Hayward Undecided

[Captain_Caveman]

Why would Hayward sign with Boston if Boston won't go all in. So he signs for less money with Boston and waste his prime years waiting for Brown, Fultz, 18 Bkn pick to develop and getting beat down by LeBron year after year. Hayward should wait for Boston to trade Fultz or 18 Bkn pick for Butler or George first before considering signing with them. If they don't then he's better off signing for more money and building with Utah.

A) It's really not more money. Just an extra 5th year guaranteed that he is sure to opt out of.

B) He'd almost certainly prefer to opt out of the 4th year too, so he can get another big contract while he is still able to, on the heels of another cap jump in 2020.

C) If Boston doesn't doesn't go all-in, he'll be so turned off that he'll stay with a lesser team, with a lesser present and a lesser future? He may very well stay in Utah out of loyalty or comfort, but your point there is completely illogical and self-defeating.

[Kolkmania]

Why would Hayward sign with Boston if Boston won't go all in. So he signs for less money with Boston and waste his prime years waiting for Brown, Fultz, 18 Bkn pick to develop and getting beat down by LeBron year after year. Hayward should wait for Boston to trade Fultz or 18 Bkn pick for Butler or George first before considering signing with them. If they don't then he's better off signing for more money and building with Utah.

A) It's really not more money. Just an extra 5th year guaranteed that he is sure to opt out of.

B) He'd almost certainly prefer to opt out of the 4th year too, so he can get another big contract while he is still able to, on the heels of another cap jump in 2020.

C) If Boston doesn't doesn't go all-in, he'll be so turned off that he'll stay with a lesser team, with a lesser present and a lesser future? He may very well stay in Utah out of loyalty or comfort, but your point there is completely illogical and self-defeating.

Having full bird rights you can offer more money since the annual raises are higher right?

[Kolkmania]

Quite funny that everything Smitty projected in this article has come true so far, http://www.celticsblog.com/2017/3/3/14792150/boston-celtics-max-free-agent-2017.

If Boston decides to trade Bradley/Smart/Rozier to free up space so they can retain Olynyk, is the trade deadline the only day when teams are eligible to trade players? And should those trades be draft related, i.e. including draft picks?

[Andrew McCeltic]

Ok, just messed around with ESPN's Trade Machine, Lebron's in there for 30.9 million. We have to get up to about 25 million in outgoing salary for a sign-and-trade. 24.8, maybe.

Need to check the rules for sign-and-trading multiple players - but Zeller's 8 million, Amir even without a raise, at 12 million, gets us to 20 - Jerebko to 25. There are other options - giving raises to Jonas and Amir, sending out Demetrius Jackson or Jordan Mickey, even Yabu or Rozier - sign-and-trading Olynyk.

Point is, if we get a commitment from Hayward, we can work with Utah to give them something small in return for losing their best player - maybe a first-round pick or two, or a player like Yabusele, or Olynyk. Jerebko would fill a rotational need for them, etc.

I don't think we have to overpay to have Utah do us a favor. Remember we did a sign and trade of Antoine to Miami and got, like, a second-round pick and some obscure prospect.

It makes Utah look generous, they get something instead of nothing, and we keep roster flexibility.

The idea is that by using *some* of Zeller/Amir/Jerebko/Olynyk/Jackson/Mickey, even Yabu/Rozier, we keep the *rest* as cap chips for other trades. So we send out Jerebko, Zeller and a re-upped Olynyk, then keep and re-up Amir for another year at 12, 15 million.

That means you have a rotation big, and you can do something like Amir+ for Jimmy Butler, or Paul George, or Enes Kanter, or whoever is on the market and fits a need. And because you don't have to shave the roster, it means if you later trade Smart/Bradley, you have Rozier as bench depth. It leaves a ton of possibilities.

Remember even if Hayward stays in Utah (they'd have to keep George Hill, too), we have a lot of flexibility. Guys like Vucevic and Drummond were being offered on the cheap at the deadline. Free agents who aren't max guys include Gallo, Taj Gibson, Jamychal Green, Greg Monroe, Nerlens.

And I've floated the idea of absorbing Melo's money and getting the Knicks' pick with it. Or do that, then flip Melo for Butler/Lopez.

