ImageImageImage

Gordon Hayward Thread

Moderators: The Comedian, Parliament10, canman1971, djFan71, Froob, ParticleMan, sully00

Fidel Sarcasmo
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,358
And1: 3,073
Joined: Jul 03, 2003
Location: hartford, ct.
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1521 » by Fidel Sarcasmo » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:42 pm

Damn I got a lot of catching up to do with the celtics. Im like not even authorized to give an opinion right now.
User avatar
jmr07019
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,915
And1: 4,114
Joined: Oct 29, 2009

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1522 » by jmr07019 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:42 pm

100proof wrote:
jmr07019 wrote:Orlando wouldn't trade Gordon for Hayward straight up and you want them to throw their starting SG into the deal too!?



Yeah, I disagree.

in a vacuum, neither of those 2 are worth what Hayward is.

Add to that Orlando has resigned Ross, whom they really like, Drafted Isaac, resigned Vucevic and signed Aminu and you now have 3 more guys who play Gordons position (potentially)

ORlando has also needed someone to run the offense there for some time, a big plus of Haywards game is that he can do that when there is not a traditional point guard on the floor.

Augustine/Fultz
Ross
Hayward
Isaac
Vucevic

A far better suited and rounded lineup than the opposed.


You make some fair points but I just don't see the point in building a team around Hayward and Vucevic with no major cap space or high draft picks coming.

The way I see it Orlando would be making any trade for Hayward based on last year's play not Hayward's play 3 years ago before a horrible injury. When you compare Hayward last year to Aaron last year they are pretty similar in impact. Aaron the better defender and rebounder. Hayward the more efficient scorer and slightly better play maker. You need defenders next to Vucevic so Aaron is a better fit than Hayward. Aaron is much younger and on a much better contract.
Show Love Spread Love
User avatar
jmr07019
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,915
And1: 4,114
Joined: Oct 29, 2009

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1523 » by jmr07019 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:53 pm

Andrew McCeltic wrote:
31to6 wrote:Aaron Gordon, Fournier and Bamba or a first for Gordon Hayward? At some point you really owe it to yourself to post reasonable trade ideas.


At some point I owe it to myself to not have the board jump up my ass every time I identify a trade scenario and assume I’m an idiot with no perspective.

I’ve explained my reasoning more than once - when I say Gordon/Fournier/Bamba is the most we could hope for, I don’t mean “Do it Danny!”, I mean that’s the high end if circumstances aligned, there’s like a ten percent chance of that happening - and it would take talent evaluation, coaching judgments, and ownership pressures. Probably agent pressures, too. I don’t think identifying that high end is pointless - it worked for us in the KG/Pierce trade to Brooklyn. And looking at what the LA teams paid for Davis and Paul George, I don’t think anyone here would have said those trades were “realistic” if I’d posted them as potential deals.

I think Gordon/Fournier/1st would be fair. We’re talking about a deal where Hayward has come back to his Utah form - how good do you think that is? How good do you think Fournier and Gordon are in comparison? We’ll be lucky if Brown or Tatum develops half of Hayward’s offensive awareness and passing ability, he’s very smart both on and off the ball, Horford level savvy. And everyone here thought Zach Lavine was an awful target - Aaron Gordon isn’t much different, except instead of shooting and getting to the rim, he plays defense. He’s a super athlete who doesn’t have great awareness and is a work in progress. Right now he’s looking like he’s going to land somewhere between Shane Battier and Shawn Marion - impact defensive player, can shoot a little, uneven as a scorer, and right now he’s a mediocre rebounder. Improving as a playmaker. Best case is that within a couple of years he puts it all together, grabs 9 boards a game and can get his own looks on good efficiency. That’s the best case. And re: Fournier, there are only so many options to match salary. Aaron Gordon and DJ Augustin? Orlando could well want to get out of Evan’s money, even Gordon’s, if they think they can stick Isaac between Hayward and Vucevic as the defensive glue in a high powered offensive frontcourt.


