It goes both ways though. Why should Hayward take less money so Greg can have more? Greg's biggest accomplishment in life was being a lucky sperm and building a race track that lost 100 million dollars that he walked away from.
And Greg is going to ask him to take less money for the good of the organization? That is a tough pill to swallow. Especially if you come from poverty (which I know Hayward doesn't).
As a fan, I'd love for LeBron, Wade and Bosh to take less money and come here and win a title. BUT, I'll never blame a player for taking as much as he can. As much as the players make, the owners make exponentially more. Look at the Millers. They bought the Jazz for 14 million. It's worth over 800 million now. Stockton and Malone aren't worth anywhere near that. Plus the Millers own the arena. They have made over 1 billion dollars off the Jazz. And that doesn't even take into account how much they have made off their other business ventures touting themselves as Jazz guys.
Yeah, it would be great to have Hayward take less money. But, if you are Hayward, and you see Millers wasting money you've created for them...I don't blame you for wanting as much as that as possible.
If the Millers want to win a title (which I'm not sure they do), let them pony up for it and pay the tax. The Jazz could easily keep Hayward, Gobert, Favors, Hood, Exum, Lyles, Burks. There is nothing stopping them from doing so. And if they all pan out how we hope, they'd be great and win multiple titles (if Exum becomes a star and Gobert gets an offensive game). BUT, the Millers won't pay for that to happen. They will trade away players for nothing to save money, like that have done in the past.
I don't blame them for that either. It's a business. You want to make money in your business ventures.
BUT, the same goes for the players as well. We can't villianize (not saying that we have done that here) players for wanting all their money and then not give owners grief for not going over the salary cap.
