Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Gordon Hayward to visit Hornets next week.


PantherBrew

Recommended Posts

These holes...so many holes?

Someone posted a great breakdown of Lance's turnovers, dribbling out the clock and forcing pick and roll plays.

To me they are both equal..Lance stronger on the D end..Heyward a better O player and moves the ball with quick decisions.

Heyward is also not a spot up shooter he can drive as well and has better mid range scoring ability than Lance...so these holes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was going to be my point.

Why are we giving a max to someone that's a "2nd or 3rd option?"

Our 2nd and third option now is so awesome we should stand pat? The playoffs got embarassing quick on offense when Kemba was not on. Other than MKG with his one game no one else stood up. Josh McRoberts was our best player for most the series btw..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was going to be my point.

Why are we giving a max to someone that's a "2nd or 3rd option?"

 

Huddle Observation: Price tag doesn't matter nearly as much for Gordon Hayward as it does for Lance Stephenson, who is more likely to be a better all around player than Hayward.

 

It's Stauskas and McDermott versus Hairston all over again. Amazing how people can't see themselves. 

 

Hayward is way too inconsistent to warrant a "max" contract. Stephenson is pretty consistent, but he wasn't the "star" on Indiana, Paul George was, and before the season started, Roy Hibbert, and probably David West, were also considered scoring options before Stephenson, so anyone who compares his "numbers" to Hayward's and tries to make a final decision based on that alone, needs to stop trying to make decisions altogether. 

 

Stephenson's problem is mental, which I'm not the least concerned about. I think the culture being built by the Hornets can modify him more than the other way around. More responsibility is a good thing for some people.

 

Neither should be offered more than $10M per season. I'll go as high as $10.5M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our 2nd and third option now is so awesome we should stand pat?

 

For the 10000th time, this is not simply about acquiring Hayward, this is about acquiring Gordon Hayward on a contract that would universally be regarded as an overpay and would surely curse us to the eternal 7th seededness we blew the team up for years ago to get out of. (Assuming at that point, Utah would do the sensible thing and not try to match us.)

 

I would rather bring back the 2013 Bobcats (Sessions, McBob) with the additions of Vonleh and Hairston than pick up Gordon Hayward on a max contract. After LeBron, Melo and Bosh there's no one on the market that deserves a max salary.

 

If other teams want to overpay below average shooting guards, fine. That doesn't mean we should be obligated to up the offers on the two shooting guards that could actually be an upgrade over Henderson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our 2nd and third option now is so awesome we should stand pat? The playoffs got embarassing quick on offense when Kemba was not on. Other than MKG with his one game no one else stood up. Josh McRoberts was our best player for most the series btw..

I think you missed the point...

You don't commit 25% of your salary space to a "2nd or 3rd option."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the 10000th time, this is not simply about acquiring Hayward, this is about acquiring Gordon Hayward on a contract that would universally be regarded as an overpay and would surely curse us to the eternal 7th seededness we blew the team up for years ago to get out of. (Assuming at that point, Utah would do the sensible thing and not try to match us.)

 

I would rather bring back the 2013 Bobcats (Sessions, McBob) with the additions of Vonleh and Hairston than pick up Gordon Hayward on a max contract. After LeBron, Melo and Bosh there's no one on the market that deserves a max salary.

 

If other teams want to overpay below average shooting guards, fine. That doesn't mean we should be obligated to up the offers on the two shooting guards that could actually be an upgrade over Henderson.

 

Like I said, according to "some people" on the Huddle, Gordon Hayward deserves a max contract more than Lance Stephenson deserves $10M per season, despite the fact that Stephenson gives you more on both ends, because he's going to score in many more ways than Hayward can on top of being able to defend multiple positions with his quick feet, long arms and strength. People shoot over Hayward with ease because he has a short wingspan despite his height.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like people believe that the more you pay the better the player.

Brooklyn is probably kicking themselves right now for giving out max deals to Johnson and Williams.

 

What were there other alternatives? 

 

Williams and Johnson are some of the top players at their position. 

 

They had a team last yr that on paper could have contended for a title. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew you were looking for what will never be "specific" enough for you, which is why I dismissed your request. 

 

http://youtu.be/2aa6_sdCgOs?t=6m36s

 

Definitely not a max guy. Prefer Lance Stephenson any day of the week. Much fewer holes in Stephenson's game, he's a much better defender, and he's going to score even if his shot isn't falling. 

 

And I knew you couldnt give me any specifics because you have none. You are not fooling anyone. 

 

Much better defender?!? Lance doesnt even average 1 block or steal a game. 

 

You know what Hayward shoots inside the arc? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paper champs is a nice name for... "we messed up and overpaid for a team that can't get it done."

 

I ask again,

 

What was their other option(s)? 

 

That was their best shot at putting together a title team. 

 

Lets say they didnt sign those guys, saved their money and signed Melo. 

 

They still are not title contenders. 

 

You gotta take chances plain and simple. If not your gonna be doing a lot of waiting and wishing on things that may or may not happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...