The issue with the bold is that if Hayward is playing at an all star level he is likely opting out this summer making the deal a half year rental. Maybe Orlando feels like with a half year they can sell Hayward on their franchise, offer him the max and get him to accept but maxing both Vuecvic and Hayward seems like a great way to treadmill hard af

Anyways I think Bamba is the guy we can steal from Orlando not Gordon. Orlando seems happy to start Isaac and Gordon at the 3 and 4. They started that combo together whenever they were both healthy last year. You need some front court defense next to Vucevic and they both bring defense. They both shot the 3 decently last year too. Throw in Vucevic's new contract and Bamba seems like the better target. I thought of all posters you would have appreciated my Bamba proposal but clearly not lol.
Show Love Spread Love
100proof
Ballboy
Posts: 41
And1: 20
Joined: Jul 25, 2019
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1524 » by 100proof » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:40 pm

jmr07019 wrote:
100proof wrote:
jmr07019 wrote:Orlando wouldn't trade Gordon for Hayward straight up and you want them to throw their starting SG into the deal too!?



Yeah, I disagree.

in a vacuum, neither of those 2 are worth what Hayward is.

Add to that Orlando has resigned Ross, whom they really like, Drafted Isaac, resigned Vucevic and signed Aminu and you now have 3 more guys who play Gordons position (potentially)

ORlando has also needed someone to run the offense there for some time, a big plus of Haywards game is that he can do that when there is not a traditional point guard on the floor.

Augustine/Fultz
Ross
Hayward
Isaac
Vucevic

A far better suited and rounded lineup than the opposed.


You make some fair points but I just don't see the point in building a team around Hayward and Vucevic with no major cap space or high draft picks coming.

The way I see it Orlando would be making any trade for Hayward based on last year's play not Hayward's play 3 years ago before a horrible injury. When you compare Hayward last year to Aaron last year they are pretty similar in impact. Aaron the better defender and rebounder. Hayward the more efficient scorer and slightly better play maker. You need defenders next to Vucevic so Aaron is a better fit than Hayward. Aaron is much younger and on a much better contract.


I am having a hard time figuring out orlando's plan.

They did not trade vucevic at deadline.
They resigned vucevic immediately
They resigned ross

My theory is that they want to make playoffs and continue to make noise, and hopefully win a round. Making them a more desireable free agent destination over the next couple seasons.

And they also must reallt trust their scouting crew to score good picks with draft picks outside the lottery

I do know that Weltman? Is a big tine analytics guy....so I am sure he knows alot more than I.
Andrew McCeltic
RealGM
Posts: 17,988
And1: 5,487
Joined: Jun 18, 2004
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1525 » by Andrew McCeltic » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:06 am

jmr07019 wrote:
Andrew McCeltic wrote:
31to6 wrote:Aaron Gordon, Fournier and Bamba or a first for Gordon Hayward? At some point you really owe it to yourself to post reasonable trade ideas.


At some point I owe it to myself to not have the board jump up my ass every time I identify a trade scenario and assume I’m an idiot with no perspective.

I’ve explained my reasoning more than once - when I say Gordon/Fournier/Bamba is the most we could hope for, I don’t mean “Do it Danny!”, I mean that’s the high end if circumstances aligned, there’s like a ten percent chance of that happening - and it would take talent evaluation, coaching judgments, and ownership pressures. Probably agent pressures, too. I don’t think identifying that high end is pointless - it worked for us in the KG/Pierce trade to Brooklyn. And looking at what the LA teams paid for Davis and Paul George, I don’t think anyone here would have said those trades were “realistic” if I’d posted them as potential deals.

I think Gordon/Fournier/1st would be fair. We’re talking about a deal where Hayward has come back to his Utah form - how good do you think that is? How good do you think Fournier and Gordon are in comparison? We’ll be lucky if Brown or Tatum develops half of Hayward’s offensive awareness and passing ability, he’s very smart both on and off the ball, Horford level savvy. And everyone here thought Zach Lavine was an awful target - Aaron Gordon isn’t much different, except instead of shooting and getting to the rim, he plays defense. He’s a super athlete who doesn’t have great awareness and is a work in progress. Right now he’s looking like he’s going to land somewhere between Shane Battier and Shawn Marion - impact defensive player, can shoot a little, uneven as a scorer, and right now he’s a mediocre rebounder. Improving as a playmaker. Best case is that within a couple of years he puts it all together, grabs 9 boards a game and can get his own looks on good efficiency. That’s the best case. And re: Fournier, there are only so many options to match salary. Aaron Gordon and DJ Augustin? Orlando could well want to get out of Evan’s money, even Gordon’s, if they think they can stick Isaac between Hayward and Vucevic as the defensive glue in a high powered offensive frontcourt.


