Author Topic: Cavs interested in Hayward  (Read 13470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #45 on: April 22, 2019, 09:37:52 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
To be fair, Fedor's idea had no draft picks of any kind in the trade.  It was Hayward for Smith and Henson or Clarkson.  Nothing else was discussed.
What a vomit-worthy proposal, lol
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #46 on: April 23, 2019, 12:01:27 AM »

Offline tenn_smoothie

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6090
  • Tommy Points: 717
I guess file under random, but there are reports Cavs would be interested in trading for Hayward if he became available.

A) I highly doubt he will be available.  Especially if they keep Kyrie and get AD.

B) what on earth would the cavs offer up?

Edit: The source is some guy in Cleveland by the name of Chris Fedor.  Probably just speculating on his part.

I am really hoping Danny is not dumb enough or callous enough to trade away a highly sought after free agent who chose Boston over everyone else including Utah, where he was very popular. 1) It would be a real bad look for the Celtics and Danny has enough of a reputation for being heartless,  2) It would discourage free agents of the future, plus send a message to current players that loyalty means absolutely zero, and 3) To me, it would simply be the wrong way to treat Gordon Hayward.

Now, some here will say, "hey, it's a business, get over it."  Yes it is, but team chemistry and player morale are very important, as should be very obvious to every Celtic fan on the planet after this season of drama and inconsistent performance. Also, I still have some vague hope that the Celtics will be a special franchise that doesn't operate like everyone else. I believe that was important to Red, not so much with Ainge.
The Four Celtic Generals:
Russell - Cowens - Bird - Garnett

The Four Celtic Lieutenants:
Cousy - Havlicek - McHale - Pierce

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #47 on: April 23, 2019, 12:59:34 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7477
  • Tommy Points: 736
I guess file under random, but there are reports Cavs would be interested in trading for Hayward if he became available.

A) I highly doubt he will be available.  Especially if they keep Kyrie and get AD.

B) what on earth would the cavs offer up?

Edit: The source is some guy in Cleveland by the name of Chris Fedor.  Probably just speculating on his part.

I am really hoping Danny is not dumb enough or callous enough to trade away a highly sought after free agent who chose Boston over everyone else including Utah, where he was very popular. 1) It would be a real bad look for the Celtics and Danny has enough of a reputation for being heartless,  2) It would discourage free agents of the future, plus send a message to current players that loyalty means absolutely zero, and 3) To me, it would simply be the wrong way to treat Gordon Hayward.

Now, some here will say, "hey, it's a business, get over it."  Yes it is, but team chemistry and player morale are very important, as should be very obvious to every Celtic fan on the planet after this season of drama and inconsistent performance. Also, I still have some vague hope that the Celtics will be a special franchise that doesn't operate like everyone else. I believe that was important to Red, not so much with Ainge.

I see this a lot. Posters thinking it's a terrible look for the team to trade someone it signed in free agency. Would it actually?

I feel like a lot of guys get traded after choosing to sign with a team and no one bats an eye. It certainly happens to role players all the time. Maybe it's different because role players are usually following the money in free agency but with max guys, they can get that money elsewhere and they're "choosing" the team.

I don't know. But I don't buy that players would suddenly stop looking at the Celtics as a free agency destination if, after standing by Hayward through a terrible injury and doing everything possible to help him for two years, he was traded.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #48 on: April 23, 2019, 05:26:43 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
The only way I can see this coming into play is an Anthony Davis trade where Hayward is the main salary going out.  And to be clear I don't think Boston will move Hayward, but that would be the only way.  So in that scenario the trade could be something like this

Cleveland - Hayward
Boston - Davis, Moore, Clarkson
New Orleans - Smith, Tatum, SAC, MEM, LAC, BOS 18 or BOS 19 (NO obviously cuts Smith as only a couple mill is guaranteed)

Let's say Boston brings back Morris and Baynes.  So Post-Trade Boston ends up something like this

PG - Irving, Clarkson
SG - Smart, Moore
SF - Brown, Morris
PF - Davis, Theis, Yabu
C - Horford, Baynes, Williams

I'd say that would be a reasonable trade in this situation for all parties and the team Boston ends up with is a clear and easy title contender.

So if I'm deciphering this correctly, you are trading Hayward, Tatum, SAC, MEM(even if doesn't convey?), BOS18 or BOS19

for

Davis, Moore, Clarkson

Why do we want Moore and Clarkson?   Not bad players, but hardly pieces we have to have.

That seems like overkill.  You are moving way more salary than necessary to bring in Davis and bringing in pieces that are nice, but that we don't need.

