"You Gotta Love It Baby" Official Jazz thread

[Jacob]

DJ and PK had a guy on the radio today - a national guy who is apparently known for his advanced metrics stuff and he was trumpeting the same tune I have been the last few days, but to a large extent. My argument is that you're getting a guy who isn't improving. Who has been in the league for 4 years, just 24, but hasn't improved in the last 3 years. This guy took it a step further and said that Hayward as actually regressed since his rookie season and based on that the Jazz shouldn't match. I'm not sure what numbers he's looking at - I don't see the regression, but there certainly isn't any substantial improvement.

If he isn't going to improve and I think there is fairly significant evidence to suggest he won't, he shouldn't be given a max deal. If he is regressing, as this guy suggests, it moves beyond a bad deal and becomes horrific.

But most other analytics guys I've read say they would match. Disclaimer: I still don't think Hayward is worth near the Max.

I wouldn't match this deal. I'd try and work out a sign and trade for future picks.

It's too late for a sign and trade if he's already signed the offer sheet, as reported.

[Donuthole]

Hasn't his shooting percentage decreased with each passing year? He also shot a career low from 3 last year. Turnovers were up. Boards and assists were up. I just feel like his ppg and that have improved, but there's no improving efficiency to it.

These seasons haven't been played in a vacuum. Look at who was on the roster his rookie year vs. who was on the roster last year.

I wouldn't match this deal. I'd try and work out a sign and trade for future picks.

Uh, it's a little late for that. He already signed. This is a take it or leave it deal at this point.

[The_Douger]

These seasons haven't been played in a vacuum. Look at who was on the roster his rookie year vs. who was on the roster last year.


Uh, it's a little late for that. He already signed. This is a take it or leave it deal at this point.

I thought you could arrange something like the Jazz did in getting Jefferson when Boozer left. Edit: I guess Boozer wasn't restricted though, so that makes sense.

And I understand the seasons aren't played in a vacuum. It's clearly shown us that he's not a max guy, and there's no reason to pay him as such. Let someone else be dragged down by that crappy contract. You can't move on from these types of problems unless you're finally willing to say no to a bad deal, instead of making the same mistakes over and over like the Jazz have done with players previously (Ostertag, AK).

[woot]

GW's 3P% has gone 47, 35, 42, and 30 in his 4 years. His points, rebounds, assists, and minutes took a jump last year, and if he could combine a season like that with one where he doesn't suck from 3, he could be good. As it is, his PER last year was 16, where the average player is defined as 15. A max deal doesn't seem at all warranted based on performance, but it may not be unwarranted if he can get his poo in a pile. I think I saw recently that the average NBA player peaks like 7 years into his career, so I don't think I would hate a max offer as much as some, especially given that nobody else wants to take that money if it means moving to Utah.

[smokymountainrain]

These seasons haven't been played in a vacuum. Look at who was on the roster his rookie year vs. who was on the roster last year.

Right. The other thing I thought was funny about the guy I listened to was that despite being a supposed analytics guru, the stats he kept throwing out were FG% and 3pt%. Of course DJ and PK were too clueless to call him on that.

[MarkGrace]

DJ and PK had a guy on the radio today - a national guy who is apparently known for his advanced metrics stuff and he was trumpeting the same tune I have been the last few days, but to a large extent. My argument is that you're getting a guy who isn't improving. Who has been in the league for 4 years, just 24, but hasn't improved in the last 3 years. This guy took it a step further and said that Hayward as actually regressed since his rookie season and based on that the Jazz shouldn't match. I'm not sure what numbers he's looking at - I don't see the regression, but there certainly isn't any substantial improvement.

If he isn't going to improve and I think there is fairly significant evidence to suggest he won't, he shouldn't be given a max deal. If he is regressing, as this guy suggests, it moves beyond a bad deal and becomes horrific.

