And then lose both one year from now, having blown all our assets to lose to golden state again.
No thanks. I'd rather be the same team minus Hayward a year from now vs the same team minus Hayward and a ton of assets.
Hayward won't sign a 1+1. If he signs it will be for 5 or 4+1.
The alternative is to tank for several years and probably have to trade Rudy to avoid having him walk for nothing.
It may be delusional, but I'm not sure it's any more delusional than expecting to completely rebuild in one year. It's kind of a situation where there aren't any good answers, but I don't understand how you think a tank would only last one season. Even if we landed the top pick, it takes most rookies a year or three before making a significant impact on the game.
We could try to gather a bunch of picks in hopes of finding a trade for a player like Butler, but there's no guarantee that opportunity becomes available in one or 2 years.
If Hayward is deciding to leave, getting Paul George on a one year rental isn't going to suddenly persuade Hayward to stay for a 4+1 here.
Wow. Sounds like a great way to lose both players and a bunch of assets. This is giving Hayward way too much power. Breaking the bank for George so Hayward stays and then giving him a 1+1? cmon now.
The alternative is to tank for several years and probably have to trade Rudy to avoid having him walk for nothing.
It may be delusional, but I'm not sure it's any more delusional than expecting to completely rebuild in one year. It's kind of a situation where there aren't any good answers, but I don't understand how you think a tank would only last one season. Even if we landed the top pick, it takes most rookies a year or three before making a significant impact on the game.
We could try to gather a bunch of picks in hopes of finding a trade for a player like Butler, but there's no guarantee that opportunity becomes available in one or 2 years.
I can't believe Hayward would want to be the #3 or #4 guy on the team. Behind IT, Paul George and possibly Horford. I know he has said he just wants to win, but if that's really the case, he should just sign the veteran minimum with the warriors.
I don't blame if he expects that Jazz to make moves. But the situation in Boston doesn't seem all that great to be honest.
There is so much smoke... I am on a roller coaster with this daily.
If we don't make a move this week I think it is because we believe there isn't much of a shot of Hayward returning so why give up assets... cap space or picks to appease someone who is out.
By tank I mean deliberate losing. Constructing the team and making decisions to maximize the chances that we pick as high as possible. You can do it for just 1 year. I'm not saying we will be competing for a title in year 2. I'm saying we tank 1 year, we take our superstar at no. 1(Porter jr for example, hopefully) and we start building up around him and Gobert. By year 3 IMO we are going to be contending for playoffs with core around Exum/Mitchell-Hood(maybe, if we don't trade him)-Porter/Doncic-Gobert + additions in FA or through other trades. This way in year 3 you hopefully have at least 3 building cornerstones/stars(Porter, Gobert + one of the others(depends on who pans out)). The alternative is to stack the team with vets going into their 30s who will be finished by the time Gobert's contract is coming for extension. In one case you will have a young core around hopefully 3 budding stars with future in the league, in the other you will have a Gobert with limited vets taking the developmental time of Exum/Mitchell/ etc. on the treadmill.
If we lose Hayward and Hill, why do you want Beverley? What does he accomplish for us, besides making our pick next year worse and taking away an OKC pick we can use to move up if we are not at the very top? We have Exum and Mitchell who are both defensive minded prospects and we get Beverley to clog their minutes in a year when we are not fighting for anything realistically?
Here is the plan... you tell Rudy look we've got Dante, Donovan, and Hood (let's be honest he plays 50-60 games per year) we need them to catch up and it will take some learning. This is your team... you are their leader but we likely drop some games because of development time. We gonna collect some assets and go at this hard in year 1 or 2. If we become 50 win team magically we will supplement some vets to help, but otherwise we might not win 30 games.
You are the leader though... we need you to buy in to take us there. Can you do that for us?
Because Beverly on his contract is a better asset than the OKC pick. If OKC gets drummed out of the playoffs, that OKC pick turns into two second rounders, no?