I just don't get what 'drives' this sort of deal.   NOP isn't going to be doing it for the joy of cutting Smith.   Boston shouldn't be doing it for some compelling need to add Moore & Clarkson.

The only team that really wants to do this would be CLE.   They dump Smith & Clarkson in exchange for Hayward!

But how does that become compelling for NOP or BOS?

NOP & BOS seems more likely to want a simple deal like Davis for Tatum + Smart + (Yabusele or other small contract) + picks.  That's literally all that needs to go across to make the deal work.

Is the idea here that somehow Boston wants to get rid of Hayward's contract?   I don't get that.  If you are adding Davis you are going all-in.  You want to have maximum talent for the next year in order to motivate him to sign long term.

And while I like what Smart brings to the team -- and really am impressed with how he improved his game this year --  the following starting lineup looks way more compelling to me than what you have above:

PG - Irving
SG - Brown
SF - Hayward
PF - Horford
C - Davis

(Granted Horford & Davis are sort of swappable at the 4-5).

I just don't see the 'albatross' of Hayward's contract to be a compelling reason to replace Hayward with Smart in that lineup.
Some of it is salary going forward based.  Is Boston really going to maintain 4 max contracts?  That is an awful lot of money to have tied up in 4 players.  You tie that much money up, I think you lose valuable bench players like Baynes and Morris.

And obviously I think Hayward is better than Smart, but in many ways the team needs Smart's ability to defend both guard positions more than Hayward's playmaking and scoring ability.  If you have Smart next to Irving, you can hide Irving a bit more defensively and save him up for offense and with adding an extra elite scorer like Davis you don't need someone like Hayward as much.

I also think there is absolutely an advantage in adding Clarkson and Moore to the bench.  They add quality depth on what would be expiring contracts (so no long term commitment).  At some point you need quality bench players (which also goes to Baynes and Morris), especially with Irving and Davis both having a propensity to miss a lot of games.  Horford isn't exactly a spring chicken either. 

As I said, I'd prefer to move Smart instead of Hayward as well, but I can absolutely see the reasons why moving Hayward makes more sense from a basketball, team construction, and financial standpoint moving forward.


As for New Orleans, the only salary they take in that scenario is Tatum, the draft picks (which they select), and Smith's buy out.  They also get rid of Moore.  That gives them a pretty clean cap sheet.  In many ways, that actually makes more sense then taking on someone like Smart, who while has a reasonable contract isn't exactly the type of player a rebuilding team would actually need or probably want on the roster.  Smart doesn't move the needle for them at all, while a cleaner cap actually might.  They can then move Holiday and really commit to rebuilding and building up the right way.

Cleveland takes on a lot of salary.  And while we've seen improvement from Hayward of late, he is still worth no where near his contract, and he could opt out in the summer of 2020 (or opt in and lock in a huge overvalued contract).  I don't think he could really bring back all that much in trade given those things.  Cleveland is paying a lot of money for what might not be a very good player.  It also provides cap relief to the Pelicans and bench depth to the C's.  They certainly could make out very well in the trade if Hayward regains his form, but if he isn't much better than he was this year, then it really isn't a good trade for the Cavs.

So, ultimately the only motivation for doing this (trading Hayward instead of Smart) would be because of his salary. 

I just can't see that being motivation enough.  It does amount to several tens of millions (difference between retaining Hayward vs Smart) when you include tax, but I think the opportunity cost risk is too huge.

If you add Davis while retaining Hayward then on paper you have maximized your chance at a title in the next year and possibly the next two years.     If you don't win a title, no one could say you didn't go all out trying.

If instead you send out Hayward and retain Smart, yes you still have a very good chance at a title, but if you don't win one, it's an easy criticism to point at that trade decision as the difference.   People will criticize trading a maximum chance at a title near term for longer term (financial) concerns.

And again, there is a long-term motivation for going all-in near term:   Because the deeper you go in the playoffs in that first year with Davis could be the motivating factor for making sure it isn't his only year.

I think that, just like GSW has been willing to do so, if the Cs have a roster that looks like legit favorites for the title for the next -4 years then yes, Wyc will gladly pay the premium for it.    The Cs are already one of the NBA's more profitable teams and deep playoff runs are worth massive amounts of $$$.