The issue with the bold is that if Hayward is playing at an all star level he is likely opting out this summer making the deal a half year rental. Maybe Orlando feels like with a half year they can sell Hayward on their franchise, offer him the max and get him to accept but maxing both Vuecvic and Hayward seems like a great way to treadmill hard af

Anyways I think Bamba is the guy we can steal from Orlando not Gordon. Orlando seems happy to start Isaac and Gordon at the 3 and 4. They started that combo together whenever they were both healthy last year. You need some front court defense next to Vucevic and they both bring defense. They both shot the 3 decently last year too. Throw in Vucevic's new contract and Bamba seems like the better target. I thought of all posters you would have appreciated my Bamba proposal but clearly not lol.


That’s a fair point, forgot about Hayward’s opt-out. Who has space next summer? It’s still possible Orlando would be his best option..

When did you bring up Bamba? I missed it.. I think he could be available, yeah. He’s furthest away.

They could just stay the course, though - my guess is that they’ve spent the last few years looking for an opportunity to trade Vucevic or an opportunity to trade away Gordon etc.
itrsteve
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,592
And1: 2,205
Joined: Nov 04, 2017
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1526 » by itrsteve » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:01 am

I’m glad we’ll keep this thread as a record of all the sad sacks that want him traded.

You’ll all eat crow this year.
Don’t Trade Hayward Fan Club (Member #1 of 1)
100proof
Ballboy
Posts: 41
And1: 20
Joined: Jul 25, 2019
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1527 » by 100proof » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:37 am

itrsteve wrote:I’m glad we’ll keep this thread as a record of all the sad sacks that want him traded.

You’ll all eat crow this year.



Well I would hope everyone would be happy if Hayward plays great this year.

But I am sure some will still believe it best to trade him.
And I get that arguement.
Would a Utah allstar Hayward win the team a championship with the rest of the players here?
Would a most likely regressed or not improved Brown/smart net that piece that will bring the team a championship in the limited amount of time left on Haywards contract?
Would Hayward resign?


Imo of all asets to trade, Hayward is the best one. He would net the highest return. So if you are looking at the roster and looking for winning now and building to a championship its apparent the team is not yet there. Changed will have to be made. And Hayward has the contract and the value to bring those pieces in.
5InOfLouisville
Ballboy
Posts: 39
And1: 37
Joined: Jan 11, 2018
     

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1528 » by 5InOfLouisville » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:17 am

100proof wrote:
itrsteve wrote:I’m glad we’ll keep this thread as a record of all the sad sacks that want him traded.

You’ll all eat crow this year.



Well I would hope everyone would be happy if Hayward plays great this year.

But I am sure some will still believe it best to trade him.
And I get that arguement.
Would a Utah allstar Hayward win the team a championship with the rest of the players here?
Would a most likely regressed or not improved Brown/smart net that piece that will bring the team a championship in the limited amount of time left on Haywards contract?
Would Hayward resign?


Imo of all asets to trade, Hayward is the best one. He would net the highest return. So if you are looking at the roster and looking for winning now and building to a championship its apparent the team is not yet there. Changed will have to be made. And Hayward has the contract and the value to bring those pieces in.


Why would Brown/Smart be "likely regressed"?

Is the implication that Hayward playing better somehow makes them worse? If so, I disagree. Marcus Smart does not need to be a high-volume offensive player to be successful.

An active and productive Hayward commands attention and opens up the floor for brown to shoot open shots/straightline drive, which i believe are his strengths, along with a developing post-up game that allows him to bully most guards in the league.

I understand the idea of too many mouths, but even after last year, i maintain this is the best problem to have. It seems that to have success in today's NBA, you need good players to play well with other good players. And I see no reason why JB or Smart would be unable to do so.

