This site has jumped the tuna fish by turning on Hayward
- Thread starter fallenchicken
- Start date
If a team is willing to pay it then he's not asking for too much.
The idea that $2 million per year doesn't matter is funny. Maybe some context is important: $2 million (ANNUALLY) is a big deal to a team up against or above the LT (which ANY [hopeful] contender HAVE to consider). Furthermore, the Jazz are looking at trying to keep as many above-MLE/below max worthy players as possible which is dangerous territory. Paying one guy $2 million more than you should creates leverage for other good-but-not-great Jazz players to do the same. That extra money also creates an inevitably increased expectation at the time of the next negotiation for a player.
Building a roster with championship contention in mind isn't ever easy, and it's much harder for a team that can't operate above the LT for more than a year at a time. The Spurs - for example - are able to keep their core and even add a few small pieces because their core have been underpaid.
Building a roster with championship contention in mind isn't ever easy, and it's much harder for a team that can't operate above the LT for more than a year at a time. The Spurs - for example - are able to keep their core and even add a few small pieces because their core have been underpaid.
Ya, actually 9% is not that big a deal in the NBA. Call it laughable, or look at all the contracts signed with this margin in mind... punch your calculator through the desk all you want building the optimal squad, but it's based on YOUR baseline and those assumptions only. The world is bigger than that.
What you're getting at IMO is overall teambuilding value, not specific player value. Hayward, Deng.... even Rudy ****ing Gay can be traded (twice). I also don't want to overpay for Hayward but it is nowhere near the killer that AK's or OST00's contracts were. Hayward will have Deng value, mark it down.
fallenchicken
Well-Known Member
Not saying everyone who wants to trade Hayward is irrational; there are other options to consider. But most of the threads/sentiments that have been popping up on this forum have had a bitterness/irrationality to them, usually regarding the fact that Hay didn't resign and the team is losing, and he's "the guy" on a losing team, therefore gets the blame.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
I love the irony/stupidity of NBA fans.
Without mentioning names, Id like to reference two players in this league. One took less money so he could have a shot at winning championships, while the other forced a trade in order to make the maximum amount of money believing he could still win championships. He could have played out his contract and still played for the team he wanted, but he would have lost a few drops out of his bucket, and God forbid he have to live with a little less bling in his life. Ironically, it's the guy who valued winning over money who is the most hated player in the league.
Which brings me to Gordan Hayward. I love the guy and I hope he is in a Jazz uni for years, but if it comes down to 12 mill a year, trade his *** and I hope the door hits him in the *** on the way out. Somebody a few posts ago suggested a few million here or there won't mean anything in the grande scheme of things. WRONG, WRONG AND WRONG. I suggest studying up on the new cba. It makes a HUGE difference, and overpaying a player by a few million could make the difference between a tradeable contract and one that isn't. Nothing would make me happier than for Gordo to blow up and prove me wrong, but right now I wouldn;t match anything over 10, and even then I'd be a little nervous. The new cba creates a situation where teams have to be very careful where they hand out the majority of their cap.
Without mentioning names, Id like to reference two players in this league. One took less money so he could have a shot at winning championships, while the other forced a trade in order to make the maximum amount of money believing he could still win championships. He could have played out his contract and still played for the team he wanted, but he would have lost a few drops out of his bucket, and God forbid he have to live with a little less bling in his life. Ironically, it's the guy who valued winning over money who is the most hated player in the league.
Which brings me to Gordan Hayward. I love the guy and I hope he is in a Jazz uni for years, but if it comes down to 12 mill a year, trade his *** and I hope the door hits him in the *** on the way out. Somebody a few posts ago suggested a few million here or there won't mean anything in the grande scheme of things. WRONG, WRONG AND WRONG. I suggest studying up on the new cba. It makes a HUGE difference, and overpaying a player by a few million could make the difference between a tradeable contract and one that isn't. Nothing would make me happier than for Gordo to blow up and prove me wrong, but right now I wouldn;t match anything over 10, and even then I'd be a little nervous. The new cba creates a situation where teams have to be very careful where they hand out the majority of their cap.
Fallen chicken? Chicken of the sea?
You're ****ing obsessed dude.
If the right deal comes along then you can trade Hayward (just like you'd trade anybody if the right offer came about). I don't think it will. Hayward is solid but I wish he could guard all big wings. Right now he can dominate 1's and 2's pretty well on both sides of the ball, but many 3's dominate him. I'd really like to keep him around tho. He is smart, a team guy, and a solid 2-way player.
While you make some fine points aren't you also making a few assumptions. Right now Burks and Kanter aren't near MAX guys but they still have another year before their contracts are up (I believe). Burks has been playing very well since Hayward got injured and Kanter just had a monster game against Detroit. Now consistency is still both an issue with these guys but if you end up giving Hayward the Max then you end up setting a bench mark for all the other players. If Burks out performs Hayward then you a problem on your hand. I agree that the Jazz will definitely have issues once the contracts of Trey, + our lottery pick 2014.
