New Update: Hayward on Free Agency

AingesBurner · Post #1 » by **AingesBurner** » Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:21 pm

He's prioritizing competing for a title more than anything so thats good news for Utah.

Update:

Andy Larsen reporting he will not be eligible for the super max because he's only been in NBA for 7 seasons and you need to complete 8 as part of the requirement, great news for Utah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

goober · Post #2 » by **goober** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:44 am

Is it? I really don't think we can compete for a title even when healthy. I'm really starting to think Hayward bolts in free agency for Boston, especially if/when they use their assets to acquire another upper echelon type player.

AingesBurner · Post #3 » by **AingesBurner** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:52 am

Goober wrote:Is it? I really don't think we can compete for a title even when healthy. I'm really starting to think Hayward bolts in free agency for Boston, especially if/when they use their assets to acquire another upper echelon type player.

Boston is not any closer to competing than Utah, I'm hoping he doesn't do that or he's the **** bag I thought he was.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Daddy 801 · Post #4 » by **Daddy 801** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:00 am

GobertReport wrote:He's prioritizing competing for a title more than anything so thats good news for Utah.

If true, that's great news. Because that would mean he SHOULD stay and take less than a max. If he signs for less so Hill and Favs can all get paid next few years we will be competing. Assuming the healthy Gods want to shine down on Utah ever.

AingesBurner · Post #5 » by **AingesBurner** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:03 am

Daddy 801 wrote:
GobertReport wrote:He's prioritizing competing for a title more than anything so thats good news for Utah.

If true, that's great news. Because that would mean he SHOULD stay and take less than a max. If he signs for less so Hill and Favs can all get paid next few years we will be competing. Assuming the healthy Gods want to shine down on Utah ever.

Agreed, take 25 mill per year and hopefully Favors and Hill will take 17-20 a piece.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

sipclip · Post #6 » by **sipclip** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:54 am

Goober wrote:Is it? I really don't think we can compete for a title even when healthy. I'm really starting to think Hayward bolts in free agency for Boston, especially if/when they use their assets to acquire another upper echelon type player.

We are watching different teams then because this jazz team has the makings of a title contender IMO. Gobert is rounding into a top 10 player in this league while Hood continues to get better and we have a ridiculously deep roster. We also have a lot of future assets to continue to re stock our bench as we lose some players to free agency.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using RealGM mobile app

stitches · Post #7 » by **stitches** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:01 am

Goober wrote:Is it? I really don't think we can compete for a title even when healthy. I'm really starting to think Hayward bolts in free agency for Boston, especially if/when they use their assets to acquire another upper echelon type player.

Boston is NOT better team than us. I don't know how many times I need to say this. They definitely don't have the high end talent we have. They would LOVE to have about 4 of our starters. How many of theirs would you want instead of ours? I don't think ANY really. I'd take Hill over IT, I'd take Hood over Bradley(this is close and up for what you prefer and roster construction, for us I'd take Hood), Hayward is better than Crowder, Favors is better than... whoever they are starting at the 4, Gobert and Horford is probably close but going forward Horford will be going down while Rudy will be going into his prime. There is a reason Boston fans are fawning all over our players and I don't see much of any desires for us to trade for their poo-poo platter of role players.

So why in hell would Hayward choose them? I mean... I guess he can hope to get high end talent through the draft, where they have the obviously better assets, but he would have to wait for those to get good enough to help him win.

Chuck Everett · Post #8 » by **Chuck Everett** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:13 am

The team to worry about is San Antonio, not Boston. Ainge is too afraid to make a move to lift them to contention.

sipclip · Post #9 » by **sipclip** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:21 am

Chuck Everett wrote:The team to worry about is San Antonio, not Boston. Ainge is too afraid to make a move to lift them to contention.

Not really. They likely won't have the money to offer even close to a max contract.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using RealGM mobile app

Chuck Everett · Post #10 » by **Chuck Everett** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:24 am

sipclip wrote:
Chuck Everett wrote:The team to worry about is San Antonio, not Boston. Ainge is too afraid to make a move to lift them to contention.

Not really. They likely won't have the money to offer even close to a max contract.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using RealGM mobile app

I personally think Utah is going to step up and offer Gordon a five year, super max and that will be that. I am just saying when a player wants to join a team, teams figure out a way to make capspace.

stitches · Post #11 » by **stitches** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:32 am

Chuck Everett wrote:The team to worry about is San Antonio, not Boston. Ainge is too afraid to make a move to lift them to contention.

