Hayward Undecided

[LarryBirdsFingr]

IT scores most of his points off the ball, people would notice that if they watched the games, which this guy doesn't. I would like to see the ball in IT's hands a bit less, though, which it will this year.

IT's off-ball scoring is still pretty IT-intensive. A lot of dribble hand-offs and give-go type plays where he is the one essentially generating the shot and just using one of the other guys (usually Horford) as a springboard.

And most of his points are still on-the ball (56% unassisted). That plus assisting on 33% of the team's makes and it becomes clear that 50%+ of the offense is the ball in IT's hands.

we need to reduce that number

[LarryBirdsFingr]

Man the salt is already flowing from the salt lake folks.

Can you expand on this?

Jazz fans on this board, the rest of the internet, my personal friends who live in salt lake who are huge hayward/jazz fans are already upset with these rumors. Expanded enough?

[Gant]

Boston shot like... 60-55-95 in those games. It's incredibly dangerous taking small samples to be representative of how good 2 teams are compared to each other. This is very unlikely to continue over large samples.

Also when talking about upward trajectory the Jazz are on the 20-30-40-50 wins trajectory right now.

The Celtics and Jazz were fairly even this year. If Hayward switches teams the Celtics will be much better than either team was in 2016-17.

It's not close. If Hayward switches he'll be playing for a much better team than if he stays.

If the Jazz keep being injured yes, If they have some modicum of health, I don't think Boston with Hayward is much better/if at all/ than healthy Utah with Hayward.

That's wishful considering the influx of young star power the Celtics are adding.

Griffin may grab the spot first. You never know.

[stitches]

Insecure much?

About what? About the possibility that Hayward picks another team? Sure. I said it earlier in this very thread - one has to be insane not to be worried about losing our franchise player when he's set to take meetings with other teams.

Is that good enough for you? Now how about we stop talking about my feelings, skip the nonsense and snarkiness and be serious?

[Slartibartfast]

The Jazz and Celtics were in the same tier this season- very good non-contending teams. Boston won both head to head games pretty easily. That's with Hayward on the Jazz. Put him on the Celtics and it's not close. The Celtics win near 60 or more.

Add in Brown's development. Add in Fultz. Add in Brooklyn 18, and the stashes.

Plus the Celtics are in the East with a better path to go deep into the playoff every year. They have the Butler Bulldog Brad Stevens wild card advantage.

The Celtics are on an upward trajectory and will contend in a few years. If it's about winning, Hayward will choose Boston.

Boston shot like... 60-55-95 in those games. It's incredibly dangerous taking small samples to be representative of how good 2 teams are compared to each other. This is very unlikely to continue over large samples.

Also when talking about upward trajectory the Jazz are on the 20-30-40-50 wins trajectory right now.

The Celtics and Jazz were fairly even this year. If Hayward switches teams the Celtics will be much better than either team was in 2016-17.

It's not close. If Hayward switches he'll be playing for a much better team than if he stays.

This is potentially true, but not necessarily. If say we end up moving Jae for a pick/space to make room for Hayward you could make a good case that we'd be treading water.

Just gonna keep repeating it - everyone looking at Horford vs. Sully in a vacuum thought we were gonna skyrocket. Sure our record improved but our SRS actually declined.

I feel for stitches here, though none of his arguments matter if Hayward wants to come here. Hayward is their homegrown star. They drafted him, paid him and gradually put together a very nice and young team around him. They did just about everything right. And now they face losing him for nothing.

Pierce re-signed in an even worse scenario - coming off a crappy season with no positive trendline - and we loved him for it.

[stitches]

Man the salt is already flowing from the salt lake folks.

Can you expand on this?

Jazz fans on this board, the rest of the internet, my personal friends who live in salt lake who are huge hayward/jazz fans are already upset with these rumors. Expanded enough?

Of course Jazz fans would be upset. What did you expect? For us to be happy that we might lose our franchise player? My gripe is with delusional posts around here and with people not knowing what is being argued and throwing non sequiturs left and right.

[OFWGKTA]

Insecure much?

About what? About the possibility that Hayward picks another team? Sure. I said it earlier in this very thread - one has to be insane not to be worried about losing our franchise player when he's set to take meetings with other teams.

Is that good enough for you? Now how about we stop talking about my feelings, skip the nonsense and snarkiness and be serious?

You quoted me nerd

[Slartibartfast]

IT scores most of his points off the ball, people would notice that if they watched the games, which this guy doesn't. I would like to see the ball in IT's hands a bit less, though, which it will this year.