Yeah this is what I think of BGR's argument above. You can talk about the system, coach, players around him, etc., but those aren't the real problem. The real problem is that he doesn't have the skill/ability to be more more than what he already is. His PER for the last 3 years has been steady, and at his age (24) the odds that he makes any significant leap are very low. He and Parsons play different styles, but they're the same in that they're best suited as 3rd options on a good team. Slot them in that role where it's spot ups and a lower workload and I think you see good scoring efficiency and pretty diverse all around contributions. Ask for more than that and you'll get declining scoring efficiency (Hayward for three straight years has shown an inverse relationships between his usage rate and scoring efficiency) and a player not suited for the role. Then if you believe the composite advanced metrics that aren't just boxscore based (WARP, RPM vs. PER), Parsons gives you slightly more value as he's the superior defender. A year in age matters in terms of development a lot in the late teens and early 20s, but by 24 and 25 the difference just isn't much. Over the next four years I don't think there's any indication G-Time will be the more productive player between the two.

I guess this discussion became somewhat moot when CP got paid similar to G, but I wouldn't pay G a cent more. And I wouldn't pay either $15MM.

[The_Douger]

Yeah this is what I think of BGR's argument above. You can talk about the system, coach, players around him, etc., but those aren't the real problem. The real problem is that he doesn't have the skill/ability to be more more than what he already is. His PER for the last 3 years has been steady, and at his age (24) the odds that he makes any significant leap are very low. He and Parsons play different styles, but they're the same in that they're best suited as 3rd options on a good team. Slot them in that role where it's spot ups and a lower workload and I think you see good scoring efficiency and pretty diverse all around contributions. Ask for more than that and you'll get declining scoring efficiency (Hayward for three straight years has shown an inverse relationships between his usage rate and scoring efficiency) and a player not suited for the role. Then if you believe the composite advanced metrics that aren't just boxscore based (WARP, RPM vs. PER), Parsons gives you slightly more value as he's the superior defender. A year in age matters in terms of development a lot in the late teens and early 20s, but by 24 and 25 the difference just isn't much. Over the next four years I don't think there's any indication G-Time will be the more productive player between the two.

I guess this discussion became somewhat moot when CP got paid similar to G, but I wouldn't pay G a cent more. And I wouldn't pay either $15MM.

Isn't Lindsay a big advanced metrics guy? If we match, doesn't he seem to be completely ignoring this stuff?

[smokymountainrain]

Isn't Lindsay a big advanced metrics guy? If we match, doesn't he seem to be completely ignoring this stuff?

Not necessarily, because it seems there is a fairly large group of people who feel the Jazz should match, while admitting he would be overpaid, just so they can hang on to a good player.

My problem with that - if Burks and Kanter have good years and get offered max deals, do the Jazz match those max deals as well - and would they even have enough cap space to match max deals, if they give Hayward a max deal after a down year?

[Jacob]

Not necessarily, because it seems there is a fairly large group of people who feel the Jazz should match, while admitting he would be overpaid, just so they can hang on to a good player.

My problem with that - if Burks and Kanter have good years and get offered max deals, do the Jazz match those max deals as well - and would they even have enough cap space to match max deals, if they give Hayward a max deal after a down year?

I don't see your concern here. Sure, I'd be concerned about overpaying any of them, but as Gordon is the best of the 3, if you are going to pay one of them the max, it should be Gordon.

And yes, they would be able to match any offers to their own players regardless of their cap figure.

[MarkGrace]

GW's 3P% has gone 47, 35, 42, and 30 in his 4 years. His points, rebounds, assists, and minutes took a jump last year, and if he could combine a season like that with one where he doesn't suck from 3, he could be good. As it is, his PER last year was 16, where the average player is defined as 15. A max deal doesn't seem at all warranted based on performance, but it may not be unwarranted if he can get his poo in a pile. I think I saw recently that the average NBA player peaks like 7 years into his career, so I don't think I would hate a max offer as much as some, especially given that nobody else wants to take that money if it means moving to Utah.

