Jazz and Hayward moving in on near max deal?

Spottieottie · Post #21 » by **Spottieottie** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:50 pm

Hayward at max would be one of worst contracts in NBA history LOL.

Thing is, I'd even sign him at 11.5 per as the absolute highest.

But this ****? ... **** wow.

The59Sound · Post #22 » by **The59Sound** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:52 pm

You know, now that I've looked into it, I'm not sure it actually has to be a max deal to get the 5th year.

You all can read and give your interpretation: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q59

I really hope that's what it is. I'm happy to designate Hayward as our 5-year guy at a lower annual salary than Favors if that's what's going on.

Post #23 » by **Inigo Montoya** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:54 pm

i think we are getting ahead of ourselves with this max deal for hayward. i don't think that will happen. but even so, it is very concerning if the rumor is true, and his deal will be bigger than favors' (which i'm also not crazy about). the 12M ballpark for hayward is WAY too much. i can understand not being able to get him at 8M, but anything over 10M is in the "trade him for some god assets while you still can" territory for me.

Post #24 » by **Inigo Montoya** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:00 pm

The59Sound wrote:You know, now that I've looked into it, I'm not sure it actually has to be a max deal to get the 5th year.

You all can read and give your interpretation: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q59

I really hope that's what it is. I'm happy to designate Hayward as our 5-year guy at a lower annual salary than Favors if that's what's going on.

according to my understating of this text - you can make one player on your current roster a "designated player". that status enables him to receive a 5 year extension. but a "designated player" status MUST command a max salary.

" The salary in the first year of an extension to a rookie scale contract for a team's Designated Player must be the player's maximum salary. If the player has also met the 5th Year 30% Max criteria, the player's salary may be any amount between the 0-6 year maximum and the 7-9 year maximum. "

The59Sound · Post #25 » by **The59Sound** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:04 pm

Inigo Montoya wrote:
The59Sound wrote:You know, now that I've looked into it, I'm not sure it actually has to be a max deal to get the 5th year.

You all can read and give your interpretation: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q59

I really hope that's what it is. I'm happy to designate Hayward as our 5-year guy at a lower annual salary than Favors if that's what's going on.

according to my understating of this text - you can make one player on your current roster a "designated player". that status enables him to receive a 5 year extension. but a "designated player" status MUST command a max salary.

" The salary in the first year of an extension to a rookie scale contract for a team's Designated Player must be the player's maximum salary. If the player has also met the 5th Year 30% Max criteria, the player's salary may be any amount between the 0-6 year maximum and the 7-9 year maximum. "

I think your reading is correct. I was getting caught up on the 30% criteria.

Post #26 » by **FJS** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:28 pm

Hayward has his ceiling as a Manu type of player... and that kind of player is not a Max. Player.

This is our main problem... if we don't have a franchise player, we are going to overpaid the players who resemble it.

kamazilla · Post #27 » by **kamazilla** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:19 pm

I can't see the Jazz offering the five year max deal to Hayward on an extension. If they were prepared to pay that much, why wouldn't they just wait till next off-season and match? Many are underestimating his value, but I don't foresee any teams offering the max.

The entire point of locking him up early is to save money in the long run. If the rumors prove true, I'll be shocked. It would just be a stupid move.

The59Sound · Post #28 » by **The59Sound** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:20 pm

kamazilla wrote:I can't see the Jazz offering the five year max deal to Hayward on an extension. If they were prepared to pay that much, why wouldn't they just wait till next off-season and match? Many are underestimating his value, but I don't foresee any teams offering the max.

The entire point of locking him up early is to save money in the long run. If the rumors prove true, I'll be shocked. It would just be a stupid move.

Yeah, there's no way it's a max deal for the reasons you stated.

Jazz_Man_86 · Post #29 » by **Jazz_Man_86** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:50 pm

Dennis Lindsey at his best?

Dry Fly · Post #30 » by **Dry Fly** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:00 pm

Well when even the Hayward Homers of the board think the max is ridiculous then maybe his agent is just playing media games.

Hikari · Post #31 » by **Hikari** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:02 pm

I am not saying that David Locke is always right but in his pod cast this morning he said he thinks the Mark Stein is guessing or reporting on what Gordon's agent wants let out. He seems to think that if a deal is done it will be a last min deal.

The59Sound · Post #32 » by **The59Sound** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:03 pm

Dry Fly wrote:Well when even the Hayward Homers of the board think the max is ridiculous then maybe his agent is just playing media games.