The tl;dr is that we have a ton of options including and beyond Hayward, and have a chance to add 2-3 stars or future stars this summer.

[DakoBarr]

I don't wanna move Yabu for Hayward.

[wfiles]

Why would Hayward sign with Boston if Boston won't go all in. So he signs for less money with Boston and waste his prime years waiting for Brown, Fultz, 18 Bkn pick to develop and getting beat down by LeBron year after year. Hayward should wait for Boston to trade Fultz or 18 Bkn pick for Butler or George first before considering signing with them. If they don't then he's better off signing for more money and building with Utah.

A) It's really not more money. Just an extra 5th year guaranteed that he is sure to opt out of.

B) He'd almost certainly prefer to opt out of the 4th year too, so he can get another big contract while he is still able to, on the heels of another cap jump in 2020.

C) If Boston doesn't doesn't go all-in, he'll be so turned off that he'll stay with a lesser team, with a lesser present and a lesser future? He may very well stay in Utah out of loyalty or comfort, but your point there is completely illogical and self-defeating.

He'll be 32 during the 5th year and what if he gets injured. That 5th year player option is good insurance. Hayward and Gobert has a good team going with Utah. They can make a few changes to become a contender. They are not a lesser team with a lesser present and lesser future.

[DarkAzcura]

Why would Hayward sign with Boston if Boston won't go all in. So he signs for less money with Boston and waste his prime years waiting for Brown, Fultz, 18 Bkn pick to develop and getting beat down by LeBron year after year. Hayward should wait for Boston to trade Fultz or 18 Bkn pick for Butler or George first before considering signing with them. If they don't then he's better off signing for more money and building with Utah.

A) It's really not more money. Just an extra 5th year guaranteed that he is sure to opt out of.

B) He'd almost certainly prefer to opt out of the 4th year too, so he can get another big contract while he is still able to, on the heels of another cap jump in 2020.

C) If Boston doesn't doesn't go all-in, he'll be so turned off that he'll stay with a lesser team, with a lesser present and a lesser future? He may very well stay in Utah out of loyalty or comfort, but your point there is completely illogical and self-defeating.

He'll be 32 during the 5th year and what if he gets injured. That 5th year player option is good insurance. Hayward and Gobert has a good team going with Utah. They can make a few changes to become a contender. They are not a lesser team with a lesser present and lesser future.

Please tell me the 'few changes' Utah would have to make to be competitive with GSW. Utah doesn't have any where close to the resources or flexibility that Boston does objectively speaking. Adding Fultz and a developing Brown is still better than anything Utah can realistically add.

[Captain_Caveman]

Why would Hayward sign with Boston if Boston won't go all in. So he signs for less money with Boston and waste his prime years waiting for Brown, Fultz, 18 Bkn pick to develop and getting beat down by LeBron year after year. Hayward should wait for Boston to trade Fultz or 18 Bkn pick for Butler or George first before considering signing with them. If they don't then he's better off signing for more money and building with Utah.

A) It's really not more money. Just an extra 5th year guaranteed that he is sure to opt out of.

B) He'd almost certainly prefer to opt out of the 4th year too, so he can get another big contract while he is still able to, on the heels of another cap jump in 2020.

C) If Boston doesn't doesn't go all-in, he'll be so turned off that he'll stay with a lesser team, with a lesser present and a lesser future? He may very well stay in Utah out of loyalty or comfort, but your point there is completely illogical and self-defeating.

He'll be 32 during the 5th year and what if he gets injured. That 5th year player option is good insurance. Hayward and Gobert has a good team going with Utah. They can make a few changes to become a contender. They are not a lesser team with a lesser present and lesser future.

That's kinda my point, though. He can still get a very nice multiyear contract at the age of 30 vs the age of 31 or 32. In light of the rising cap, that 5th year won't even be close to max money by that point. His path of least financial risk and potentially biggest gain is to sign a 3+1 this summer (4 year deal with player option on the 4th year). A supermax would have changed that, but it didn't.

This is why it was it was such a big deal for him. Cannot say if he will leave or not, but the Jazz really have no real economic advantage here.

You are also a lesser team. Even if you think that they are about the same level right now, which I guess is fair, we instantly win another 10 games or so just by adding him in place of Amir, Jerebko and Gerald Green. And we have Fultz, and a bunch of other top picks or prospects for the future (which also make for nice trade assets in the present).

