The Gordon Hayward Thread

Vanderbilt_Grad · Post #1141 » by **Vanderbilt_Grad** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:19 am

Want him here ... Even on that contract.

MasterIchiro · Post #1142 » by **MasterIchiro** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:24 am

Yeah I want him here and mad Cho didn't even attempt a sign + trade.

Maybe they rank Lance above Hayward on a sign + trade and with Walker know they can still get Lance after having gone for broke while involving Al.

Kemba's connection must mean something. It must.

LofJ · Post #1143 » by **LofJ** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:44 am

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyokAjcEciE[/youtube]

Is this what we want to see next year? I say hell yes.

HornetJail · Post #1144 » by **HornetJail** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:49 am

At the rate free agency is going, Lance might actually get a max contract. If the rumors about the TV deal are true and the cap could reach $80M, Lance making 15M a season really isn't the end of the world. It's not ideal, but pairing MKG+Lance is necessary if we ever want to limit Lebron+Wiggins in a series. I would go all-in on a Lance deal.

Post #1145 » by **Diop** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:53 am

MasterIchiro wrote:Yeah I want him here and mad Cho didn't even attempt a sign + trade.

Maybe they rank Lance above Hayward on a sign + trade and with Walker know they can still get Lance after having gone for broke while involving Al.

Kemba's connection must mean something. It must.

Utah made it clear they were keeping Hayward and would match any offer.

Why would they entertain a sign and trade?

MasterIchiro · Post #1146 » by **MasterIchiro** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:59 am

Sachmo wrote:
MasterIchiro wrote:Yeah I want him here and mad Cho didn't even attempt a sign + trade.

Maybe they rank Lance above Hayward on a sign + trade and with Walker know they can still get Lance after having gone for broke while involving Al.

Kemba's connection must mean something. It must.

Utah made it clear they were keeping Hayward and would match any offer.

Why would they entertain a sign and trade?

They never made it clear if they were opposed to a sign + trade. It was reported Cho didn't even bother contacting them about it before they met with Hayward. As far as we know, Cho never made an attempt despite the fact the Jazz never publicly announced opposition to any deals involving Hayward. What they seemed to oppose was a team trying to sign Hayward outright without offering the Jazz any compensation for a player they control.

Post #1147 » by **Diop** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:05 am

General manager Dennis Lindsey has said he hopes to see Hayward "in a Utah Jazz jersey until he retires."

They saw him as a key piece. That makes it pretty clear to me that they wouldn't sign and trade him.

Liver_Pooty · Post #1148 » by **Liver_Pooty** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:09 am

Sachmo wrote:General manager Dennis Lindsey has said he hopes to see Hayward "in a Utah Jazz jersey until he retires."

They saw him as a key piece. That makes it pretty clear to me that they wouldn't sign and trade him.

Well they need to stop being ridiculous and match it.

MasterIchiro · Post #1149 » by **MasterIchiro** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:09 am

Sachmo wrote:General manager Dennis Lindsey has said he hopes to see Hayward "in a Utah Jazz jersey until he retires."

They saw him as a key piece. That makes it pretty clear to me that they wouldn't sign and trade him.

How would Cho know that wasn't at all posturing, and how could he be so sure of that to the point where he wouldn't even attempt to initiate talks before bringing in Hayward?

Even after saying all that, Cho still tried to sign Hayward hoping the Jazz will go against that statement.

So why not go against that statement from a possible better vantage point?

It seems Cho was never interested in sign + trade talks because he never initiated. The failure to communicate was on his end.

Post #1150 » by **Diop** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:11 am

the true answer is we really don't know what actually occurs. We are only fed scraps of gossips.

Which makes me wonder why people are so quickly to jump to conclusions and condemn GM's etc

HornetJail · Post #1151 » by **HornetJail** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:12 am

MasterIchiro wrote:
Sachmo wrote:General manager Dennis Lindsey has said he hopes to see Hayward "in a Utah Jazz jersey until he retires."

They saw him as a key piece. That makes it pretty clear to me that they wouldn't sign and trade him.

How would Cho know that wasn't at all posturing, and how could he be so sure of that to the point where he wouldn't even attempt to initiate talks before bringing in Hayward?

Even after saying all that, Cho still tried to sign Hayward hoping the Jazz will go against that statement.

So why not go against that statement from a possible better vantage point.

It seems Cho was never interested in sign + trade talks because he never initiated. The failure to communicate was on his end.

Maybe Cho was smart and realized that he was already grossly overpaying and that it wasn't worth giving any more value. Utah values him very highly and I wouldn't expect them to ask for anything less than MKG, which is just absurd even if you personally don't think so.

MasterIchiro · Post #1152 » by **MasterIchiro** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:15 am

Sachmo wrote:the true answer is we really don't know what actually occurs. We are only fed scraps of gossips.

Which makes me wonder why people are so quickly to jump to conclusions and condemn GM's etc

That's true.

It could be that Cho didn't initiate trade talks before inviting and offering Hayward and immediately afterwards called the Jazz to initiate talks but was cut off (and we never found out about it). That's probably when he discovered for sure Utah had no intentions of allowing Hayward on another team whether via toxic contract or via trade. It's quite possible Utah took one look at our roster and said, "no thanks cho. You have nothing of interest there. Good luck next draft." I find that particularly palpable.

Pryftan · Post #1153 » by **Pryftan** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:57 am

Seems like Stephenson would have been the better bet here. Given Jazz have apparently made it clear they are willing to match up to the max to keep Heyward by making an offer sheet available to Heyward we ice ourselves out of the free agent market for at least three days if the Jazz take the entire allotted time to match. Given we know (at least allegedly) Stephenson turned down a 5/44 contract from Indiana and Indiana can only pay about that and stay below the luxury tax threshold we would have likely been better served going after Stephenson (though perhaps management decided he wasn't worth that). Heyward isn't likely the sort of player that would tell the Jazz not to match. Anyway, we'll see what happens. I'd be sort of happy whether we got him or not. He's not a max player but I've always thought we'd have to pay a bit more than market to get players to join our team.