I actually think Boston is on the short list, but I also think it would be a mistake for Hayward to choose them.

Post #12 » by **Inigo Montoya** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:03 pm

If Hayward is truly prioritizing competing for a title then he's got nothing to look for here. We'll be a good team, but not a contender, and whether people are ok with it or not, that's what the Jazz are likely going to be.

Is Boston a better team than us? No. But they are in a much easier conference. They might not be a better team of have a better roster, but what they have was already good enough to make the playoffs for two consecutive seasons. With him they'll be even better and probably a 2nd round team that can even make the conference finals (and lose to LeBron). What they have will get them further.

Post #13 » by **Inigo Montoya** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:05 pm

stitches wrote:
Chuck Everett wrote:The team to worry about is San Antonio, not Boston. Ainge is too afraid to make a move to lift them to contention.

I actually think Boston is on the short list, but I also think it would be a mistake for Hayward to choose them.

Why would it be a mistake for him to go to Boston?

stitches · Post #14 » by **stitches** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:15 pm

Inigo Montoya wrote:
stitches wrote:
Chuck Everett wrote:The team to worry about is San Antonio, not Boston. Ainge is too afraid to make a move to lift them to contention.

I actually think Boston is on the short list, but I also think it would be a mistake for Hayward to choose them.

Why would it be a mistake for him to go to Boston?

Because we have the better high end talent. As I said above you can argue that we have better players than Boston at every single position. The only thing going in their favor is their assets and assets don't win you games(something Hayward seems to be big on).

Post #15 » by **Inigo Montoya** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:23 pm

stitches wrote:
Inigo Montoya wrote:
stitches wrote:I actually think Boston is on the short list, but I also think it would be a mistake for Hayward to choose them.

Why would it be a mistake for him to go to Boston?

Because we have the better high end talent. As I said above you can argue that we have better players than Boston at every single position. The only thing going in their favor is their assets and assets don't win you games(something Hayward seems to be big on).

As I mentioned above, I tend to agree we have better talent. But I also think it is mitigated by playing in a much stronger conference. The Celtics can get the same results as we can with a worse roster because of it. In fact, right now they have exceeded our results with a worse roster precisely because of that--the made the playoffs twice in a row with a worse roster than we have. You add Hayward to their team, and they'll be a 2nd round team that can even make the conference finals before getting booted by LBJ, and that's without losing any assets. Then they can even make a big trade and get even better.

stitches · Post #16 » by **stitches** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:24 pm

Inigo Montoya wrote:
stitches wrote:
Inigo Montoya wrote:Why would it be a mistake for him to go to Boston?

Because we have the better high end talent. As I said above you can argue that we have better players than Boston at every single position. The only thing going in their favor is their assets and assets don't win you games(something Hayward seems to be big on).

As I mentioned above, I tend to agree we have better talent. But I also think it is mitigated by playing in a much stronger conference. The Celtics can get the same results as we can with a worse roster because of it. In fact, right now they have exceeded our results with a worse roster precisely because of that--the made the playoffs twice in a row with a worse roster than we have. You add Hayward to their team, and they'll be a 2nd round team that can even make the conference finals before getting booted by LBJ, and that's without losing any assets. Then they can even make a big trade and get even better.

The difference between us and GSW is not much bigger than the difference between Boston and CLE.

Post #17 » by **Inigo Montoya** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:32 pm

stitches wrote:
Inigo Montoya wrote:
stitches wrote:Because we have the better high end talent. As I said above you can argue that we have better players than Boston at every single position. The only thing going in their favor is their assets and assets don't win you games(something Hayward seems to be big on).

As I mentioned above, I tend to agree we have better talent. But I also think it is mitigated by playing in a much stronger conference. The Celtics can get the same results as we can with a worse roster because of it. In fact, right now they have exceeded our results with a worse roster precisely because of that--the made the playoffs twice in a row with a worse roster than we have. You add Hayward to their team, and they'll be a 2nd round team that can even make the conference finals before getting booted by LBJ, and that's without losing any assets. Then they can even make a big trade and get even better.

The difference between us and GSW is not much bigger than the difference between Boston and CLE.