Again, he may stay out of loyalty or comfort, but it won't be for the money, and it is definitely a lesser situation basketball-wise.

[BleedGreen1989]

A) It's really not more money. Just an extra 5th year guaranteed that he is sure to opt out of.

B) He'd almost certainly prefer to opt out of the 4th year too, so he can get another big contract while he is still able to, on the heels of another cap jump in 2020.

C) If Boston doesn't doesn't go all-in, he'll be so turned off that he'll stay with a lesser team, with a lesser present and a lesser future? He may very well stay in Utah out of loyalty or comfort, but your point there is completely illogical and self-defeating.

He'll be 32 during the 5th year and what if he gets injured. That 5th year player option is good insurance. Hayward and Gobert has a good team going with Utah. They can make a few changes to become a contender. They are not a lesser team with a lesser present and lesser future.

Please tell me the 'few changes' Utah would have to make to be competitive with GSW. Utah doesn't have any where close to the resources or flexibility that Boston does objectively speaking. Adding Fultz and a developing Brown is still better than anything Utah can realistically add.

That's also not counting the fact they could very well get worse as they have Hill, Hood, Favors, and Exum all coming due for big time money so they're sure to lose at least one of them, maybe two.

[TheOGJabroni]

'Utah May Be Unwilling To Match Rival Offers For George Hill'

“I told him if he gets a crazy offer somewhere else and we helped him get that offer, ‘you’re not going to get one poor thought, much less a word (from us)’ if he were to go,” Lindsey said. “He helped us.”

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/245989/Utah-May-Be-Unwilling-To-Match-Rival-Offers-For-George-Hill

Anyone else read any of this? Kind of a weird thing to say if you're a GM. You're openly stating how important you are/aren't to the team if there's a "crazy" figure they won't match. And no one may give it a poor thought, but that could speak volumes to Hayward, if they're already showing they're unwilling to commit to retaining some of their roster.

Just interesting to me.

[VeryMuchWoke]

'Utah May Be Unwilling To Match Rival Offers For George Hill'

“I told him if he gets a crazy offer somewhere else and we helped him get that offer, ‘you’re not going to get one poor thought, much less a word (from us)’ if he were to go,” Lindsey said. “He helped us.”

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/245989/Utah-May-Be-Unwilling-To-Match-Rival-Offers-For-George-Hill

Anyone else read any of this? Kind of a weird thing to say if you're a GM. You're openly stating how important you are/aren't to the team if there's a "crazy" figure they won't match. And no one may give it a poor thought, but that could speak volumes to Hayward, if they're already showing they're unwilling to commit to retaining some of their roster.

Just interesting to me.

Hayward and Hill are tight, aren't they? If they cheap out on Hill then I believe they will lose Hayward. If they bring them both back, then they are a taxpayer, which is fairly unlikely.

[DarkAzcura]

'Utah May Be Unwilling To Match Rival Offers For George Hill'

“I told him if he gets a crazy offer somewhere else and we helped him get that offer, ‘you’re not going to get one poor thought, much less a word (from us)’ if he were to go,” Lindsey said. “He helped us.”

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/245989/Utah-May-Be-Unwilling-To-Match-Rival-Offers-For-George-Hill

Anyone else read any of this? Kind of a weird thing to say if you're a GM. You're openly stating how important you are/aren't to the team if there's a "crazy" figure they won't match. And no one may give it a poor thought, but that could speak volumes to Hayward, if they're already showing they're unwilling to commit to retaining some of their roster.

Just interesting to me.

TBF, I feel like this is pretty much what the Celtics probably told Turner, but we didn't make that public like Lindsey is here. George Hill is also much better than Turner so it is weirder from that perspective.

In a way, it is a little like what the Jazz did to Hayward a few years back by making him go out there in the market to prove his worth. Probably not good to remind Hayward that the front office is still capable of that type of shadiness.

[tombattor]

I'd love to sign Hayward, but it seems unrealistic. Utah can still pay him the most and they have a good young team with him as a centerpiece. He's in a good situation. Is reuniting with his old coach worth leaving all that money and a good situation?

[Valid]

I'd love to sign Hayward, but it seems unrealistic. Utah can still pay him the most and they have a good young team with him as a centerpiece. He's in a good situation. Is reuniting with his old coach worth leaving all that money and a good situation?