I guess it's all relative. I don't think Paul George deserved a max either, but sadly deals like that set a precedent for the rest of the league. At this point, I'm sort of okay with an overpay as long as it's not absolute lunacy.

roll · Post #33 » by **roll** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:08 pm

FJS wrote:Hayward has his ceiling as a Manu type of player... and that kind of player is not a Max. Player.

This is our main problem... if we don't have a franchise player, we are going to overpaid the players who resemble it.

By the way I'm OK to pay 14M per year for more durable Manu. Player who will be one of the best wing by PER in next decade. No franchise but difference maker. That's worth the money.

But Hayward has long way to go to be that player. His ceiling is Manu. I like the comparison. But absolutely no guarantee he will be even close.

JazzFan32 · Post #34 » by **JazzFan32** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:19 pm

I feel like the extensions of Favors $49 M/4 and now the rumors 0f $50M +/4 extensions of Hayward, are all direct consequences of what other teams around the league have done in overpaying players. The Jazz are trying to avoid losing players and are basically betting on potential as oppose to proven numbers. I agree with everyone on this board in that Favors and Hayward have not yet proven themselves. I think realistically Favors should have gotten a deal like the one Millsap first got when he first got his extension. I think Hayward should be around $8M or $9M tops. But unfortunately, the Jazz are in a strange situation in that as a small market team, this is not a destination for top tier free agents. The Jazz have to depend on players in the Draft and finding role players in free agency. This in my opinion will hurt the Jazz in the long run, because I honestly feel Kanter is going to be our best all around player, and he will likely be demanding a similar or slightly bigger contract than Favors.

FortyDaysThree · Post #35 » by **FortyDaysThree** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:32 pm

He'll be worth around 5yr 60M in my opinion.

pickIBL · Post #36 » by **pickIBL** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:35 pm

This is pretty risky ****. Favors I still think is a tradable asset but if you pay Hayward so much he becomes harder to trade unless he really continues on a upward development curve.

For this to work I think the Jazz have to tap into the 2014 free agency market plus get the draft right. Luol Deng seems like the target. If you offer Deng a signing bonus and descending contract so his money comes up front maybe you get him. You can tell he's pissed at the Bulls and he might not be up for the drama and unrealistic expectations he'll find in LA. Deng has looked good in pre-season btw.

Right now Deng has to be the target and the Jazz got two first and a 2nd (hopefully they add to it) and they've got to draft right. Kanter,Favors, Deng, Hayward, PG??? Depth???

It could be a pretty quick turnaround if they play this summer right. But with these contracts they are dolling out they gotta really rebuild over next summer and get the coaching situation right.

idajazz · Post #37 » by **idajazz** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:39 pm

this reminds me of the AK contract................... NO THANKS!!!!!

fuzzy1 · Post #38 » by **fuzzy1** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:41 pm

Hawks fan.

Personally I'm a huge Hayward fan and think he'll definitely be worth close to $12M a year before it's all said and done. A max is ridiculous, of course, but he's a good player.

I imagine the Hawks will pursue him next summer (we'll have around $15M in cap and could use a wing), so I guess I kinda hope he doesn't sign with you guys :wink:

. Good luck in any case. Your GM kicks ass (it's often said that he should've traded Millsap/Al Jeff. Yea, ok for who?).

The59Sound · Post #39 » by **The59Sound** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:47 pm

fuzzy1 wrote:Hawks fan.

Personally I'm a huge Hayward fan and think he'll definitely be worth close to $12M a year before it's all said and done. A max is ridiculous, of course, but he's a good player.

I imagine the Hawks will pursue him next summer (we'll have around $15M in cap and could use a wing), so I guess I kinda hope he doesn't sign with you guys . Good luck in any case. Your GM kicks ass (it's often said that he should've traded Millsap/Al Jeff. Yea, ok for who?).

I can definitely see the Hawks taking a long look and giving him a lucrative offer sheet (though Millsap doesn't seem to like passing Hayward the ball, so that would be interesting).

In Dennis Lindsey, I trust. Let's see what happens...

pickIBL · Post #40 » by **pickIBL** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:59 pm

hmmm I almost hate bringing this up but I know how execs think. Morrison went 3rd overall because of the great white hope hunt. Explains why Hayward could get overpaid because they know other teams will go at him hard next summer.

Ricky Roe telling Coach Pete Bell to find one of those gym bags you got and put 30 grand in it because he's a white blue chip athlete that deserves a little bit extra.

Obviously that's not Hayward's mindset but the execs cut the checks and that's how they think.