What's new
By:

Trade idea, Hayward to the Suns

Nm
 
fishonjazz said:
There are tons of horrible contracts in the nba. I'm sure that the teams that signed the players to those contracts either thought it was a good idea at the time or felt that they had to sign them for whatever reason.

Google "worst contracts in the nba 2016"
Some of them are basically untradeable other than a salary dump where you have to give up pieces you want to keep just to get the other team to take your bad contract.

I'm not saying this would happen if we max hayward..... But those teams that signed these "bad" contracts didn't think it would happen to them either.

To act like who cares if it doesn't work out, we will just trade him then..... It's not always that easy.
Click to expand...

So the answer is yes you don't think we could trade him if we sign him to a max?
 
MDAV28 said:
So the answer is yes you don't think we could trade him if we sign him to a max?
Click to expand...
I can't say it's not possible. Salary dumps happen all the time. I don't think the team doing the dumping is usually very happy about it though.
 
MDAV28 said:
Why would it be a salary dump? Is trading Hayward right now a salary dump?
Click to expand...
Im not saying it would be. I can't predict the future. I'm saying that there is a chance that we end up regretting giving hayward max money. And if we did end up regretting it then there is a chance that trading him and his contract could be difficult to the point that we don't get equal value back for the player that we would be giving up.


I think the philosophy of another team would pay a player X amount so that means it's a good idea for us to pay them that amount and the philosophy of we can always just trade the player later if things don't work out right are two philosophies that I think are flawed due to looking at the present salaries in the nba and the salaries of the past.


Sometimes you can trade them later for good value. Sometimes you should pay market value.
Not always. That's all.
 
fishonjazz said:
[MENTION=2434]Batman[/MENTION]
Teams should always pay players the market value right? Never say no to any amount of money if another team would pay them that amount right?

So it would be a good thing if the jazz were paying melo 27.9 million in 2018 when he is 35 years old? That's the right move.

We really would love to be in the position to be paying 17.5 million per season to kanter right.

I would love to be paying pekovic (nearly 30 years old) 35.8 million over the next three years. But we could just trade him. It's so easy.

The market determined that omer asik was worth 5 years and 53 million. The market knows all.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. There are some players that should absolutely not get the max. I should have been more clear. My point is simply that when we signed Hayward to the Max it was the only sensible thing we could do. We couldn't just let him walk and we did not have issues with the salary cap. We have so many guys on rookie deals, I think the FO was like well, he's pretty good, he's great for our team culture and we think he's gonna get better plus Utah isn't a free agent destination so it's not like we are gonna sign a marquee free agent that is better than Hayward, so let's go for it.

Hayward is really good. If he went into free agency this summer, any contender that had the cap space to sign him to the Max would do it. If OKC had the money, they'd sign him. If the Clippers had the money, they sign him. He deserves the Max because he's really good. He's not a superstar. He's not LeBron. he's not Durant, but he is still really good and it's not like teams can get guys like Durant and James, and Steph, so if there is a guy Like Hayward that can be had for the Max, and you have the cap space, you go for it. He is absolutely a starting small forward on a title contender. He's a legit 2nd option on a title team. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying any starting caliber SF on a title team should get the Max.

I guess what I mean is that if you are a top 30-40 player in the league, you are probably gonna get a max deal. The way the league is set up, it's inevitable. That's why guys like Wes Matthews and Deandre Jordan got max deals There are 30 teams in the league. You can build a title team with 2 guys on max deals. When you have a guy like Hayward who's not a superstar but a very good player, you have to decide do I trade trade him or sign him to the max? Because letting him walk for nothing would be foolish. Jazz decided to keep him. He deserves the money he's getting.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
And Fishon, the fundamental question still stands. Who else were we gonna give the money too had we let him walk? Realistically l, who could we have given the money to that would have helped us win more games? Sure anything is possible, but Durant could even come to Utah. But you obviously can't say if you are the FO Durant is gonna be a free agent in '16 so let's not sign Hayward, and hope we can sign Durant in a few years from now.

The only sensible thing to do in our situation was sign him to the max, and if you think you can get a superstar by trading him then go for it, but if not you keep him and be glad you have him.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Batman said:
Not exactly. There are some players that should absolutely not get the max. I should have been more clear. My point is simply that when we signed Hayward to the Max it was the only sensible thing we could do. We couldn't just let him walk and we did not have issues with the salary cap. We have so many guys on rookie deals, I think the FO was like well, he's pretty good, he's great for our team culture and we think he's gonna get better plus Utah isn't a free agent destination so it's not like we are gonna sign a marquee free agent that is better than Hayward, so let's go for it.

