebron would suck up a lot of his teams cap, and he couldn't recruit two other 1st teamers. And then Hayward couldn't ruin your team because he's making too much for his talents worth.

It would just have to be that, your salary can adjust year by year.
 
Last edited:
Agreed with what you said regarding contracts. As far as potential trades, it would be difficult (& timely) to come up with specific scenarios. Personally, I would target potentially elite scorers & draft picks. It's unlikely that we would find a deal worth making, I'm just saying that it should be explored. I don't blame people for disagreeing as it's a major risk, I just think that a small-market franchise not being in control of retaining a likely irreplaceable asset is an even bigger risk.
 
Stifle Tower said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do understand that enes kanter now makes more than hayward, right? He is not making the max. It is a max contract, but his deal is considered a bargain by everyone in the league right now.
 
b_line said:
You do understand that enes kanter now makes more than hayward, right? He is not making the max. It is a max contract, but his deal is considered a bargain by everyone in the league right now.
Click to expand...
I think stifle was talking about Haywards next contract being 30 million per year and not thinking Hayward is worth that much.
 
fishonjazz said:
I think stifle was talking about Haywards next contract being 30 million per year and not thinking Hayward is worth that much.
Click to expand...

OK. Makes sense. But Hayward is not eligible for the full max until he has been in the league ten years so it won't be 30 million a year, probably more like 25 mil, and the cap will be over 100 mil.
 
Hack said:
I think they need to change the salary structure pay scales.

Make it so guys like Lebron can earn a lot more, and guys like Hayward don't get 30 mil a year.

Something like, if you make first or 2nd team All NBA, then you get a lot more. Dont, then your max deals can only be like 15% of the cap. 1st team can be 40%, 2nd team 30%

Something like that would solve a lot of problems. Lebron would suck up a lot of his teams cap, and he couldn't recruit two other 1st teamers. And then Hayward couldn't ruin your team because he's making too much for his talents worth.

It would just have to be that, your salary can adjust year by year.
Click to expand...
Yes, increasing max contracts is the number one thing the league could do to increase parity.
 
Hack said:
I think they need to change the salary structure pay scales.

Make it so guys like Lebron can earn a lot more, and guys like Hayward don't get 30 mil a year.

Something like, if you make first or 2nd team All NBA, then you get a lot more. Dont, then your max deals can only be like 15% of the cap. 1st team can be 40%, 2nd team 30%

Something like that would solve a lot of problems. Lebron would suck up a lot of his teams cap, and he couldn't recruit two other 1st teamers. And then Hayward couldn't ruin your team because he's making too much for his talents worth.

It would just have to be that, your salary can adjust year by year.
Click to expand...

So you want a system that greatly rewards players who gets stats? That would just lead to players being more selfish and trying to make that cut to get the maximum pay-scale.
 
There should be no cap at all.

Just let teams spend what they want. That would probably make for the most fair contracts around the league.
 
Cy said:
There should be no cap at all.

Just let teams spend what they want. That would probably make for the most fair contracts around the league.
Click to expand...
This would be a perfect solution if you want to see the same teams dominate every year. If you are in a small market and enjoy losing you would also love this system.
 
Cy said:
There should be no cap at all.

Just let teams spend what they want. That would probably make for the most fair contracts around the league.
Click to expand...

Or have a cap, but no max salary. That's what the NFL does, isn't it?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
This would be a perfect solution if you want to see the same teams dominate every year. If you are in a small market and enjoy losing you would also love this system.
Click to expand...

Maybe, or maybe all the stars would make ridiculous amounts of money which would allow others to build deeper teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top