Thank you kind sir. I understand your position and heartily agree to some of them but making a completed trade and KG as an example doesn't really ram your argument through the door to the point that my proposal becomes laughable. There have been a plethora of completed trades that are far worse than the one I posited but that is neither here nor there. Just saying that since Rodney Hood is developing and expected to have a breakout season, Hayward 'may' be considered superfluous 'if' the players you are getting in a proposed trade fills the Jazz' needs with Exum being injured for the rest of the season.
Well first I apologize if the laughing thing offended you. I just thought that your proposal was a little offbase when I first saw it, but I appreciate you acknowledging my point and not shooting it down furiously. I can clearly see that you've given this some thought and I respect your optimism, but I firmly stand by that the Jazz, a team that has a phenomenal defense and barring any more injuries should capitalize on last season's surge, will trade their most proven offensive player. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have Gordon Hayward on this team and he would do wonders especially considering that he's played with Brad Stevens before, but trading Bradley, Olynyk, and Turner is trading about 30-40 cents on the dollar for Hayward.
Contrary to your belief, Utah is not making the playoffs this year and while they do indeed have a bright future, having Hayward 'may' hinder Rodney Hood and Alec Burks' (both good shooters and floor spacers) development. We of course know that trades happen to help foster the development of younger talents. So if you really look at it, there 'may' be more than meets the eye considering that you get a defensive talent in Avery Bradley, a play maker in Evan Turner and a competent Kelly Olynyk, who by measure is favorably compared to Hayward (see post above). These players are not scrubs, they are young players who have yet to hit their peaks and are not finished products in the common sense of the term (AB is 24, ET is 26 and Olynyk is 24). They contributed to our playoff run last season and should not be hastily boxed and labeled as productive players only because of coaching and the system they play in.
I must say I'm curious about your doubts about Utah. You and I both know they started putting it together after they traded Kanter and entrusted Gobert to anchor the defense. It worked wonderfully for them. They won 20 of their last 31 games and they did it with one of the younger teams in the league. That wasn't a fluke. The thing about young talent is if they show they can win in the NBA at a young age, they can only get better from there and further improve their team. Hence why I firmly believe Utah will be better even without Exum because the young talent (Hayward, Gobert, Favors, Hood, Burks) is starting to mature. Who in the west will be better than them other than the 6 juggernauts (Spurs, Warriors, Thunder, Rockets, Clippers, Grizzlies)?
Turner is a 2nd overall pick who is two seasons removed from averaging 17.4 points, 6 rebounds and 4 assists;
Yeah, on an awful Philadelphia 76ers team who dumped him for a 2nd round pick mid-season. It's called "Good stats/Bad team" or as I like to call it, the "Shareef Abdur-Rahim effect" Not to mention when he was put on team vying for a championship like Indiana, Turner failed so badly that he hardly played in the playoffs and the Celtics were one of only two teams that were interested in his services in the summer. If Turner really was that good, why did only 2 teams want him and how did the Celtics get him on that small contract? Even though I like Turner and thought he played well for the Celtics, he didn't replicate the same stats on the Celtics that he did for the Sixers. Turner is adequate, not special.
AB was a highly rated player in High School who went as high as No. 1 in ESPNU's rankings and is a career 43.5% FG and 36.0% 3P (Hayward: 43.9% and 36.5%), and was an NBA all-defensive 2nd team a year ago;
Don't use high school to prove anything about a basketball player. Kwame Brown and Eddy Curry were highly touted high school basketball players. How did they turn out? See at a glance stats may prove that two players are equal but when it comes to advanced metrics, they show that they couldn't be more different. At first glance, it looks like Bradley and Hayward are equal on FG% and 3P FG%, but how many of Hayward's shots were 1-on-1 and contested compared to Bradley? If you looked it up, it's be pretty steep. I'm pretty sure that since Hayward was Utah's go to guy, the defense focuses on him. Bradley can't create his shot and plays thrives off the ball. In conclusion, Bradley's offensive rating this year according to advanced metrics was 99. Hayward's was 111. That's pretty telling.
Olynyk averaged 10.3 points 4.7 rebounds and 1.7 assists on 47.5% FG and 34.9% 3P last season. I may be a homer, probably a very biased one at that but it just makes sense to me.
Those are decent numbers. I won't disagree, but that's not Hayward. I'm not as optimistic about Olynyk as some of the other guys on here are. I don't think Olynyk, Bradley, or Turner can give the same production as Hayward can.
Hood has a nice future ahead, but he's not completely proven. He had a string of good games at the end of the season in his rookie year, but plenty of players have done that. You should give it some time before crowning him the future. I think we both know as celtics fans we can't judge a player after just his rookie year. We gave away Chauncey Billups and Joe Johnson mid way through their rookie seasons.
I think most here 'may' have overestimated Hayward's offensive production and put him on a pedestal as if what he gives a team is irreplaceable.
This part bothers me the most. For a number of reasons. If Hayward isn't as good as posters such as myself think he is, then why do you want him? The Celtics need a superstar, and it sounds to me like you think that since he's overrated, he isn't that guy we're looking for. So why waste some of these supposed valuable young assets like Bradley, Turner, and Olynyk for Hayward?
However, I think you're wrong about Hayward as a player. Hayward has steadily improved his game every year since he joined the league. I think he will be an all star at sometime or another, and I can't say I have nearly the same confidence for KO, AB or ET, but you already know that.
Finally, Hayward is 25, Burks is 24, and Hood is 22. They are all young, they have multiple years left on their contracts, and Utah has the whole season to decide what's best for the team going forward. Even Utah doesn't know how good they are going to become in the next few years. They again have NO REASON to change things up when they have some great potential on their team that is going to be locked up for the next 2-3 years.
I'd love to have Hayward, and if the Jazz accepted that deal, I'd be ecstatic, but they aren't. Not just because I think that's a lowball offer, but because Hayward won't be available.
Topic: Move ET 1st-Sully to clear PF logjam says Rival GMs and J. King?? is Utah ideal? (Read 9603 times)