What's new
By:

Would Hayward take less than the max?

NO! And he shouldn't. Would you take less money in a company you have no stake in? Why should Hayward?
 
[MENTION=4486]Boris[/MENTION], don't consider me surprised that you don't really believe the stupid **** you post here and are just a troll. I knew you wouldn't put your money where your mouth is.

Hayward will have multiple max offers.
 
Gameface said:
[MENTION=4486]Boris[/MENTION], don't consider me surprised that you don't really believe the stupid **** you post here and are just a troll. I knew you wouldn't put your money where your mouth is.

Hayward will have multiple max offers.
Click to expand...
[MENTION=26]Gameface[/MENTION] I said I will make bet. Where do you want to Trust money beforehand?
 
stormkoopacv03 said:
No way, Hayward would settle for a discount and he'll definitely get the max. I'm gonna say 140 mil range for 5 years is my guess.
Click to expand...
If he doesn't settle for a discount then he will get way more than 140 million for 5 years.
 
green said:
NO! And he shouldn't. Would you take less money in a company you have no stake in? Why should Hayward?
Click to expand...
If I was an nba player and winning was one of my top properties then I might.
In fact he might get more $$ by sacrificing and getting a smaller contract.

Let's say he gets every penny he has but because of that the jazz are never contenders and therefore hayward is just always thought of as a good not great player. He gets some minor local endorsements.

Now lets say he takes less money and the jazz are able to sign better players as a result and the jazz become true contenders for a title and Hayward gets tons of hype cause his team is so good and he makes an all nba team. Now he gets all the major endorsements.

Huge hypothetical and risky for Hayward but a possibility none the less
 
green said:
NO! And he shouldn't. Would you take less money in a company you have no stake in? Why should Hayward?
Click to expand...

I would. It's simple really - although there is not that much inflation over the last few years, he could take a near max contract making more than Kobe ever made in a season. If he takes the absolute most we can offer (which is a few million more per year than any other team), he knows he jeopardizes all that cute stuff he says in his blog about "being happy about the future of the team" and "I want to lead this team". Well, the team won't stay together if he takes the max. If you were to make 25% more than your coworkers and some of your coworkers would lose their jobs, you would probably think twice about taking the absolute most.

So what I'm saying is this - looking at probable salary levels next year, lets say we can offer up to 5 years and $160 (average of $32 per year). If Hayward were to leave us for a max contract elsewhere, it would be less years and money than what we can offer. So leaving to go elsewhere, Hayward could only sign for 4 years and about $115 (less than $29 per year). My suggestion is that Hayward takes $150 over 5 years instead of $160 over 5 years. He does this to send a message that he took a little less than max ($2 million less per year but he's still making $30 per year and more money per year than he could get on the open market). He also does this hoping that the franchise could keep more players on the roster. $2 million isn't a ton, but since he's the leader, if he does that, maybe others do it too. If Favors, Hood, Hayward and Gobert all sacrificed $1-2 million per year, that's $4-8 million for another solid role player or the difference in keeping a guy like Hill around.
 
LoPo said:
I would. It's simple really - although there is not that much inflation over the last few years, he could take a near max contract making more than Kobe ever made in a season. If he takes the absolute most we can offer (which is a few million more per year than any other team), he knows he jeopardizes all that cute stuff he says in his blog about "being happy about the future of the team" and "I want to lead this team". Well, the team won't stay together if he takes the max. If you were to make 25% more than your coworkers and some of your coworkers would lose their jobs, you would probably think twice about taking the absolute most.

So what I'm saying is this - looking at probable salary levels next year, lets say we can offer up to 5 years and $160 (average of $32 per year). If Hayward were to leave us for a max contract elsewhere, it would be less years and money than what we can offer. So leaving to go elsewhere, Hayward could only sign for 4 years and about $115 (less than $29 per year). My suggestion is that Hayward takes $150 over 5 years instead of $160 over 5 years. He does this to send a message that he took a little less than max ($2 million less per year but he's still making $30 per year and more money per year than he could get on the open market). He also does this hoping that the franchise could keep more players on the roster. $2 million isn't a ton, but since he's the leader, if he does that, maybe others do it too. If Favors, Hood, Hayward and Gobert all sacrificed $1-2 million per year, that's $4-8 million for another solid role player or the difference in keeping a guy like Hill around.
Click to expand...

So your boss comes to you and says this:

I want to pay you 20% less. By doing so, my company will get better, it will be worth more and I'll make more money. But you take less. I know you could go to a better city and make more money, but think of all we will accomplish! We can be the best! I'll be richer and you'll be poorer, but we will be #1!

And, maybe someone else will give you some money to schill their product, but there's no guarantee to that.

How about it?
 
I will never fault a player for taking the money. And Hayward is worth max dollars. We should max him out. He should take the money.

You who is not worth the max right now? Gobert.
 
I'll hold the money. People have both transferred me money and I've transferred them. I talk **** but I'm honest and would never screw anybody over in that way. Pay pal me and I'll just pay the person next July.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
I'll hold the money. People have both transferred me money and I've transferred them. I talk **** but I'm honest and would never screw anybody over in that way. Pay pal me and I'll just pay the person next July.
Click to expand...

Works for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top