I'm not making any bold predictions, but I expect both Brown and Hayward to perform better than they did last year, and I don't think Smart will regress, although I do worry worry about his historical shooting performance, and hope last year represented an improvement, not an aberration.
itrsteve
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,592
And1: 2,205
Joined: Nov 04, 2017
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1529 » by itrsteve » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:29 am

5InOfLouisville wrote:Is the implication that Hayward playing better somehow makes them worse?


It’s the strangest argument on the Celtics board. “Let’s trade Hayward for Evan Fornier while we still have a chance, WE MUST DO SOMETHING”. As if Tatum, Brown and Hayward all play 48 min.

I’m not sure if anybody else watched the games last year, but when Hayward was coming into form we were in damn good shape. Also, just think of the absurdity of him coming off the bench... it’s nearly the perfect role to have that level of talent pouring on the hurt when the second units come out.

Everybody needs to take a deep breath and forget about the last four games of the past season where everybody was equally terrible. That was a fluke and won’t happen going forward.

Hayward stays, losers.
Don’t Trade Hayward Fan Club (Member #1 of 1)
100proof
Ballboy
Posts: 41
And1: 20
Joined: Jul 25, 2019
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1530 » by 100proof » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:07 pm

5InOfLouisville wrote:
100proof wrote:
itrsteve wrote:I’m glad we’ll keep this thread as a record of all the sad sacks that want him traded.

You’ll all eat crow this year.



Well I would hope everyone would be happy if Hayward plays great this year.

But I am sure some will still believe it best to trade him.
And I get that arguement.
Would a Utah allstar Hayward win the team a championship with the rest of the players here?
Would a most likely regressed or not improved Brown/smart net that piece that will bring the team a championship in the limited amount of time left on Haywards contract?
Would Hayward resign?


Imo of all asets to trade, Hayward is the best one. He would net the highest return. So if you are looking at the roster and looking for winning now and building to a championship its apparent the team is not yet there. Changed will have to be made. And Hayward has the contract and the value to bring those pieces in.


Why would Brown/Smart be "likely regressed"?

Is the implication that Hayward playing better somehow makes them worse? If so, I disagree. Marcus Smart does not need to be a high-volume offensive player to be successful.

An active and productive Hayward commands attention and opens up the floor for brown to shoot open shots/straightline drive, which i believe are his strengths, along with a developing post-up game that allows him to bully most guards in the league.

I understand the idea of too many mouths, but even after last year, i maintain this is the best problem to have. It seems that to have success in today's NBA, you need good players to play well with other good players. And I see no reason why JB or Smart would be unable to do so.

I'm not making any bold predictions, but I expect both Brown and Hayward to perform better than they did last year, and I don't think Smart will regress, although I do worry worry about his historical shooting performance, and hope last year represented an improvement, not an aberration.


Well I am jumping to a bit of an assumption there.

I am assuming that if Gordon returns to Utah form, meaning 35 minutes per game at his primary position of either SG or SF then it is taking one of Tatum or Brown or Smart more out of position and most likely fewer minutes.

And most players perform worse in fewer minutes that not, looking at things in a raw statistical sense.
Andrew McCeltic
RealGM
Posts: 17,988
And1: 5,487
Joined: Jun 18, 2004
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1531 » by Andrew McCeltic » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:08 pm

Kemba/Brown/Hayward/Tatum could work, absolutely. The issues are shot distribution/ball movement/chemistry, age/timelines and roster balance.

I don’t think anyone’s looking to trade Hayward just to trade him - no one’s talking about, like, Plumlee/Barton/Beasley from Denver, or Andrew Wiggins. It’s if you can get a young big like Myles Turner, a blue chip prospect like Bamba, if another team is a motivated buyer, if the markets for various players line up right..
100proof
Ballboy
Posts: 41
And1: 20
Joined: Jul 25, 2019
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1532 » by 100proof » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:13 pm

itrsteve wrote:
5InOfLouisville wrote:Is the implication that Hayward playing better somehow makes them worse?


It’s the strangest argument on the Celtics board. “Let’s trade Hayward for Evan Fornier while we still have a chance, WE MUST DO SOMETHING”. As if Tatum, Brown and Hayward all play 48 min.

