Gordon Hayward agrees to 4-year, $63M maximum offer sheet with Charlotte Hornets

[yoursweatersux]

I figured he would get around 12 million a year.  15 is a lot.  Now you guys know why Pierce wants 10.

I guess I'm wondering why Lance Stephenson's agent isn't asking for the max.  Equal passer, better shooter, better rebounder, better defender, better athlete, MUCH more efficient.  And he's a year younger with arguably higher potential (Tmac-ish).

Subtract a little for maturity issues, and he should still at least be in the same ballpark no?  Yet this deal is a full 50% higher than anything I've read linked to Stephenson.  Why such a big difference?

Stephenson has a long history of issues on and off the basketball court. Then there's also reports that he played a large part in Indy's spiral last year - fans and media seem to think his attitude and play changed after he was snubbed from the all-star game.  My guess is teams are wary that giving him a big payday will allow him to act out more and go rogue or that he'll end up as Mark Blount 2.0

Right. The alternative scenario is that you lock him up on the cheap because teams are afraid of his personality, and you end up getting a phenomenal player at a great price, and he grows up a little bit.

Hell, remember when Paul Pierce had his character constantly being questioned? Pierce ended up maturing into one of the most professional, respected veterans in the game. For every Ron Artest, there multiple players who simply grew up and corrected their behavior.

[mgent]

I figured he would get around 12 million a year.  15 is a lot.  Now you guys know why Pierce wants 10.

I guess I'm wondering why Lance Stephenson's agent isn't asking for the max.  Equal passer, better shooter, better rebounder, better defender, better athlete, MUCH more efficient.  And he's a year younger with arguably higher potential (Tmac-ish).

Subtract a little for maturity issues, and he should still at least be in the same ballpark no?  Yet this deal is a full 50% higher than anything I've read linked to Stephenson.  Why such a big difference?

Why is 2 million over a small overpay but 3 million over a large overpay?

No clue what you're saying or what this is a response to in my post, but by 50% higher I meant 15mil vs 10mil.  That would be a full 20 million dollars less than the 63mil contract.

[RJ87]

I figured he would get around 12 million a year.  15 is a lot.  Now you guys know why Pierce wants 10.

I guess I'm wondering why Lance Stephenson's agent isn't asking for the max.  Equal passer, better shooter, better rebounder, better defender, better athlete, MUCH more efficient.  And he's a year younger with arguably higher potential (Tmac-ish).

Subtract a little for maturity issues, and he should still at least be in the same ballpark no?  Yet this deal is a full 50% higher than anything I've read linked to Stephenson.  Why such a big difference?

Stephenson has a long history of issues on and off the basketball court. Then there's also reports that he played a large part in Indy's spiral last year - fans and media seem to think his attitude and play changed after he was snubbed from the all-star game.  My guess is teams are wary that giving him a big payday will allow him to act out more and go rogue or that he'll end up as Mark Blount 2.0

Right. The alternative scenario is that you lock him up on the cheap because teams are afraid of his personality, and you end up getting a phenomenal player at a great price, and he grows up a little bit.

Hell, remember when Paul Pierce had his character constantly being questioned? Pierce ended up maturing into one of the most professional, respected veterans in the game. For every Ron Artest, there multiple players who simply grew up and corrected their behavior.

Agreed. In the case of Stephenson, there's just a lot of serious red flags in his past (some involving domestic violence) that the younger teams trying to build might not want to have his influence in the locker room, but the veteran squads that can keep him on the right path don't have the cap to meet his demands.

With Gordon, his reputation precedes him as a good soldier. He may have a lower ceiling than Lance but teams know what they'd be getting as far as work ethic, focus, and not disrupting locker room culture.

[Who]

I guess I'm wondering why Lance Stephenson's agent isn't asking for the max.  Equal passer, better shooter, better rebounder, better defender, better athlete, MUCH more efficient.  And he's a year younger with arguably higher potential (Tmac-ish).

Subtract a little for maturity issues, and he should still at least be in the same ballpark no?  Yet this deal is a full 50% higher than anything I've read linked to Stephenson.  Why such a big difference?

I think Stephenson is getting docked for two things:

(1) Character question marks. A few incidents earlier in his career. Then Pacers locker room mess last year which most people seem to be placing majority of blame on Stephenson.

(2) Not seen as main man for Indiana. More of a 3rd or even 4th best player on strong team. Paul George and Roy Hibbert receive most of credit for Pacers success. David West with his talent, leadership and steadying influence receives a lot of credit also. I think Stephenson would have received much more plaudits if he was doing this as the main guy on his own team (even if only 30-35 win team) rather than as supporting (star?) player.

As combination of points 1 and 2, I think there are also concerns about how well Stephenson will play outside of Indiana. Without the structure they have. A largely veteran defense first team. Also without Larry Bird who has gotten quite a bit of attention for how he has supposedly helped Stephenson. With those question marks and without ever having to lead a team, and with an excellent environment and structure around to support him, how well does Stephenson perform without those excellent conditions?

Anyway, this is why I think Lance Stephenson is getting lower contract offers than one would otherwise expect him to receive.

[LooseCannon]

I still don't understand why they didn't just resign him last season. Allegedly he asked for $52m over 4 years
 Why not just do try he extension and save yourself some money. Were they hoping he'd get hurt and they could sign him to a Steph Curry deal?

It was a calculated gamble.  They were hoping he wouldn't get offered that much as a free agent.  The justification for doing so is the same one used by those who think Ainge should have waited to see what the market offered Avery Bradley instead of agreeing to a contract early in the free agent process.

They also might have wanted to wait and see on a guy who had started 102 games in his first three seasons and was going from being the third option to the first option on offense.

[CelticG1]

Can someonw explain something to me?

Say Utah offered Hayward 12 mil a year and he doesmt accept. Hornets offer him the max, can UTah still match?

Im assuming this is Dannys reasoning for Jeff Green and AB signing. He might have overpaid a bit but didnt need to risk another team wildly overpaying and needing to match? If some of these big chips start to fall amd guys like Ariza may get north of 10 mil, i wouldnt be too shocked if we had waited that Bradley could have seen a better deal

[LooseCannon]

When another team signs a restricted free agent, what they do is sign him to what is called an offer sheet.  The player's original team has the option to match the offer sheet and assume that contract themselves or to pass on it and let the new team take the burden.  Once a player signs an offer sheet, he can't be signed and traded, so he basically has a contract in hand where the only thing undecided is which team is going to be paying him.