Also, Horford won't necessarily be on a 'max' after this year so it isn't necessarily a case of carrying 4 max contracts.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #49 on: May 05, 2019, 10:22:03 AM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33431
  • Tommy Points: 1532
The only way I can see this coming into play is an Anthony Davis trade where Hayward is the main salary going out.  And to be clear I don't think Boston will move Hayward, but that would be the only way.  So in that scenario the trade could be something like this

Cleveland - Hayward
Boston - Davis, Moore, Clarkson
New Orleans - Smith, Tatum, SAC, MEM, LAC, BOS 18 or BOS 19 (NO obviously cuts Smith as only a couple mill is guaranteed)

Let's say Boston brings back Morris and Baynes.  So Post-Trade Boston ends up something like this

PG - Irving, Clarkson
SG - Smart, Moore
SF - Brown, Morris
PF - Davis, Theis, Yabu
C - Horford, Baynes, Williams

I'd say that would be a reasonable trade in this situation for all parties and the team Boston ends up with is a clear and easy title contender.

So if I'm deciphering this correctly, you are trading Hayward, Tatum, SAC, MEM(even if doesn't convey?), BOS18 or BOS19

for

Davis, Moore, Clarkson

Why do we want Moore and Clarkson?   Not bad players, but hardly pieces we have to have.

That seems like overkill.  You are moving way more salary than necessary to bring in Davis and bringing in pieces that are nice, but that we don't need.

I just don't get what 'drives' this sort of deal.   NOP isn't going to be doing it for the joy of cutting Smith.   Boston shouldn't be doing it for some compelling need to add Moore & Clarkson.

The only team that really wants to do this would be CLE.   They dump Smith & Clarkson in exchange for Hayward!

But how does that become compelling for NOP or BOS?

NOP & BOS seems more likely to want a simple deal like Davis for Tatum + Smart + (Yabusele or other small contract) + picks.  That's literally all that needs to go across to make the deal work.

Is the idea here that somehow Boston wants to get rid of Hayward's contract?   I don't get that.  If you are adding Davis you are going all-in.  You want to have maximum talent for the next year in order to motivate him to sign long term.

And while I like what Smart brings to the team -- and really am impressed with how he improved his game this year --  the following starting lineup looks way more compelling to me than what you have above:

PG - Irving
SG - Brown
SF - Hayward
PF - Horford
C - Davis

(Granted Horford & Davis are sort of swappable at the 4-5).

I just don't see the 'albatross' of Hayward's contract to be a compelling reason to replace Hayward with Smart in that lineup.
Some of it is salary going forward based.  Is Boston really going to maintain 4 max contracts?  That is an awful lot of money to have tied up in 4 players.  You tie that much money up, I think you lose valuable bench players like Baynes and Morris.

And obviously I think Hayward is better than Smart, but in many ways the team needs Smart's ability to defend both guard positions more than Hayward's playmaking and scoring ability.  If you have Smart next to Irving, you can hide Irving a bit more defensively and save him up for offense and with adding an extra elite scorer like Davis you don't need someone like Hayward as much.

I also think there is absolutely an advantage in adding Clarkson and Moore to the bench.  They add quality depth on what would be expiring contracts (so no long term commitment).  At some point you need quality bench players (which also goes to Baynes and Morris), especially with Irving and Davis both having a propensity to miss a lot of games.  Horford isn't exactly a spring chicken either. 

As I said, I'd prefer to move Smart instead of Hayward as well, but I can absolutely see the reasons why moving Hayward makes more sense from a basketball, team construction, and financial standpoint moving forward.


As for New Orleans, the only salary they take in that scenario is Tatum, the draft picks (which they select), and Smith's buy out.  They also get rid of Moore.  That gives them a pretty clean cap sheet.  In many ways, that actually makes more sense then taking on someone like Smart, who while has a reasonable contract isn't exactly the type of player a rebuilding team would actually need or probably want on the roster.  Smart doesn't move the needle for them at all, while a cleaner cap actually might.  They can then move Holiday and really commit to rebuilding and building up the right way.

Cleveland takes on a lot of salary.  And while we've seen improvement from Hayward of late, he is still worth no where near his contract, and he could opt out in the summer of 2020 (or opt in and lock in a huge overvalued contract).  I don't think he could really bring back all that much in trade given those things.  Cleveland is paying a lot of money for what might not be a very good player.  It also provides cap relief to the Pelicans and bench depth to the C's.  They certainly could make out very well in the trade if Hayward regains his form, but if he isn't much better than he was this year, then it really isn't a good trade for the Cavs.

So, ultimately the only motivation for doing this (trading Hayward instead of Smart) would be because of his salary. 

I just can't see that being motivation enough.  It does amount to several tens of millions (difference between retaining Hayward vs Smart) when you include tax, but I think the opportunity cost risk is too huge.

If you add Davis while retaining Hayward then on paper you have maximized your chance at a title in the next year and possibly the next two years.     If you don't win a title, no one could say you didn't go all out trying.

