RealGM

http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=18334195

Around the 1 hour mark on the Zach Lowe podcast.

Its probably a reach considering how good Utah is turning into with Gobert, Favors, Hood emerging and Hill looking as good as he has recently. Still whether he is attainable or not I thought it was something interesting to hear seeing as how we basically sat out the top tier of free agency this year and decided to overpay for B and C level talent.

Regardless of how realistic it is, I'm all for going after Hayward.

So we're going to go after a player whose position is already filled with Deng (overpaid) and Ingram.

This is why Mitch needs to go.

FFS don't turn every thread into a Deng thread. We get it, you've said it a billion times already in other threads.

I simply implied, there's no point in going after players where the position is already filled.

Calm down.

MrWaffles wrote:I simply implied, there's no point in going after players where the position is already filled.

Calm down.

That is just crap logic. If a better player is attainable you always try to get them no matter who you have at that position or what you did the season before.

Otherwise it's basically compounding a mistake.

Ingram going to be a stretch 4 in the league and Hayward can play the 2-3 position. If we can move either Randle or Deng, we are fine.

Dlo-FUltz-Hayward-Ingram-Mozgov

MrWaffles wrote:I simply implied, there's no point in going after players where the position is already filled.

Calm down.

Don't see the issue, Young isn't likely to be the long term solution at sg and Hayward, Ingram, Russell, Clarkson provide enough flexibility to shiffle them around and fill all pg sg sf minutes.

Vesper wrote:Ingram going to be a stretch 4 in the league and Hayward can play the 2-3 position. If we can move either Randle or Deng, we are fine.

Dlo-FUltz-Hayward-Ingram-Mozgov

Ingram a stretch four?

Well that's a good one.

MrWaffles wrote:

Vesper wrote:Ingram going to be a stretch 4 in the league and Hayward can play the 2-3 position. If we can move either Randle or Deng, we are fine.

Dlo-FUltz-Hayward-Ingram-Mozgov

Ingram a stretch four?

Well that's a good one.

You mean like Duke right? Too many people never watch Ingram play at Duke

Hayward can play as 2

Sounds like Hayward's agent is ensure he's paid.

What do you guys think of potentially poaching Hill away from them if other options don't work out?

MrWaffles wrote:I simply implied, there's no point in going after players where the position is already filled.

Calm down.

We wish we can the same about you.

so who's target 1B?

This would be considered a splash move based on the 'talent' we've acquired in free agency the past few years. Hayward is a good all around player, and he still hasn't peaked. Plus he isn't a me-me-me guy so he'd fit in rather fluidly with the younger guys. I'm all for it.

Hayward said a week or two ago I believe, that he's going to take contending for a championship in consideration during free agency.

That would eliminate us.

http://clutchpoints.com/report-gordon-hayward-will-prioritize-competing-for-a-title-in-free-agency/

MrWaffles wrote:Hayward said a week or two ago I believe, that he's going to take contending for a championship in consideration during free agency.

That would eliminate us.

http://clutchpoints.com/report-gordon-hayward-will-prioritize-competing-for-a-title-in-free-agency/

“It comes down to where I can compete for a title,” Hayward told ESPN’s Zach Lowe. “Where I live — that doesn’t affect me. The limelight doesn’t matter to me. I just want to make a run at it.”


Yeah he's not coming here.

Does he play defense?

Why would he come here?

Good player, but I don't see it as a must to reach out to him other than to take advantage of cap space in the offseason because that cap space just might evaporate once these kids start coming off their rookie deals.