Most analysts have pegged a player's peak, at least in terms of statistical production, at 28. That's four years away for G-Time, but like I said above, the gains after 24 usually aren't that significant.

[The_Douger]

Not necessarily, because it seems there is a fairly large group of people who feel the Jazz should match, while admitting he would be overpaid, just so they can hang on to a good player.

My problem with that - if Burks and Kanter have good years and get offered max deals, do the Jazz match those max deals as well - and would they even have enough cap space to match max deals, if they give Hayward a max deal after a down year?

I think we got Favors for a good price, because he'd probably get close to what Gordon Hayward recently signed if he'd waited until this year.

If you look at those two together, as a pair, the salary is ok. I just get more concerned, as you are, that if Kanter somehow breaks out, or Burks then we'll have to make some hard choices, and moving Hayward won't be an option if he continues to play how he has.

[MarkGrace]

Yeah this is what I think of BGR's argument above. You can talk about the system, coach, players around him, etc., but those aren't the real problem. The real problem is that he doesn't have the skill/ability to be more more than what he already is. His PER for the last 3 years has been steady, and at his age (24) the odds that he makes any significant leap are very low. He and Parsons play different styles, but they're the same in that they're best suited as 3rd options on a good team. Slot them in that role where it's spot ups and a lower workload and I think you see good scoring efficiency and pretty diverse all around contributions. Ask for more than that and you'll get declining scoring efficiency (Hayward for three straight years has shown an inverse relationships between his usage rate and scoring efficiency) and a player not suited for the role. Then if you believe the composite advanced metrics that aren't just boxscore based (WARP, RPM vs. PER), Parsons gives you slightly more value as he's the superior defender. A year in age matters in terms of development a lot in the late teens and early 20s, but by 24 and 25 the difference just isn't much. Over the next four years I don't think there's any indication G-Time will be the more productive player between the two.

I guess this discussion became somewhat moot when CP got paid similar to G, but I wouldn't pay G a cent more. And I wouldn't pay either $15MM.

Make that 4 years in a row.

Year 1 -- Usage 14.3, TS 57.8&
Year 2 -- Usage 17.2, TS 56.8%
Year 3 -- Usage 21, TS 56.4%
Year 4 -- Usage 22.7, TS 52.0%

[woot]

Most analysts have pegged a player's peak, at least in terms of statistical production, at 28. That's four years away for G-Time, but like I said above, the gains after 24 usually aren't that significant.

Yeah I'm just saying that what he's already shown, if he can put it together, could be pretty good. But yeah he obviously isn't a max player right now. Is there an overall talent dearth on the free agent market this year? How does a slightly above average guy get this kind of attention?

[MartyFunkhouser]

DJ and PK had a guy on the radio today - a national guy who is apparently known for his advanced metrics stuff and he was trumpeting the same tune I have been the last few days, but to a large extent. My argument is that you're getting a guy who isn't improving. Who has been in the league for 4 years, just 24, but hasn't improved in the last 3 years. This guy took it a step further and said that Hayward as actually regressed since his rookie season and based on that the Jazz shouldn't match. I'm not sure what numbers he's looking at - I don't see the regression, but there certainly isn't any substantial improvement.

If he isn't going to improve and I think there is fairly significant evidence to suggest he won't, he shouldn't be given a max deal. If he is regressing, as this guy suggests, it moves beyond a bad deal and becomes horrific.

Heard the same interview. His points were solid and why the Jazz shouldn't match. Since 1280 is the PR station for the Utah Jazz, I hope they are setting the stage for not matching. His claims regarding Hayward regressing were based on his shooting percentage.

[MarkGrace]

Yeah I'm just saying that what he's already shown, if he can put it together, could be pretty good. But yeah he obviously isn't a max player right now. Is there an overall talent dearth on the free agent market this year? How does a slightly above average guy get this kind of attention?

He's already pretty good, but he's just never going to be a max player. If he was he'd be much close at this point.