"You Gotta Love It Baby" Official Jazz thread

[Applejack]

I don't get the Jazzfan outrage over this thing. So Gordy gets $3-4 million more per year than he should, so what? It's not like the Jazz are up against the cap and now can't resign another of their future HOFer young players. They have just as much of a shot at signing Lebron as they did yesterday. It's only a four-year deal: by the time the Jazz are contending again, this deal will be cheap.

[cougjunkie]

I don't get the Jazzfan outrage over this thing. So Gordy gets $3-4 million more per year than he should, so what? It's not like the Jazz are up against the cap and now can't resign another of their future HOFer young players. They have just as much of a shot at signing Lebron as they did yesterday. It's only a four-year deal: by the time the Jazz are contending again, this deal will be cheap.

The issue is the Jazz gambled and lost about $3 million per in cap space.

[MarkGrace]

The issue is the Jazz gambled and lost about $3 million per in cap space.

Which I think is his point. $3mm in cap space doesn't really mean anything to the Jazz over the next four years. And I get that point -- like I said earlier, this was always the amount of total money they were going to spend on G-Time. I just more annoyed on principle.

[Donuthole]

The issue is the Jazz gambled and lost about $3 million per in cap space.

Yep. Sometimes the odds are in your favor and you still lose. No biggie.

[BGRTHNUMEGO]

Which I think is his point. $3mm in cap space doesn't really mean anything to the Jazz over the next four years. And I get that point -- like I said earlier, this was always the amount of total money they were going to spend on G-Time. I just more annoyed on principle.

And there really is no way of knowing where the discussions stalled. For all we know, Utah was willing to go up to $13 M or so for 4 years, but Hayward's camp were holding out for the 5th year. Maybe Utah wanted a team option at the end, and Hayward wanted a player option.

Hayward lucked out when the East was so bad that Charlotte made the playoffs. Gives Eastern teams an over-inflated sense of where their team is competitively. I wonder what Phoenix would've been willing to give Gordon.

[Applejack]

The issue is the Jazz gambled and lost about $3 million per in cap space.

Exactly. Why should a fan care about this? The Jazz have a ton of cap space, even with GHay's contract. If Enes and Burke become good basketball players next year they are going to have to get creative, but it's still doable to sign both of them. By the time Exum is considered the second coming of Magic Johnson, this contract won't be on the books.

In the end, this whole saga cost the Miller's $12 million or so and the Jazz are in the exact same position they were before. Meh.

[MarkGrace]

Swap Hayward and Parsons last year, and I think Hayward performs better in that Houston role than Parsons did, and I think Parsons struggles more in the Utah role than Hayward did. Parsons hasn't been asked to do anything remotely close to what the Jazz have asked of Hayward: touch the ball a lot, facilitate for teammates, create your own shot. Parsons got a ton of his attempts on catch-and-shoot (presumably a lot of open looks too, considering he was playing off of Harden and Howard), in transition, and on follow-ups. Based on how Hayward shot when he was playing off of Jefferson and Millsap, I think it is fair to assume he would've shot better than 37% from 3 with an eFG% of 54% like Parsons if Gordon had been on that team in that role.

I think Hayward's game is much more diverse than what Parsons can contribute. So if Parsons ends up with $11 or $12 M per year on his deal, is $3 M more per year really that much of a stretch for Hayward? And this deal for Gordon would pay him about $5 M less per year than Paul George, which again seems about right. Does Gordon's last season justify that kind of money? Not at all. But this is the guy who is getting Team USA shots, that Kobe praised pretty heavily to the old SLTrib guy who works in LA now, and that a handful of teams were reportedly really interested in this off-season even with the RFA designation. As Locke tweeted out last week, Lindsey thinks Hayward will more consistently be the good Gordon we've seen under Snyder and a new, faster paced, and more open offensive system.

Woj said teams understand they have to pay $1.5 M - $2 M more per year to get a RFA away from his team. Seems like that is about where this deal is for Hayward. And teams like Utah have to overpay to get good free agents to come to play in SLC, so in this case they're paying one of their own to keep him.

