I have to disagree with some of the points you made.
Inigo Montoya wrote:A few things:
While it's true the Celtics had no reason to give the Jazz a trade exception, they also had no reason not to. It wouldn't have mattered to them, they'd lose nothing by doing so, and the only way it would have ended up mattering for them is if we met in the finals and a trade exception helped us get there, which wasn't going to happen. When Boozer left the Jazz for the Bulls, the Bulls gave the Jazz a trade exception even though they didn't have to do that. They did it out of courtesy and due to KOC's good relations with other FOs around the league. The Jazz then managed to use that trade exception to get Big Al, and it didn't affect the Bulls in any way, just like it wouldn't have affected the Celtics in any way.
The Boozer situation did not happen under the same CBA we have now. The Jazz didn't get a trade exception out of courtesy or relationships that KOC had built. The Jazz got a trade exception because the Bulls could pay Boozer more money if they did so. Back then a player could get better raises through S&T, enough to make a difference. They all but removed that incentive in this CBA.
And yes the Celtics do have a reason to not give away things for free. All 30 teams in this league are competing against each other. Giving away free advantages to your competitors, even if it doesn't "cost" you anything, is incompetence. You just don't give opponents free advantages, sorry.
I would agree that the Jazz inclined media reaction was unrealistic, when it came to thinking the Celtics owe us something for stealing Hayward so they should send us Crowder or other assets. But when it comes to a trade exception, it would have meant nothing for the Celtics to do it. The bigger point though, is that the Jazz lost Hayward for absolutely nothing, not even a trade exception. And no, a playoff appearance doesn't count, especially when said playoff appearance was a means to an end--being convincing Hayward to stay--which didn't achieve what it was set out to achieve...
The playoff appearance absolutely does count. It counts as a playoff series. What that's worth to you is your own opinion, but it did happen, and it certainly counts for more than hope that something that hasn't happened yet.
Yes, once Hayward hit free agency, no team had any incentive to give anything for him. That is why he should have been traded before he hit free agency. Consider this:
Let's put aside the previous Hayward free agency for a moment (so we won't get off-topic). But with this current one, we all knew he'll get the max from any team that would end up signing him. Now, the guy would actually lose money (from his contract, anyway) if he chooses to go to another team. He'd forgo a 5th year, and will get smaller annual increases to his deal. He knows the Jazz will give him the max. And he still refuses to sign with them and chooses to go to free agency. And the Jazz knew he'll go to free agency. What is that if not a huge red flag that the guy is in serious danger of bolting?
I could use this argument against you, and quite honestly it makes more sense that way. You don't actually know that Hayward has rejected you until he's rejected you. Having an advantage such as offering more guaranteed money is a reason you'd be more willing to into UFA. That's an advantage, and therefore you should be more confident in your chances than if you didn't have the advantage. I have no idea how having an advantage in UFA means that you should have been more afraid of going to UFA.
So yes, the Jazz should have traded him a year ago, or before the trade deadline. The Jazz knew for a while that they'll put the team's ownership into a blind trust--it doesn't happen in a day. It's a process that takes time, so they knew they aren't going anywhere, so any argument about how trading Hayward might affect the Jazz staying in SLC is not relevant imho. Look at the result--Hayward still left and they're not going anywhere. So the result of him leaving was the same, only the Jazz are in a worse place for it for getting nothing for it. And if hope is what keeps the league running, well, how is that working for the Jazz, comparing the hope for a team with Hayward to a team without him and with nothing for him?
Regardless of whether the team is leaving or not, having empty stadiums and no relevance in the local community is a big deal. You are asking your people to pay for something they didn't care about at the time. I don't want to sound precious or anything, but I don't think you can understand how low interest in the Jazz was unless you are a local.
It's a far cry difference from the Jazz craze that last season amounted to. While you may not care about a first round series against the Clippers, this state certainly did. There was a ton of excitement around this team. It wasn't worth nothing, and you also have to remember that the Jazz thought they had a chance a resigning Hayward. If they were able to keep him, this next 5 years would have had plenty of winning. Enough to satisfy you? That's up to you. But it's beyond where the Jazz were comfortable being.
The answer, unfortunately, is that it works for the Jazz very well. No matter how many times they keep letting good, valuable players walk for nothing, which sets them back considerably, many fans still hold on some unrealistic hope and convince themselves that everything is just great, or that the Jazz is in an even better position, which allows the Jazz to keep peddle their company line of puppies and rainbows while cutting corners with rebuilding the team and churning out mediocrity. Look no further than what they did this season. They brought a bunch of role players on a 1+1 deal, which means they're likely gone next season anyway and that the Jazz isn't relying on them long-term. They're just here to help the Jazz chase the 8th seed this year, and then they'll likely be gone. Outside of development of young players--which will happen anyway but maybe not as much since the Jazz are looking to compete for a playoff seed--this coming season is going to be a complete waste of time. We're not going anywhere next year and we know it.
I do not think the Jazz are in a good position, my reasoning is not based on that. On top of that, I actually see the hope argument the other way around. We know what we got with Hayward last season. That's guaranteed success because it actually happened. Hope comes in when you think you would have been better off doing something else. If you trade Hayward before last season, you have zero percent chance of resigning, and you're in essentially the same situation that we are in now but a year early. You would have whatever you got for Hayward, but we are seeing what "stars" are yielding through trade. The rumored deal offered was Knight and Bender. If we had Knight and #4 are we really in that much better of a spot? Rumors are just rumors, and again that's why I see the hope argument going the other way. You're assuming that good things would have happened if Hayward was traded.
You can hope that the young players are heading towards somewhere, but you don't know where that is. The Deron Williams trade was considered a knockout in terms of return, but in the end it didn't really amount to much. The success the Jazz had last season was essentially independent of the Deron Williams return. One legged Favors was the only thing that contributed from that trade, and while he was certainly key in the playoffs, it shows that the return isn't always as much as you would have hoped. In the end it's really just hope vs hope. Hope that Hayward resigns versus hope that Hayward's return does something better.
I'd also say that developing players, and then trading them before they become UFA perpetuates exactly what you are speaking against. Continuously trading your good players for younger ones is a perpetual treadmill of mediocrity. You see the problem as letting talent walk away for nothing. I see the problem as the talent walking away in the first place. In order to have a good team, you have to have your developed talent stay. That's impossible to do if you unwilling to risk it and trade them away every time.
BTW, the treadmill of mediocrity is way overblown. Take a look at the 16 playoff teams from last season. I count two that were built off the backs of drafting top 5 picks. Good GM's will make good moves regardless of where there team is in the standings. Bad GM's will do the opposite. Do we have a good GM? I'd say we have a very hit and miss GM that is pushing a clear agenda from ownership.
Anyways, we've gone off on too many tangents. I think this started with blaming DL for not getting anything for Hayward. My key opinions on that: 1) The Celtics are not giving away anything for free. If you think that you are being an idiot. 2) If you wanted the Jazz to trade Hayward beforehand, you need to point fingers in more directions than just DL. That has way more to do with ownership than the GM. The Millers were not going to sign off on trading Hayward. They were going to want to take the success of last season and take their chances in FA. 3) The botched extension is way bigger deal than the decision to trade/not to trade Hayward. If we're being realistic here, trading Hayward was never an option.