I am not very familiar with the CBA but I thought the salary cap was decreasing with this new deal or was that the percentage of revenue sharing. Besides a team is less likely to want to pay the luxury tax since the penalties are greater. You're still going to need to fill out the rest of the roster with players other players. The Core5 + top 5 pick + another first round pick. Is the rest of the roster going to be DL or cheap vets like John Lucas.
b_line
Well-Known Member
Kanter and burks can be extended this offseason. Let's say they sign Hayward to 12 per, so that makes Hayward and favors at 24, burks and kanter probably get like 7 mil each per year ( based on current play) add in treys 4 mil or so, and the other guys they have under contract ( Jeremy, gobert, maybe Neto next year) and that makes our salary total about $45 million before our draft picks. That would likely put us at about ten players, and about 50 million in salary. Locke said the salary cap was going up significantly in the next couple years, and is at just under 60 million right now. At 50 million, we can still sign a few players to decent contracts and be at or under the cap. The salary tax line is actually $71.7 million this year, so we would be well below that even if we signed another max player.
The point of this is that the jazz have way more flexibility than lots of us are giving them credit for.
Sent from the JazzFanz app
The Jazz can afford to go up to the LT line under the new CBA with the additional $11mm/year revenue sharing. They already could afford paying the cap comfortably; paying $71mm will now be just as comfortable.
Hayward $12mm
Favors $12mm
Kanter $10mm?
Burks $7mm
Burke $4mm
Rookie $6mm
That's $51mm in 2015/16. Where's the poison?
b_line
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Add in Gobert, Evans, maybe Neto, and we still probably have room for a near max player. And that is assuming Kanter signs for 10 million. That's the thing about the way the Jazz are set up right now, they can be phenomenal if they get a good draft this year, and they can be even better if they sign a decent free agent to go along with that draft pick.
CitizenofCapua
Well-Known Member
Letting Hayward go just for + 2-3 millon $ differential doesnt sound like the greatest idea in the world. If we are going to aim play-offs next year and following years keeping Hayward is essential and we can easily afford 12-13 mil. contract and he will get better and mature every year and it wont be an untradable contract. Lets say we let Hayward go for nothing what is our plan B are we gonna be able to land a quality FA that equally good as Hayward and would be fine with less money to play in Utah? Keep Hayward no matter if its 12-13 million per year we can easily afford it and as franklin said our cap space is not even close to danger zone.
akirac73
Well-Known Member
Just because we can afford to spend doesn't make it's a smart business decision. What's wrong with having cap space to spare? Gordon Hayward wouldn't even be on the Jazz right now if it weren't for the concept of preserving cap space. The NY Knicks 1st round pick (which led to Gordon Hayward) was obtained as a part of a trade with Phoenix to swallow Tom Guguliotta ridiculous contract...guess what allowed the Jazz to make that trade?
akirac73
Well-Known Member
C'mon b_line. I know Hayward has been on a nice hot streak lately (and I've given him props for his great play), but let's not suddenly forget that the guy was shooting 39% FG, 28% 3PT, and in the top 10 in the league in turnovers for most of the first half of the season. You need to look at his entire body of work here...$10M/year is more than fair for what Hayward brings to the table (a well rounded, good role player that can get really hot at times, but for the most part is extremely inconsistent). If other teams want to pay him more than that, it can be their mistake, not ours.
Doublea
Well-Known Member
Meh Turnovers come when a player is handling the ball more, if I recall right a lot of top players are in the top ten with turnovers such as Harden, Curry, James. etc.... not saying these correlate in anyway. It just shows a much a player is used. So we could argue that Hayward is just being used wrong, but that was the point of this season, to see if he could be the primary used player.
sojodave
Well-Known Member
I admit it, I booed Hayward when he was drafted. I wanted Paul George from the beginning. I've rooted for him to be good, but he has disappointed me way too many times. He is pressing too hard this year, maybe if he would have signed his deal, he wouldn't have pressed so hard and would be playing better. He is hot and then cold way too long. I always wonder what his ceiling is and if he will ever be consistent.
Now isn't the time to preserve cap space for 7 years in the future. Nice try though.
I think the FO will match up to 13, maybe even more. I think they will look at it as some posters have pointed out, that it isn't worth diving into the unknown to save 2-3 or even 4 mill. I also think that Hayward will settle into a very productive roll very well once we have our true centerpiece in place. This season has been anything but stable, it's like the first year after an ugly divorce, awkward for everyone. I just hope that if we drop out of Embiid/Wiggins/Parker contention we are able to lock up a cornerstone long term with our abundant cap space.