Hayward is really good. If he went into free agency this summer, any contender that had the cap space to sign him to the Max would do it. If OKC had the money, they'd sign him. If the Clippers had the money, they sign him. He deserves the Max because he's really good. He's not a superstar. He's not LeBron. he's not Durant, but he is still really good and it's not like teams can get guys like Durant and James, and Steph, so if there is a guy Like Hayward that can be had for the Max, and you have the cap space, you go for it. He is absolutely a starting small forward on a title contender. He's a legit 2nd option on a title team. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying any starting caliber SF on a title team should get the Max.

I guess what I mean is that if you are a top 30-40 player in the league, you are probably gonna get a max deal. The way the league is set up, it's inevitable. That's why guys like Wes Matthews and Deandre Jordan got max deals There are 30 teams in the league. You can build a title team with 2 guys on max deals. When you have a guy like Hayward who's not a superstar but a very good player, you have to decide do I trade trade him or sign him to the max? Because letting him walk for nothing would be foolish. Jazz decided to keep him. He deserves the money he's getting.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I have no problem with people who want us to give Hayward the max. He is in that grayish area I think. Thinking we should max him is a valid opinion.

I think it's right that there are some who would max him and some who wouldn't. I think it's something that I hope our management debates and really researched and thinks about. It would be weird and wrong if 100% of people thought we should max him or 100% thought we shouldn't.

We are not talking about a no brainer yes we should max him like lebron or durant. And we are not talking about a no brainer no we should not max him like trevor booker or something.
 
fishonjazz said:
Fair enough. I have no problem with people who want us to give Hayward the max. He is in that grayish area I think. Thinking we should max him is a valid opinion.

I think it's right that there are some who would max him and some who wouldn't. I think it's something that I hope our management debates and really researched and thinks about. It would be weird and wrong if 100% of people thought we should max him or 100% thought we shouldn't.

We are not talking about a no brainer yes we should max him like lebron or durant. And we are not talking about a no brainer no we should not max him like trevor booker or something.
Click to expand...

You make good points. But I'd say after the FO considered their current cap and roster situation, along with the market and what other alternative routes available which they could have taken, I think after all was weighed, it was a no brainer to sign him to the max. That's all I'm saying really.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Phoenix would jump on that. Not Sure Utah would. I might consider Brandon Knight, #4, #13 for Hayward and Burke. I would take Jaylen Brown with #4
 
Jeffrey32 said:
Phoenix would jump on that. Not Sure Utah would. I might consider Brandon Knight, #4, #13 for Hayward and Burke. I would take Jaylen Brown with #4
Click to expand...

I would love for that trade to happen. Utah adds opens up the rest of Haywards cap space next year, adds depth in 4th, 12th, 13th. Plus they go after a sf this year in F.A. ( James, Durrant, Jonas, Ryan Anderson, Parsons, Batum) Get it done, DL!
 
I don't think the Jazz' record changes much with or without G-time. When he misses games (which is rare - I'll give him that) it creates a vacuum and other players step up and fill that vacuum just as well Hayward, if not better (Hood, Burks).

so yeah, I agree with Fish. Trade G-time if you can.


Even if he was the best player on the jazz (debatable) he's not a superstar - and the jazz need a superstar. I think Hood or Burks' talents are on par with Hayward. IE: trade Hayward for a shot at a superstar. ....Dunno 'bout 3rd or 4th pick though. I want Ingram. ...probably not happening.
 
BENTLEY said:
I don't think the Jazz' record changes much with or without G-time. When he misses games (which is rare - I'll give him that) it creates a vacuum and other players step up and fill that vacuum just as well Hayward, if not better (Hood, Burks).

so yeah, I agree with Fish. Trade G-time if you can.


Even if he was the best player on the jazz (debatable) he's not a superstar - and the jazz need a superstar. I think Hood or Burks' talents are on par with Hayward. IE: trade Hayward for a shot at a superstar. ....Dunno 'bout 3rd or 4th pick though. I want Ingram. ...probably not happening.
Click to expand...

It's not sustaniable. Hood is wildly inconsistent and Burks hardly plays. They can't step up game in game out. Not yet at least. Teams will shift their focus on Hood and Burks.

If you don't like the draft this year, you can always sign Hayward to whatevrr the market dictates and trade him next year or the year after. Hayward is damn good player, he will contribute to any team and damn good players with longer contracts are easier to trade.
 
Hekate said:
It's not sustaniable. Hood is wildly inconsistent
Click to expand...