IT's off-ball scoring is still pretty IT-intensive. A lot of dribble hand-offs and give-go type plays where he is the one essentially generating the shot and just using one of the other guys (usually Horford) as a springboard.

And most of his points are still on-the ball (56% unassisted). That plus assisting on 33% of the team's makes and it becomes clear that 50%+ of the offense is the ball in IT's hands.

we need to reduce that number

I prefer keeping that number but reducing his minutes and using him as a 6th man.

Diminishing his usage and shot-creation brings better balance as a starter makes us more unpredictable and harder to guard in the playoffs, but it also makes IT less productive offensively and it's not like he's gonna scale up defensively with the lessened offensive burden.

[Homerclease]

The Jazz and Celtics were in the same tier this season- very good non-contending teams. Boston won both head to head games pretty easily. That's with Hayward on the Jazz. Put him on the Celtics and it's not close. The Celtics win near 60 or more.

Add in Brown's development. Add in Fultz. Add in Brooklyn 18, and the stashes.

Plus the Celtics are in the East with a better path to go deep into the playoff every year. They have the Butler Bulldog Brad Stevens wild card advantage.

The Celtics are on an upward trajectory and will contend in a few years. If it's about winning, Hayward will choose Boston.

Boston shot like... 60-55-95 in those games. It's incredibly dangerous taking small samples to be representative of how good 2 teams are compared to each other. This is very unlikely to continue over large samples.

Also when talking about upward trajectory the Jazz are on the 20-30-40-50 wins trajectory right now.

The Celtics and Jazz were fairly even this year. If Hayward switches teams the Celtics will be much better than either team was in 2016-17.

It's not close. If Hayward switches he'll be playing for a much better team than if he stays.

Not only that, if Lebron bails on the cavs next year then the Celtics are in the drivers seat for a finals appearance with the addition of Hayward. I wouldn't blame him for staying loyal to Utah but his chances of winning increase substantially by coming here

[stitches]

Not only that, if Lebron bails on the cavs next year then the Celtics are in the drivers seat for a finals appearance with the addition of Hayward. I wouldn't blame him for staying loyal to Utah but his chances of winning increase substantially by coming here

Winning the conference - yes. Winning championship... not really. If his goal is to be in the NBA finals, those rumors about LeBron might give extra-boost to Boston's offer to him.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Boston shot like... 60-55-95 in those games. It's incredibly dangerous taking small samples to be representative of how good 2 teams are compared to each other. This is very unlikely to continue over large samples.

Also when talking about upward trajectory the Jazz are on the 20-30-40-50 wins trajectory right now.

The Celtics and Jazz were fairly even this year. If Hayward switches teams the Celtics will be much better than either team was in 2016-17.

It's not close. If Hayward switches he'll be playing for a much better team than if he stays.

Not only that, if Lebron bails on the cavs next year then the Celtics are in the drivers seat for a finals appearance with the addition of Hayward. I wouldn't blame him for staying loyal to Utah but his chances of winning increase substantially by coming here

Yup. Let's hope those "Lebron to LA after next season" rumors pick up enough steam by July 1st. It would also be lovely if Chris Paul ended up committing to the Spurs early during FA. The meeting would probably sound something like this:

Brad Stevens: Gordon, I believed in you before you were highly recruited, and I still believe in you now. We've got a great situation here in Boston, and would love for you to be part of it.
Danny Ainge: Or, you could stay in Utah and duke it out with Golden State and the Spurs for a trip to the Finals. By the way, things are likely to get harder after next season when Lebron forms another superteam in LA. It's up to you though.

[LarryBirdsFingr]

Wonder if pg and lebron would want to team up for less dollars

[Tai]

IT's off-ball scoring is still pretty IT-intensive. A lot of dribble hand-offs and give-go type plays where he is the one essentially generating the shot and just using one of the other guys (usually Horford) as a springboard.

And most of his points are still on-the ball (56% unassisted). That plus assisting on 33% of the team's makes and it becomes clear that 50%+ of the offense is the ball in IT's hands.

we need to reduce that number

I prefer keeping that number but reducing his minutes and using him as a 6th man.

Diminishing his usage and shot-creation brings better balance as a starter makes us more unpredictable and harder to guard in the playoffs, but it also makes IT less productive offensively and it's not like he's gonna scale up defensively with the lessened offensive burden.

Not even the worst idea ever to make Isaiah a 6th man again, but if we're keeping Isaiah on any contract, let's keep it real; it's not going to be to come off the bench.