We've heard this plenty of times before and players have still left/asked for trades.

It's never just black and white.

It's also a heck of a lot easier to make the finals in the East than it is in the West. As nice of a team as Utah has, it isn't beating the Warriors any time soon, and as long as Kawhi is in San Antonio, the Spurs will always be right there, too.

I'm sure Hayward has that on his mind.

[DarkAzcura]

I'd love to sign Hayward, but it seems unrealistic. Utah can still pay him the most and they have a good young team with him as a centerpiece. He's in a good situation. Is reuniting with his old coach worth leaving all that money and a good situation?

We've heard this plenty of times before and players have still left/asked for trades.

It's never just black and white.

Yeah it's really not that much more money in the end. The real difference in money comes from the super max. No shot Hayward leaves if he made the All NBA team. Because he didn't, the minor money difference could be made back in endorsements I bet. I really doubt money is a deciding factor in his decision now that the super max is out of play.

[Valid]

I'd love to sign Hayward, but it seems unrealistic. Utah can still pay him the most and they have a good young team with him as a centerpiece. He's in a good situation. Is reuniting with his old coach worth leaving all that money and a good situation?

We've heard this plenty of times before and players have still left/asked for trades.

It's never just black and white.

Yeah it's really not that much more money in the end. The real difference in money comes from the super max. No shot Hayward leaves if he made the All NBA team. Because he didn't, the minor money difference could be made back in endorsements I bet.

Yep. And no disrespect to Utah, because I like the Jazz, but Hayward could make a heck of a lot more in endorsements in Boston than he could in Salt Lake City. It's just a fact.

[DarkAzcura]

We've heard this plenty of times before and players have still left/asked for trades.

It's never just black and white.

Yeah it's really not that much more money in the end. The real difference in money comes from the super max. No shot Hayward leaves if he made the All NBA team. Because he didn't, the minor money difference could be made back in endorsements I bet.

Yep. And no disrespect to Utah, because I like the Jazz, but Hayward could make a heck of a lot more in endorsements in Boston than he could in Salt Lake City. It's just a fact.

If Hayward had the type of season he had in Utah but in Boston this year..he would have made the All NBA team. It's actually pretty unfortunate how little attention Utah gets, and it could bite them in the butt sadly (but great for us potentially).

[tombattor]

I'd love to sign Hayward, but it seems unrealistic. Utah can still pay him the most and they have a good young team with him as a centerpiece. He's in a good situation. Is reuniting with his old coach worth leaving all that money and a good situation?

We've heard this plenty of times before and players have still left/asked for trades.

It's never just black and white.

Yeah it's really not that much more money in the end. The real difference in money comes from the super max. No shot Hayward leaves if he made the All NBA team. Because he didn't, the minor money difference could be made back in endorsements I bet. I really doubt money is a deciding factor in his decision now that the super max is out of play.

What's the difference? Isn't it about $45M and 1 year if they change teams? I guess he can make most of that back in the next contract.

[DarkAzcura]

We've heard this plenty of times before and players have still left/asked for trades.

It's never just black and white.

Yeah it's really not that much more money in the end. The real difference in money comes from the super max. No shot Hayward leaves if he made the All NBA team. Because he didn't, the minor money difference could be made back in endorsements I bet. I really doubt money is a deciding factor in his decision now that the super max is out of play.

What's the difference? Isn't it about $45M and 1 year if they change teams? I guess he can make most of that back in the next contract.

Yeah pretty much I think, and that's exactly it. That extra year, IMO, is fairly meaningless unless we are taking about an injury prone player. He's going to opt out of that 5th year in Utah anyway to get one more big contract in.

EDIT: actually is the difference that high? It sounds too high. I have to look at the raises..

[Darth Celtic]

We have cap space to absorb Hayward in a sign and trade. If you trade Rozier + the clippers 2019 pick for Hawyard at 30m starting, it would work if we renounced all we could (not zizic or yabs). and it should work. then we have salaries for Smart/Crowder or Bradley that can go out for somebody like PG13 as long as we don't go over lux tax this year (because the sign and trade). So many ways the cap can be manipulated in these deals. I can bet the plan is Hayward, Fultz, AND another all star this offseason.