If instead you send out Hayward and retain Smart, yes you still have a very good chance at a title, but if you don't win one, it's an easy criticism to point at that trade decision as the difference.   People will criticize trading a maximum chance at a title near term for longer term (financial) concerns.

And again, there is a long-term motivation for going all-in near term:   Because the deeper you go in the playoffs in that first year with Davis could be the motivating factor for making sure it isn't his only year.

I think that, just like GSW has been willing to do so, if the Cs have a roster that looks like legit favorites for the title for the next -4 years then yes, Wyc will gladly pay the premium for it.    The Cs are already one of the NBA's more profitable teams and deep playoff runs are worth massive amounts of $$$.

Also, Horford won't necessarily be on a 'max' after this year so it isn't necessarily a case of carrying 4 max contracts.
It appears you didn't read my post at all.  I listed plenty of non-financial reasons why it would make sense for Boston to instead of trading Smart to trade Hayward instead.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #50 on: May 06, 2019, 09:57:32 PM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33431
  • Tommy Points: 1532
Potential Cavs trade not looking so bad now given just how awful Hayward has looked.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #51 on: May 06, 2019, 09:58:43 PM »

Offline SparzWizard

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15995
  • Tommy Points: 987
Potential Cavs trade not looking so bad now given just how awful Hayward has looked.

Give me whatever the Cavs got to offer lol.


#JTJB (Just Trade Jaylen Brown)
#JFJM (Just Fire Joe Mazzulla)

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #52 on: May 07, 2019, 11:35:55 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7477
  • Tommy Points: 736
Potential Cavs trade not looking so bad now given just how awful Hayward has looked.

Of course, if you don't want him on your team, probably other teams feel the same way.

Since Hayward has been so bad in the playoffs, a deal involving him has gotten less likely.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #53 on: May 07, 2019, 11:38:01 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
Potential Cavs trade not looking so bad now given just how awful Hayward has looked.

Give me whatever the Cavs got to offer lol.
If I recall correctly the trade proposed was Hayward for John Henson / Jordan Clarkson & JR Smith. I would rather not
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #54 on: May 07, 2019, 11:56:57 PM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
Potential Cavs trade not looking so bad now given just how awful Hayward has looked.

Give me whatever the Cavs got to offer lol.
If I recall correctly the trade proposed was Hayward for John Henson / Jordan Clarkson & JR Smith. I would rather not

I would only do it if the Cavs threw in their first rounder this summer, which I am sure they won't.

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #55 on: May 08, 2019, 12:27:13 AM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15964
  • Tommy Points: 1833
I guess last night was trash Kyrie night, tonight it’s Hayward’s turn.

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #56 on: May 08, 2019, 12:29:47 AM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4550
  • Tommy Points: 1031
I guess last night was trash Kyrie night, tonight it’s Hayward’s turn.

Tomorrow will be pretty here boring if we win, and if we don’t... Stevens will get the wrath for awhile.
CELTICS 2024

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #57 on: May 08, 2019, 01:48:19 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
Potential Cavs trade not looking so bad now given just how awful Hayward has looked.

Give me whatever the Cavs got to offer lol.
If I recall correctly the trade proposed was Hayward for John Henson / Jordan Clarkson & JR Smith. I would rather not

I would only do it if the Cavs threw in their first rounder this summer, which I am sure they won't.
Now THAT would be a different story ;D Letting Kyrie go would be far less painful with Ja Morant
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #58 on: May 08, 2019, 01:50:39 AM »

Offline SparzWizard

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15995
  • Tommy Points: 987
Potential Cavs trade not looking so bad now given just how awful Hayward has looked.

Give me whatever the Cavs got to offer lol.
If I recall correctly the trade proposed was Hayward for John Henson / Jordan Clarkson & JR Smith. I would rather not

I would only do it if the Cavs threw in their first rounder this summer, which I am sure they won't.
Now THAT would be a different story ;D Letting Kyrie go would be far less painful with Ja Morant

Pretty sure Cavs do not want to ever do business with highway robber Danny Ainge again.  ;D


#JTJB (Just Trade Jaylen Brown)
#JFJM (Just Fire Joe Mazzulla)

Re: Cavs interested in Hayward
« Reply #59 on: May 08, 2019, 01:59:50 AM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15720
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Potential Cavs trade not looking so bad now given just how awful Hayward has looked.

It would be funny to have a front office that made crazy drastic changes off a few game swing. I think Hayward had run out of gas this season. Seems reasonable he could come back next year looking great. Look at George