I don't. Parsons was good for 16.6/5.5/4.0 last year. Gordy 16.2/5.2/5.1. If the argument is that G-Time would have matched his %'s in a similar role, sure, I can see that. But I don't think Gordy would have exceeded that Parson line in terms of total production. And I'm not sure what his diverse contributions are relative to Parsons as his non-scoring contributions look very similar to Parsons (at least the counted stats, don't really have access to the advanced right now). If the diverse contribution is as a creator/facilitator rather than spot-up guy, well, we asked Gordy to do that last year and he just wanted very good at it. The most efficient version of G-Time is going to be exactly what Parsons was in Houston this year. And as I recall the defensive stats rather easily prefer Parsons. On Pelton's FA list Parsons rated a handful of spots ahead of G based on RPM and projected WARP.

I have no idea why anyone would pay G-Time more than Parsons at this juncture. He was the lesser player this past season, and to get the best version of him all you're really going to get is the Parsons of last season.

[BGRTHNUMEGO]

I don't. Parsons was good for 16.6/5.5/4.0 last year. Gordy 16.2/5.2/5.1. If the argument is that G-Time would have matched his %'s in a similar role, sure, I can see that. But I don't think Gordy would have exceeded that Parson line in terms of total production. And I'm not sure what his diverse contributions are relative to Parsons as his non-scoring contributions look very similar to Parsons (at least the counted stats, don't really have access to the advanced right now). If the diverse contribution is as a creator/facilitator rather than spot-up guy, well, we asked Gordy to do that last year and he just wanted very good at it. The most efficient version of G-Time is going to be exactly what Parsons was in Houston this year. And as I recall the defensive stats rather easily prefer Parsons. On Pelton's FA list Parsons rated a handful of spots ahead of G based on RPM and projected WARP.

I have no idea why anyone would pay G-Time more than Parsons at this juncture. He was the lesser player this past season, and to get the best version of him all you're really going to get is the Parsons of last season.

We saw Hayward shoot nearly 42% from 3 two years ago for Utah, under Corbin, in a setting where he still got fewer spots-ups and transition opportunities than Parsons. I find it overly critical of Hayward to say the best you'll get of him is what Parsons was last year, when Hayward was at least equal to that on an inferior team, while getting fewer easy looks generated by the offensive system.

But they really aren't the same type of player, or at least haven't proven to be at this point of their careers. Both would likely be very good complimentary pieces. But Parsons hasn't really at any point been asked to be anything more than that. Hayward has tried, whether it be as the focal point of the 2nd unit, or last year during the tank season. He's been inconsistent in the past, with some great months and some poor ones, and he didn't do it very well last year, with a rookie PG, Richard Jefferson, Marvin Williams, and Derrick Favors starting next to him, with lame duck Corbin as his coach. We'll see if Utah really believes in him as much as they say they do, and in the fact that he can reach his ceiling in a system that will try to give him more space, let him be the recipient of the system creating shots more instead of being the creator of the shots, and as talent around him matures and improves.

[Jacob]

Or Ariza, Deng, etc. for less.

No thanks. Both are past peak, and neither will make a real difference in 2-3 years, which is what the Jazz should be thinking about. It doesn't really matter how well they do this year.

Ariza is probably a better defender and perhaps a better 3pt shooter than Hayward. Both guys have been inconsistent season to season from long distance so it's hard to say, but Ariza was better last year. Hayward is younger and a better playmaker on offense. Burks, Burke and Exum should be able to shoulder the playmaking role. If you can get Ariza for, say, $8 M per, that seems like a much better way to build a team.

Getting Ariza for that much is no way to BUILD a team. It may be a way to add to a team that is ready to compete, but it is no way to build a team. Same with Deng who had negligible contributions to the Cavs last year. Ariza is only 29, so a 4 year contract shouldn't be bad, but he's just not that interesting, and I seriously doubt the jazz could get him for 8m.

Non contract year Ariza is a 35% 3pt shooter and 40% FGs - or a little bit better shooter than Hayward was last year.

In a secondary role with an All-Star point guard and 2 quality bigs. Probably doesn't matter because the Jazz aren't getting Ariza.

A max deal is not top heavy by definition. He's getting max money for his tenure in the league in year one with 4.5% yearly increases.