The usage thing is overplayed, especially over a rumor the writer admits isn't from Hayward's camp. I'll slurp a rumor as much as anyone, but jeez, it's not even a juicy one.

[ConstableGeneva]

Boston shot like... 60-55-95 in those games. It's incredibly dangerous taking small samples to be representative of how good 2 teams are compared to each other. This is very unlikely to continue over large samples.

Also when talking about upward trajectory the Jazz are on the 20-30-40-50 wins trajectory right now.

The Celtics and Jazz were fairly even this year. If Hayward switches teams the Celtics will be much better than either team was in 2016-17.

It's not close. If Hayward switches he'll be playing for a much better team than if he stays.

This is potentially true, but not necessarily. If say we end up moving Jae for a pick/space to make room for Hayward you could make a good case that we'd be treading water.

Just gonna keep repeating it - everyone looking at Horford vs. Sully in a vacuum thought we were gonna skyrocket. Sure our record improved but our SRS actually declined.

I feel for stitches here, though none of his arguments matter if Hayward wants to come here. Hayward is their homegrown star. They drafted him, paid him and gradually put together a very nice and young team around him. They did just about everything right. And now they face losing him for nothing.

Pierce re-signed in an even worse scenario - coming off a crappy season with no positive trendline - and we loved him for it.

Looking at Horford's on/off numbers last season, there's a net increase of 4.3 points per 100 possessions compared to Sully's 2.6 the previous season. Starting five with Horford also had a net rating of 7.5 while previous year's starting five with Sully at center was only 2.4. Surprisingly, last season's starting five also rebounded slightly better as a unit compared to the one with Sully (edge in OREB%). Horford gave us a huge boost offensively, more than made up for the dip in defensive rating. Our stronger starting unit was offset by our weak, inexperienced bench though. While the ET-led bench group might not be able to score consistently and efficiently, those guys locked opponents up and forced a ton of turnovers. Last year's bench was poor on both sides of the ball, giving up leads on the regular. Stevens' insistence on not staggering his starters most of the season was frustrating to say the least. There was also an absurd amount of injuries to key players (which contributed to the non-staggering). I think that should factor in when comparing the performances of team 2016 vs. team 2017. Horford, who I thought wasn't fully utilized, was awesome for us esp. on offense. Relative health and bench, not so much.

[Slartibartfast]

The Celtics and Jazz were fairly even this year. If Hayward switches teams the Celtics will be much better than either team was in 2016-17.

It's not close. If Hayward switches he'll be playing for a much better team than if he stays.

This is potentially true, but not necessarily. If say we end up moving Jae for a pick/space to make room for Hayward you could make a good case that we'd be treading water.

Just gonna keep repeating it - everyone looking at Horford vs. Sully in a vacuum thought we were gonna skyrocket. Sure our record improved but our SRS actually declined.

I feel for stitches here, though none of his arguments matter if Hayward wants to come here. Hayward is their homegrown star. They drafted him, paid him and gradually put together a very nice and young team around him. They did just about everything right. And now they face losing him for nothing.

Pierce re-signed in an even worse scenario - coming off a crappy season with no positive trendline - and we loved him for it.

Looking at Horford's on/off numbers last season, there's a net increase of 4.3 points per 100 possessions compared to Sully's 2.6 the previous season. Starting five with Horford also had a net rating of 7.5 while previous year's starting five with Sully at center was only 2.4. Surprisingly, last season's starting five also rebounded slightly better as a unit compared to the one with Sully (edge in OREB%). Horford gave us a huge boost offensively, more than made up for the dip in defensive rating. Our stronger starting unit was offset by our weak, inexperienced bench though. While the ET-led bench group might not be able to score consistently and efficiently, those guys locked opponents up and forced a ton of turnovers. Last year's bench was poor on both sides of the ball, giving up leads on the regular. Stevens' insistence on not staggering his starters most of the season was frustrating to say the least. There was also an absurd amount of injuries to key players (which contributed to the non-staggering). I think that should factor in when comparing the performances of team 2016 vs. team 2017. Horford, who I thought wasn't fully utilized, was awesome for us esp. on offense. Relative health and bench, not so much.

That's why I said in a vacuum. Horford clearly the superior player to Sully. But people got so hung up on that upgrade in the offseason that they pooh-poohed going from mediocre-but-tough ET to Rozier/Brown and having no rebounder in the rotation.