Lwcasu · Post #1154 » by **Lwcasu** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:22 am

The Jazz could be bluffing. If they were super high on Gordon, then I think they would have instantly matched. They gain nothing by waiting if they have already made their decision, except the satisfaction of torturing Cho. My gut tells me they are actually debating this.

The problem with the concept of this guy being part of their core, is they don't have a core yet. Their closest guy is Favors and at this point he is a quality starter in this league with potential. They have Dante Exum who hasn't played a game in the NBA. They have Kanter, who was inconsistent, while not a force on defense and they have the Burk(e)s.

The problem with their core is they don't have an all-star on that squad. Yes, sure they have "potential", but this is a very risky move from their position. If they don't have some strong development, then their ceiling may be the 9-10th seed in the west.

I'll call bluff, but acknowledge I could be wrong.

MasterIchiro · Post #1155 » by **MasterIchiro** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:27 am

Lwcasu wrote:The Jazz could be bluffing. If they were super high on Gordon, then I think they would have instantly matched. They gain nothing by waiting if they have already made their decision, except the satisfaction of torturing Cho. My gut tells me they are actually debating this.

The problem with the concept of this guy being part of their core, is they don't have a core yet. Their closest guy is Favors and at this point he is a quality starter in this league with potential. They have Dante Exum who hasn't played a game in the NBA. They have Kanter, who was inconsistent, while not a force on defense and they have the Burk(e)s.

The problem with their core is they don't have an all-star on that squad. Yes, sure they have "potential", but this is a very risky move from their position. If they don't have some strong development, then their ceiling may be the 9-10th seed in the west.

I'll call bluff, but acknowledge I could be wrong.

That's plausible. Their young core will not be developed by the time Hayward leaves. 3 years is a really narrow window to groom the new wave of youth: Burke, Exum, Hood. Look how long it has taken to develop Kanter and Favors already.

So why dump so much money on a player who won't lift you out of development mode? It seems like if you're in development mode, you should stay lean and go as cheaply as possible.

vorbis · Post #1156 » by **vorbis** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:29 am

the more i think about it, i feel like the jazz would have made their intentions clear immediately only if they were NOT going to match. that way the hornets would still have to wait the 3 days until the time went out, but they would go about adjusting their roster accordingly.

MasterIchiro · Post #1157 » by **MasterIchiro** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:37 am

vorbis wrote:the more i think about it, i feel like the jazz would have made their intentions clear immediately only if they were NOT going to match. that way the hornets would still have to wait the 3 days until the time went out, but they would go about adjusting their roster accordingly.

If they were NOT going to match and came up front and said that right now, it would cause fan backlash and look like they didn't even struggle with the decision and didn't even debate keeping Hayward.

IMO, more likely the only way they would make their intentions clear immediately is if they were going to match him.

But if they were not going to match him, we wouldn't know up front. They would drag it out.

So we don't know.

I would think if they were definitely matching him they would have done so. Teams aren't especially afraid to be froze out.

HornetJail · Post #1158 » by **HornetJail** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:37 am

Lwcasu wrote:The Jazz could be bluffing. If they were super high on Gordon, then I think they would have instantly matched. They gain nothing by waiting if they have already made their decision, except the satisfaction of torturing Cho. My gut tells me they are actually debating this.

The problem with the concept of this guy being part of their core, is they don't have a core yet. Their closest guy is Favors and at this point he is a quality starter in this league with potential. They have Dante Exum who hasn't played a game in the NBA. They have Kanter, who was inconsistent, while not a force on defense and they have the Burk(e)s.

The problem with their core is they don't have an all-star on that squad. Yes, sure they have "potential", but this is a very risky move from their position. If they don't have some strong development, then their ceiling may be the 9-10th seed in the west.

I'll call bluff, but acknowledge I could be wrong.

Well, Utah sends a message to the rest of the league saying if you try to sign our guy to a big deal, we'll tie up your cap space for a while. Maybe it's a slight deterrent to a team like the Rockets that's directly affected by the Lebron situation? That doesn't matter to us, we're in no tearing hurry to sign anyone. We can take our time, as long as we reach out to the players that we're interested in, before they get snatched up. That's what I'm worried about- could Lance get snatched up tomorrow before we even get a chance to contact him? If Lance's agent has a working brain, he's probably already called Charlotte since the Hayward signing, knowing that we are willing to shell out an exorbitant amount of money for a highly-talented player at his position.

JMAC3 · Post #1159 » by **JMAC3** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:52 am

I honestly still think Utah is uncertain if they want to match. All we heard was that they were going to match before anybody put out an offer sheet, so why haven't they?

Really.. are you going to say they are trying to punish us for offering him? Its a business you are supposed to try to make your team better. If they did not want anybody to offer him they should of locked him up when they had the chance.

I think they are hoping at this point we get impatient and withdraw our offer or they are really struggling with the decision.

Either way I like that we put the pressure on them to make a decision and at least force them to pay him if they want him. We really haven't lost out on anything yet...

Parsons is going back to Houston, would of been an even dumber offer sheet.
Lance hasn't signed and I think at this point there is no rush.
We don't want Deng.

Might as well sit back and wait, if they match they match. We move on to Plan B and we make Gordon a bunch of money. If they don't match mad props to Cho for calling them on their ****.

therebirth · Post #1160 » by **therebirth** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:15 am

I was listening to Clifford yesterday and he said Hayward is a player who fits the team and the culture and made me think that maybe they really don't want lance.