It will get smaller if they get Hayward. And they will still have all those assets to consolidate and bring in another star. In fact, bringing in Hayward will make it easier for them to let go of some players since he'll fill one position immediately. Plus, their road to a conference finals will be much easier than it will be in the west. Also, there are some up and coming teams in the west. It may take a season or two, but it will get better pretty soon. Add to that a bigger market to draw in other players (even if Hayward doesn't care about it, some other players do) and he's in a much better position in Boston imho.

stitches · Post #18 » by **stitches** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:37 pm

Inigo Montoya wrote:
stitches wrote:
Inigo Montoya wrote:As I mentioned above, I tend to agree we have better talent. But I also think it is mitigated by playing in a much stronger conference. The Celtics can get the same results as we can with a worse roster because of it. In fact, right now they have exceeded our results with a worse roster precisely because of that--the made the playoffs twice in a row with a worse roster than we have. You add Hayward to their team, and they'll be a 2nd round team that can even make the conference finals before getting booted by LBJ, and that's without losing any assets. Then they can even make a big trade and get even better.

The difference between us and GSW is not much bigger than the difference between Boston and CLE.

It will get smaller if they get Hayward. And they will still have all those assets to consolidate and bring in another star. In fact, bringing in Hayward will make it easier for them to let go of some players since he'll fill one position immediately. Plus, their road to a conference finals will be much easier than it will be in the west. Also, there are some up and coming teams in the west. It may take a season or two, but it will get better pretty soon. Add to that a bigger market to draw in other players (even if Hayward doesn't care about it, some other players do) and he's in a much better position in Boston imho.

How's that been going for Boston? The consolidation I mean... they've been trying for 2-3 years now and they've started releasing last year's first round picks already and started drafting substandard foreign players in the first so they can stash them, because nobody wants to deal with Ainge and give him better players for assets. Right now they are bleeding value left and right because of Ainge trying to be cute with other GMs...

Post #19 » by **Inigo Montoya** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:44 pm

stitches wrote:
Inigo Montoya wrote:
stitches wrote:The difference between us and GSW is not much bigger than the difference between Boston and CLE.

It will get smaller if they get Hayward. And they will still have all those assets to consolidate and bring in another star. In fact, bringing in Hayward will make it easier for them to let go of some players since he'll fill one position immediately. Plus, their road to a conference finals will be much easier than it will be in the west. Also, there are some up and coming teams in the west. It may take a season or two, but it will get better pretty soon. Add to that a bigger market to draw in other players (even if Hayward doesn't care about it, some other players do) and he's in a much better position in Boston imho.

How's that been going for Boston? The consolidation I mean... they've been trying for 2-3 years now and they've started releasing last year's first round picks already and started drafting substandard foreign players in the first so they can stash them, because nobody wants to deal with Ainge and give him better players for assets.

The consolidation hasn't worked that well for them yet. Then again, it hasn't worked for us either. At least they can get better results with lesser talent and have a more attractive market. We, on the other hand, are going to be strapped for cash very soon and will have to let some players go. Not sure how Hayward will like that when he's so intent on contending. And getting Hayward without giving up any players will only make it easier for them to put up a better package for a trade.

Boston made the playoffs twice in a row without getting a star. We missed it, and can't get one unless we manage to swing a trade or get ultra lucky with a pick in the 20s or 30s, while they can get one in free agency and trade. And via the draft, with all their high picks, while giving up nothing. They are set up better for better success imho.

stitches · Post #20 » by **stitches** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:03 pm

Inigo Montoya wrote:The consolidation hasn't worked that well for them yet. Then again, it hasn't worked for us either. At least they can get better results with lesser talent and have a more attractive market. We, on the other hand, are going to be strapped for cash very soon and will have to let some players go. Not sure how Hayward will like that when he's so intent on contending. And getting Hayward without giving up any players will only make it easier for them to put up a better package for a trade.

Boston made the playoffs twice in a row without getting a star. We missed it, and can't get one unless we manage to swing a trade or get ultra lucky with a pick in the 20s or 30s, while they can get one in free agency and trade. And via the draft, with all their high picks, while giving up nothing. They are set up better for better success imho.

They had a much better depth and health last year and the year before. We had Raul Neto, Trey Burke, Elijah Millsap, Patrick Christopher, Chris Johnson, Trevor Booker... and yes - those are all players that STARTED games for us.

Until a consolidation trade is achieved, I won't believe it. And that's the crux of the matter. I don't think Hayward would go there for the potential of some sort of trade going through. Now if they swing something big before free agency, we can revisit this question and explore if Hayward would fit with the new star they consolidated their picks for.