And the same issues are posed by adding Hayward. In a vacuum we can say, hey, we're adding an All-Star for free! To a 53 win team! Just like we did with Horford. And we can imagine him replacing playoff disappointments just like we did with Sully - hey, this All-Star's replacing old man Amir and freaking Gerald Green - what's the downside?

Well there are plenty of downsides. Even though Amir was awful in the playoffs a la Fat Sully in 2016, he was an advanced stat stud during the RS (3rd on the team in RPM wins just as Sully was).

Nor is losing Amir (yeah, he's probably already lost to age - but the bottom line is the same) the only thing to pencil in. We're very likely going to have to ditch one or more of AB or Jae or KO to add Hayward, just like we ditched ET (no tears here - but again, bottom line). The natural choice is AB, and like ET, there's an advanced stat case to be made that he's a lot easier to replace than his outsized role would suggest. And like Jaylen, we'll have a top-shelf rook ready to put in his place.

But like ET, AB will be harder to replace than his footprint suggests and more time for young guys is likely to result in a stepback.

Put it all together and you can add an all-star for free and make no major short-term headway.


P.S.
As for injuries, they were worse than the prior year (but so was our SRS) but not really absurd. Remember 15/16 had it's own qualifying issues, including the awful David Lee experiment, Marcus Smart injuries, and lingering injury issues that made Jae and KO kinda suck down the stretch. Then of course injuries were a complete disaster in the first round.

[165bows]

Boston shot like... 60-55-95 in those games. It's incredibly dangerous taking small samples to be representative of how good 2 teams are compared to each other. This is very unlikely to continue over large samples.

Also when talking about upward trajectory the Jazz are on the 20-30-40-50 wins trajectory right now.

The Celtics and Jazz were fairly even this year. If Hayward switches teams the Celtics will be much better than either team was in 2016-17.

It's not close. If Hayward switches he'll be playing for a much better team than if he stays.

This is potentially true, but not necessarily. If say we end up moving Jae for a pick/space to make room for Hayward you could make a good case that we'd be treading water.

Just gonna keep repeating it - everyone looking at Horford vs. Sully in a vacuum thought we were gonna skyrocket. Sure our record improved but our SRS actually declined.

I feel for stitches here, though none of his arguments matter if Hayward wants to come here. Hayward is their homegrown star. They drafted him, paid him and gradually put together a very nice and young team around him. They did just about everything right. And now they face losing him for nothing.

Pierce re-signed in an even worse scenario - coming off a crappy season with no positive trendline - and we loved him for it.

Issue with the Horford/Sully comp is that Sully on a per minute basis was very good in a majority of areas.

Problem was he could only play in short minutes and was past his prime at 23.

[jfs1000d]

There's no way IT and his wife would follow and recruit a guy that doesn't want to play with him. I could understand D'angelo Russell rooting for the lakers to take JJ but that's obvious. I'm sure GH would incredulously shake his head and laugh at the ridiculousness of this rumor. Not only that it's not true but that it makes zero sense.

Lol. That will take about 15 minutes of brad Stevens talking to Hayward to overcome.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Andrew McCeltic]

Don't be unkind to Utah fans. The rumor winds are blowing our way, but we could miss on both big fish. You don't know who you've hooked til you reel them in. And this isn't us signing Horford, who was clearly going to leave a team that had peaked. I don't think maxing Hill/Hayward is great for the Jazz, but they just made the playoffs for the first time in years, they're young, Gobert is a force, they have interesting young players - Hood, Exum, Lyles. Our gain is their loss. If there's a sign and trade to be had, I'd send a bunch of stuff west to help out. But it's not a pretty thing to poach an all-star level player, so keep the schadenfreude cool.

[Andrew McCeltic]

We could theoretically renounce Amir, make moves, and then use the MLE on him, if I remember right.

And we might be about the same next year, after changes. Secondary ball handling / offense and rebounding were the big issues after last off season.

This summer? If we lose Amir, Crowder, Bradley, it'll be consistency, veteran savvy, defense. Zizic might help with rebounding, but that's still a problem.

The tradeoff might be a little by design - you give Bradley's minutes to Fultz, Smart, Brown to help them develop, and a short-term plateau is a long-term gain.

You could do something like Bradley for Okafor/future 1st, max Hayward, re-sign Amir with the MLE- it redistributes talent & money across the roster, and you only have one gap to fill. Plus you bet on Okafor's development as a rebounder and his value in a trade for a different big.

[stitches]

Read on Twitter

Thurl Bailey to the Celtics? You guys are merciless.