I’m not sure if anybody else watched the games last year, but when Hayward was coming into form we were in damn good shape. Also, just think of the absurdity of him coming off the bench... it’s nearly the perfect role to have that level of talent pouring on the hurt when the second units come out.

Everybody needs to take a deep breath and forget about the last four games of the past season where everybody was equally terrible. That was a fluke and won’t happen going forward.

Hayward stays, losers.


I think Hayward comes off the bench as well, and I think it is a brilliant look for the team.

But would I rather Hayward coming off the bench at 30 years old and 31 million dollars, or a young improving big man to pair alongside of Brown and Tatum for the next 8-10 years; then the decision gets a little murky.



And I dont think anyone is advocating trading Hayward for Fournier, what was posed earlier was for Aaron Gordon, Bamba or a pick AND Fournier (as salary filler) not a straight up trade. You litterally took the worst piece of the proposed trade idea and stated that was the main piece coming back, ignoring the other far more valuable assets being acquired.

and then you call people losers. that doesn't seem cool.
itrsteve
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,592
And1: 2,205
Joined: Nov 04, 2017
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1533 » by itrsteve » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:02 pm

100proof wrote:
itrsteve wrote:
5InOfLouisville wrote:Is the implication that Hayward playing better somehow makes them worse?


It’s the strangest argument on the Celtics board. “Let’s trade Hayward for Evan Fornier while we still have a chance, WE MUST DO SOMETHING”. As if Tatum, Brown and Hayward all play 48 min.

I’m not sure if anybody else watched the games last year, but when Hayward was coming into form we were in damn good shape. Also, just think of the absurdity of him coming off the bench... it’s nearly the perfect role to have that level of talent pouring on the hurt when the second units come out.

Everybody needs to take a deep breath and forget about the last four games of the past season where everybody was equally terrible. That was a fluke and won’t happen going forward.

Hayward stays, losers.


I think Hayward comes off the bench as well, and I think it is a brilliant look for the team.

But would I rather Hayward coming off the bench at 30 years old and 31 million dollars, or a young improving big man to pair alongside of Brown and Tatum for the next 8-10 years; then the decision gets a little murky.



And I dont think anyone is advocating trading Hayward for Fournier, what was posed earlier was for Aaron Gordon, Bamba or a pick AND Fournier (as salary filler) not a straight up trade. You litterally took the worst piece of the proposed trade idea and stated that was the main piece coming back, ignoring the other far more valuable assets being acquired.

and then you call people losers. that doesn't seem cool.


Sorry, I use losers as a term of endearment. Doesn’t come across well in text.

First off, most proposed trades are unrealistic due to lack of roster spots and/or salary match. Most of the insane trades on here are knee jerks.

But more importantly, why? It’s like when you have stocks that vest when the market is down. Do you cash out because you're sad or attempt to wait it out until value is realized?

At this point it’s best to ignore the sunk cost of the contract and focus on extracting the most value, we’ve seen flashes of what he could be and I’m beyond confident that we’ll see it this year.

Plus, it’s just two seasons, I’d prefer to have rotating max slots on the cap sheet as that’s the only currency that can be used in free agency. If all we have is rookie scale contracts then the trade market is all have.
Don’t Trade Hayward Fan Club (Member #1 of 1)
5InOfLouisville
Ballboy
Posts: 39
And1: 37
Joined: Jan 11, 2018
     

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1534 » by 5InOfLouisville » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:15 pm

itrsteve wrote:
100proof wrote:
itrsteve wrote:
It’s the strangest argument on the Celtics board. “Let’s trade Hayward for Evan Fornier while we still have a chance, WE MUST DO SOMETHING”. As if Tatum, Brown and Hayward all play 48 min.

I’m not sure if anybody else watched the games last year, but when Hayward was coming into form we were in damn good shape. Also, just think of the absurdity of him coming off the bench... it’s nearly the perfect role to have that level of talent pouring on the hurt when the second units come out.

Everybody needs to take a deep breath and forget about the last four games of the past season where everybody was equally terrible. That was a fluke and won’t happen going forward.