Hayward shoots .433 from the field, and .349 from the and .824 from the line.
Hood shoots .420 from the field and .359 from three and .860 from the line. (Hood doesn't get to the line much though and Hayward does)

Efg% for hood is .503
Efg% for Hayward is .493

So if hood is wildly inconsistent then Hayward is too.... Or Hayward is just consistently mediocre efficiency wise.

What is Haywards elite skill? What is he really good at?
He is not a good shooter. He is not a good ball handler. He is not good at posting up. Not particularly good in the pick n roll. Not particularly good at beating his man off the dribble (not a very quick first step). He is good but not great at rebounding and assists. He is pretty good at getting to the line.
I think he is underrated as a defender though and is pretty elite in that regard.
I also think he is very good at making tough shots. Problem with that is since he isn't very quick and doesn't elevate much he struggles to get easy shots.
 
Hoods efficiency will likely drop without Hayward as he will be using more possessions. Gordon is our best offensive player and it isn't really close. I don't have time to look it up but our offense goes to **** when he isn't on the court. Much like having favors with no Gobert makes us an okay defensive team but no longer good... Having Hayward without hood will really hurt.

That said if we are currently prepared to give Hayward megamax right now then we don't trade him. If management isn't sure you get the best asset you can get now... Whether that is Ingram, or the #4 pick and knight or Bledsoe. You don't make this decision next offseason... You make it now.
 
fishonjazz said:
Im not saying it would be. I can't predict the future. I'm saying that there is a chance that we end up regretting giving hayward max money. And if we did end up regretting it then there is a chance that trading him and his contract could be difficult to the point that we don't get equal value back for the player that we would be giving up.


I think the philosophy of another team would pay a player X amount so that means it's a good idea for us to pay them that amount and the philosophy of we can always just trade the player later if things don't work out right are two philosophies that I think are flawed due to looking at the present salaries in the nba and the salaries of the past.


Sometimes you can trade them later for good value. Sometimes you should pay market value.
Not always. That's all.
Click to expand...

Okay well if we trade him where does he go? Honestly, I think Hayward makes Houston a instant champion. Do they have equal assets in return? What if Dallas? Does Dirk have any fuel left in the tank?

Basically what I am sayin is we need to find a team willing to bet the farm. Prob is top teams cannot offer top draft picks.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Hoods efficiency will likely drop without Hayward as he will be using more possessions. Gordon is our best offensive player and it isn't really close. I don't have time to look it up but our offense goes to **** when he isn't on the court. Much like having favors with no Gobert makes us an okay defensive team but no longer good... Having Hayward without hood will really hurt.

That said if we are currently prepared to give Hayward megamax right now then we don't trade him. If management isn't sure you get the best asset you can get now... Whether that is Ingram, or the #4 pick and knight or Bledsoe. You don't make this decision next offseason... You make it now.
Click to expand...

Hayward is extremely underrated by Jazz fans. He is the only player besides Burke that can create its own shot and Burke sucks.
 
Boris said:
Hayward is extremely underrated by Jazz fans. He is the only player besides Burke that can create its own shot and Burke sucks.
Click to expand...

Hood can create his own shot too, but yeah I think we underestimate what Hayward brings. Rudy and him are our most indispensable guys imo. I love what Favors brings too but he doesn't drive our identity on either end of the floor like those guys do.
 
fishonjazz said:
Hayward shoots .433 from the field, and .349 from the and .824 from the line.
Hood shoots .420 from the field and .359 from three and .860 from the line. (Hood doesn't get to the line much though and Hayward does)

Efg% for hood is .503
Efg% for Hayward is .493

So if hood is wildly inconsistent then Hayward is too.... Or Hayward is just consistently mediocre efficiency wise.

What is Haywards elite skill? What is he really good at?
He is not a good shooter. He is not a good ball handler. He is not good at posting up. Not particularly good in the pick n roll. Not particularly good at beating his man off the dribble (not a very quick first step). He is good but not great at rebounding and assists. He is pretty good at getting to the line.
I think he is underrated as a defender though and is pretty elite in that regard.
I also think he is very good at making tough shots. Problem with that is since he isn't very quick and doesn't elevate much he struggles to get easy shots.
Click to expand...

Hayward is the focal point of defenses, Hood isn't. It makes a big difference. Hood does well because of Hayward.
 
#bern said:
Hayward is the focal point of defenses, Hood isn't. It makes a big difference. Hood does well because of Hayward.
Click to expand...
The first part of your post is fact. The 2nd part is assumption and speculation.

Most every first option starts as something else. Then gets the first option job and either succeeds or doesn't.

If hood was the first option next year he might succeed and he might not. It's impossible to know for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top