What's new
By:

rules and precedent for signing-and-trading RFAs

[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]

[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]

Well-Known Member
I apologize if this discussion has happened elsewhere; if it has, I can't find it. Besides, with the numbers being thrown around with regards to Hayward, this topic deserves it's own thread.

What are the rules for signing-and-trading RFAs?

What is the history of teams taking this route?
(I remember Joe Johnson's exit from PHX included some picks or something...)
 
The new CBA limits teams from going above the apron in s-n-t deals. Hayward is not going to a contender.
 
Let me just take this space to say, again, like almost all of you have: THE MONEY BEING DISCUSSED FOR A MENTALLY WEAK HAYWARD IS ABSOLUTELY BAT **** CRAZAY BRAUGHS. NUTSO.

Sign Bazemore, S&T Hayward, and roll with the cap space.
 
Key change in this CBA: In the 2005 CBA, an S&T could be for the length of an own team free agent, with own team free agent raises. That is, the extra year and bigger raises could be given. This is no longer the case; Gordo can only be S&T'd for 4 years, with 4.5% raises.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];862706 said:
Let me just take this space to say, again, like almost all of you have: THE MONEY BEING DISCUSSED FOR A MENTALLY WEAK HAYWARD IS ABSOLUTELY BAT **** CRAZAY BRAUGHS. NUTSO.

Sign Bazemore, S&T Hayward, and roll with the cap space.
Click to expand...

I agree... If teams really are going to give him what is being rumored. If a team wants Hayward bad enough to sign him for 63M and give up picks or other assets to get him, I say siyonara Hayward. That is a ton to give for GH. I really think the Jazz have more leverage than people realize.
 
Mongoose said:
I agree... If teams really are going to give him what is being rumored. If a team wants Hayward bad enough to sign him for 63M and give up picks or other assets to get him, I say siyonara Hayward. That is a ton to give for GH. I really think the Jazz have more leverage than people realize.
Click to expand...

would you mind spelling out the leverage you see?

I see very little leverage. For example:

1) Internally, the Jazz set their max number for Hayward at $10mm, and they commit to S&T Hayward at anything over that number
2) A team comes along (let's say it's Cleveland) and offers Gordon $14mm, and refuse to entertain any S&T options. Basically, they call our bluff
3) At this point the jazz have what, exactly?

I have a harder time imagining this particular negotiation than any other. The jazz would need to have wicked good intel on the market for Hayward... every last suitor. If the Cavs refuse to play S&T games, could the jazz turn around and trade Hayward to another known suitor at that number?

This isn't an easy process.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];862733 said:
would you mind spelling out the leverage you see?

I see very little leverage. For example:

1) Internally, the Jazz set their max number for Hayward at $10mm, and they commit to S&T Hayward at anything over that number
2) A team comes along (let's say it's Cleveland) and offers Gordon $14mm, and refuse to entertain any S&T options. Basically, they call our bluff
3) At this point the jazz have what, exactly?

I have a harder time imagining this particular negotiation than any other. The jazz would need to have wicked good intel on the market for Hayward... every last suitor. If the Cavs refuse to play S&T games, could the jazz turn around and trade Hayward to another known suitor at that number?

This isn't an easy process.
Click to expand...

Obviously teams have to be willing to do business.... If a team wants to get Hayward at 12M or 13M, it's a bit much, but I don't think it is a horrible contract. I believe the Jazz have the leverage from about 10M-14M. A good business man may be willing to give the Jazz some assets to get Hayward for somewhere between 10M-14M. Sure if a team just wants to say, "We're just gonna throw the max at Hayward, we don't want to do business with the Jazz", then they have the right to do that. It's still a gamble, because the Jazz could still match and you have already told them you aren't negotiating. Seems like poor business to me... Gamble on the player, overpay the player, gamble on the jazz matching, and refuse to negotiate. If you were willing to negotiate with the Jazz you could give up some assets and possibly get the player you want for 12M-13M... No matter what another team has to be willing to give up quite a bit to get Hayward.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];862706 said:
Let me just take this space to say, again, like almost all of you have: THE MONEY BEING DISCUSSED FOR A MENTALLY WEAK HAYWARD IS ABSOLUTELY BAT **** CRAZAY BRAUGHS. NUTSO.

Sign Bazemore, S&T Hayward, and roll with the cap space.
Click to expand...

*Batum **** crazy
 
Jeffrey32 said:
If cavs offer max, jazz should add a 5th year and reduce the annual


Sent from the JazzFanz app
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they have to match the offer from Cleveland? I think they could only do that if Hayward showed them the offer, but didn't sign the offer sheet. Would require some cooperation from his agent.
 
This isn't a question about a S&T for a RFA as much as it is about RFA's in general. My question is, how many days do teams have to make an offer to RFA's, in this case Hayward, before we can make one ourselves? I can't imagine that if he hasn't received an offer for some ridiculous period of time (say 40 days), that we couldn't then extend one ourselves.

Anyone? I want to say teams have 10 days and by July 11th, if none have been extended, we can put an offer sheet together for him, but I may be way off here.
 
QuinSnydersHair said:
This isn't a question about a S&T for a RFA as much as it is about RFA's in general. My question is, how many days do teams have to make an offer to RFA's, in this case Hayward, before we can make one ourselves? I can't imagine that if he hasn't received an offer for some ridiculous period of time (say 40 days), that we couldn't then extend one ourselves.

Anyone? I want to say teams have 10 days and by July 11th, if none have been extended, we can put an offer sheet together for him, but I may be way off here.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they can negotiate with him now.

Sent from the JazzFanz app
 
QuinSnydersHair said:
And we can put an offer on the table for him? Why wait then? Would we be afraid that another team could then just make a slightly higher offer?
Click to expand...

Okay, I was just reading Larry Coon's info on RFA and this is what part of it says.

"To summarize, a restricted free agent essentially has five options:

*He can accept his prior team's qualifying offer, play for one season, and become a free agent again the following summer.
*He can accept his prior team's maximum qualifying offer (if applicable, and if one has been submitted) and play under a long-term contract at the maximum salary.
*He can negotiate a new contract with his prior team that is independent of the qualifying offer or maximum qualifying offer.
*He can sign an offer sheet with another team through March 1, which his prior team is given the opportunity to match.
*If he doesn't sign a qualifying offer, a contract, or an offer sheet for one year, his prior team can submit a new qualifying offer (or maximum qualifying offer), and the player becomes a restricted free agent again the following offseason."

So, I believe a new suitor can only offer him a four year deal and we can offer him a five year one. If this is true, based on #3 above, could we not offer Hayward something like 5 years, 66M (13.25 per), with the salaries going down year over year as much as the CBA allows so it hurts us less later down the line? This would be 6M more than even a 4/60 some team may offer him and quite frankly rich enough to where he might just sign today and yet not so rich that it would kill us financially, especially if the cap goes up as much as has been mentioned the next few years and it's frontloaded? Paying somewhere around 11.5M (random guess) for him five years from now will be quite reasonable with a potential (based on posts on this site) 80-100M cap.
 
The 5/66 seems like one of those "both sides are unhappy" situations in a negotiation, whereby both parties have met perhaps halfway. Then again, maybe DL knows all and feels we can get him at 5/50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top