Hayward stays, losers.


I think Hayward comes off the bench as well, and I think it is a brilliant look for the team.

But would I rather Hayward coming off the bench at 30 years old and 31 million dollars, or a young improving big man to pair alongside of Brown and Tatum for the next 8-10 years; then the decision gets a little murky.



And I dont think anyone is advocating trading Hayward for Fournier, what was posed earlier was for Aaron Gordon, Bamba or a pick AND Fournier (as salary filler) not a straight up trade. You litterally took the worst piece of the proposed trade idea and stated that was the main piece coming back, ignoring the other far more valuable assets being acquired.

and then you call people losers. that doesn't seem cool.


Sorry, I use losers as a term of endearment. Doesn’t come across well in text.

First off, most proposed trades are unrealistic due to lack of roster spots and/or salary match. Most of the insane trades on here are knee jerks.

But more importantly, why? It’s like when you have stocks that vest when the market is down. Do you cash out because your sad or attempt to wait it out until value is realized?

At this point it’s best to ignore the sunk cost of the contract and focus on extracting the most value, we’ve seen flashes of what he could be and I’m beyond confident that we’ll see it this year.

Plus, it’s just two seasons, I’d prefer to have rotating max slots on the cap sheet as that’s the only currency that can be used in free agency. If all we have is rookie scale contracts then the trade market is all have.


I essentially agree with your stance, but with one caveat.

When the stock market is down, you DO cash out if you believe that your asset will not recover value and only continue to diminish. If team brass was convinced that Hayward was not going to improve and that his stock is only going down, then it would be prudent to trade him.

Again, I DO think he will improve, and that it would be unwise to move him at this point. But I'm not 100% and, obviously, the team brass knows more than i do.
itrsteve
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,592
And1: 2,205
Joined: Nov 04, 2017
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1535 » by itrsteve » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:32 pm

5InOfLouisville wrote:
I essentially agree with your stance, but with one caveat.

When the stock market is down, you DO cash out if you believe that your asset will not recover value and only continue to diminish. If team brass was convinced that Hayward was not going to improve and that his stock is only going down, then it would be prudent to trade him.

Again, I DO think he will improve, and that it would be unwise to move him at this point. But I'm not 100% and, obviously, the team brass knows more than i do.


It all depends on your risk aversion. Personally, I don't like the idea of cashing out stock for TJ Max gift cards... I'd rather see if that stock can go back up as it has historically proven that it can. Brass has had his back, I've never seen any indication otherwise... They love this guy (as they should).

With a somewhat efficient Hayward off the bench/staggering the wing minutes with two positions of three players has the potential to make us a serious threat and wear opponent first units into the ground. Look at it like this, two positions totaling 96 minutes equally distributes 32 minutes to each player. There's plenty of time to eat for all three while keeping serious talent on the floor at any given time, this is a problem that we want to have.

My ideal path for Hayward it to take him to the end of contract year 3, then restructure his deal in the summer for something reasonable (as we tried to do with Horford). He seems like a guy that would bite off on something like this given the circumstance.
Don’t Trade Hayward Fan Club (Member #1 of 1)
5InOfLouisville
Ballboy
Posts: 39
And1: 37
Joined: Jan 11, 2018
     

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1536 » by 5InOfLouisville » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:06 pm

remember, i agree with you and am optimistic about hayward's future. I just don't necessarily see it as a sure thing
Wes-J
Veteran
Posts: 2,555
And1: 2,083
Joined: Feb 19, 2012
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1537 » by Wes-J » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:20 pm

Trade Hayward to solve our logjam at wing is the most absurd debate going here.
3D Chess
Analyst
Posts: 3,546
And1: 5,815
Joined: Mar 17, 2017
Location: Brooklyn
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1538 » by 3D Chess » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:23 pm

Fidel Sarcasmo wrote:Damn I got a lot of catching up to do with the celtics. Im like not even authorized to give an opinion right now.