The Jazz could offer him more in years 2 and three to decrease his year 4 salary, I believe. Jazz can offer him 7.5% increases, so the difference would look like this:

1: Charlotte: 14.7 Jazz offer $14.7
2: Charlotte: 15.3 Jazz offer $15.8
3: Charlotte: 15.9 Jazz offer $16.9
4: Charlotte: 16.6 Jazz offer $15.1

This would give Hayward the same money over 4 years, but he gets more sooner. If they decide to match, they should try to do this. My calculations were rudimentary so it may be slightly off. The Jazz can still negotiate their own deal because Hayward has not yet signed the offer sheet. They should try to get rid of the player option and any trade kicker and restructure the deal like this, which would be nice.

Isn't Parsons an RFA? He doesn't really get to decide that.

No, he is not. Houston did not pick up his option to free up cap space.

Exactly. Why should a fan care about this? The Jazz have a ton of cap space, even with GHay's contract. If Enes and Burke become good basketball players next year they are going to have to get creative, but it's still doable to sign both of them. By the time Exum is considered the second coming of Magic Johnson, this contract won't be on the books.

In the end, this whole saga cost the Miller's $12 million or so and the Jazz are in the exact same position they were before. Meh.

I don't care about the Millers' money. I don't care about overpaying in the next 2 years. But in years 3 and 4, when the Jazz should be very competitive, they will have no cap space to add pieces that they will need to add. That's what makes this so hard to swallow.

[MartyFunkhouser]

The issue is the Jazz gambled and lost about $3 million per in cap space.

Are we sure that the Jazz could have signed him for 12.5 million prior to the season? Also, I'm sure that any contract for the jazz would have required a 5 year commitment.

[Jacob]

Are we sure that the Jazz could have signed him for 12.5 million prior to the season? Also, I'm sure that any contract for the jazz would have required a 5 year commitment.

That's what folks are reporting. That Hayward was holding out for 4 years $52 million during the extension negotiations, but Jazz wouldn't move that high. If accurate, last year of the deal could have been around $12m, which is still too much, but way better than the current offer.

[smokymountainrain]

It's silly to give G-time $16 M per. He simply isn't that important to the team. He's worth about $8 M per. Like applejack said, not that big a deal to give him 3-4 million per year more, but I'd argue they would be giving him about $8 M more than they should. If he were an irreplaceable star player, sure give it to him, but since he's far from that after failing miserably in a #1 role, no reason to give it to him.

Has there ever been a time when it worked out for a team to give a role player a max deal? Any championship teams or championship contenders have role players with max deals? Any bad teams that are happy they have role players with max deals. Any middling teams happy with role players with max deals? I'm not sure. It's a sincere question.

[MartyFunkhouser]

It's silly to give G-time $16 M per. He simply isn't that important to the team. He's worth about $8 M per. Like applejack said, not that big a deal to give him 3-4 million per year more, but I'd argue they would be giving him about $8 M more than they should. If he were an irreplaceable star player, sure give it to him, but since he's far from that after failing miserably in a #1 role, no reason to give it to him.

Has there ever been a time when it worked out for a team to give a role player a max deal? Any championship teams or championship contenders have role players with max deals? Any bad teams that are happy they have role players with max deals. Any middling teams happy with role players with max deals? I'm not sure. It's a sincere question.

I'm hoping that the Lindsay isn't falling into the trap of overvaluing your own players. I agree with you that he is probably worth about 8 million. 12-13 million isn't so bad, with a short term commitment. However, 16 million just doesn't make sense.

He isn't the difference, let the Hornets overpay him.

[smokymountainrain]

I'm hoping that the Lindsay isn't falling into the trap of overvaluing your own players. I agree with you that he is probably worth about 8 million. 12-13 million isn't so bad, with a short term commitment. However, 16 million just doesn't make sense.

He isn't the difference, let the Hornets overpay him.

He's a role player making max money. Whether it's the Jazz or the Hornets, whoever pays him almost certainly regret it. It's really that simple. MarkGrace doesn't go to three hours of church, the A's are going to lose in the playoffs, the sun will rise in the east, lawyers are bad people, and you don't give role players the max.

[TripletDaddy]

Hopefully the jazz don't overpay. That way they can let him walk, replace him this offseason with someone equally productive that is willing to come to utah for less money that the jazz would be paying GH, and then still have more flexibility in future off seasons to go after the biggest free agents available that are willing to come to utah.