You think that stops anybody else?
100proof
Ballboy
Posts: 41
And1: 20
Joined: Jul 25, 2019
 

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1539 » by 100proof » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:50 pm

itrsteve wrote:
100proof wrote:
itrsteve wrote:
It’s the strangest argument on the Celtics board. “Let’s trade Hayward for Evan Fornier while we still have a chance, WE MUST DO SOMETHING”. As if Tatum, Brown and Hayward all play 48 min.

I’m not sure if anybody else watched the games last year, but when Hayward was coming into form we were in damn good shape. Also, just think of the absurdity of him coming off the bench... it’s nearly the perfect role to have that level of talent pouring on the hurt when the second units come out.

Everybody needs to take a deep breath and forget about the last four games of the past season where everybody was equally terrible. That was a fluke and won’t happen going forward.

Hayward stays, losers.


I think Hayward comes off the bench as well, and I think it is a brilliant look for the team.

But would I rather Hayward coming off the bench at 30 years old and 31 million dollars, or a young improving big man to pair alongside of Brown and Tatum for the next 8-10 years; then the decision gets a little murky.



And I dont think anyone is advocating trading Hayward for Fournier, what was posed earlier was for Aaron Gordon, Bamba or a pick AND Fournier (as salary filler) not a straight up trade. You litterally took the worst piece of the proposed trade idea and stated that was the main piece coming back, ignoring the other far more valuable assets being acquired.

and then you call people losers. that doesn't seem cool.


Sorry, I use losers as a term of endearment. Doesn’t come across well in text.

First off, most proposed trades are unrealistic due to lack of roster spots and/or salary match. Most of the insane trades on here are knee jerks.

But more importantly, why? It’s like when you have stocks that vest when the market is down. Do you cash out because your sad or attempt to wait it out until value is realized?

At this point it’s best to ignore the sunk cost of the contract and focus on extracting the most value, we’ve seen flashes of what he jcould be and I’m beyond confident that we’ll see it this year.

Plus, it’s just two seasons, I’d prefer to have rotating max slots on the cap sheet as that’s the only currency that can be used in free agency. If all we have is rookie scale contracts then the trade market is all have.


I dont disagree with you.

Not sure if team would actually have capspace in 2 years when hayward expires as team would have jaylen and tatum? extensions by then
cloverleaf
Head Coach
Posts: 6,293
And1: 3,546
Joined: Feb 10, 2007

Re: Gordon Hayward Thread 

Post#1540 » by cloverleaf » Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:01 pm

100proof wrote:
5InOfLouisville wrote:
100proof wrote:

Well I would hope everyone would be happy if Hayward plays great this year.

But I am sure some will still believe it best to trade him.
And I get that arguement.
Would a Utah allstar Hayward win the team a championship with the rest of the players here?
Would a most likely regressed or not improved Brown/smart net that piece that will bring the team a championship in the limited amount of time left on Haywards contract?
Would Hayward resign?


Imo of all asets to trade, Hayward is the best one. He would net the highest return. So if you are looking at the roster and looking for winning now and building to a championship its apparent the team is not yet there. Changed will have to be made. And Hayward has the contract and the value to bring those pieces in.


Why would Brown/Smart be "likely regressed"?

Is the implication that Hayward playing better somehow makes them worse? If so, I disagree. Marcus Smart does not need to be a high-volume offensive player to be successful.

An active and productive Hayward commands attention and opens up the floor for brown to shoot open shots/straightline drive, which i believe are his strengths, along with a developing post-up game that allows him to bully most guards in the league.

I understand the idea of too many mouths, but even after last year, i maintain this is the best problem to have. It seems that to have success in today's NBA, you need good players to play well with other good players. And I see no reason why JB or Smart would be unable to do so.

I'm not making any bold predictions, but I expect both Brown and Hayward to perform better than they did last year, and I don't think Smart will regress, although I do worry worry about his historical shooting performance, and hope last year represented an improvement, not an aberration.


Well I am jumping to a bit of an assumption there.

I am assuming that if Gordon returns to Utah form, meaning 35 minutes per game at his primary position of either SG or SF then it is taking one of Tatum or Brown or Smart more out of position and most likely fewer minutes.

And most players perform worse in fewer minutes that not, looking at things in a raw statistical sense.


When's the last time Brad played anyone 35 minutes a game?

Return to Boston Celtics


cron