Jaxson Hayes Discussion: He's Back

Well there you go, sign Marcus Notso Smart with that

 

i see we're reacting hard to small news when events haven't yet played out, as is custom.

let's see if a) the plan was ever to use the BAE, b) if the BAE ability is regained via a consolidation trade, c) anyone we wanted signs for the BAE if we end up not able to use it, etc.

feel like we've maybe learned nothing from the ayton saga that played out like three days ago.

 

i think in another thread someone was again calling for rob's head due to this news. i should have responded there.

i'm also not sure why hayes became such a whipping boy here. because he was miscast as a starter whilst playing on a vet min? he produced well for a backup last year overall, overperforming his contract. he does that again, and it's a good signing. if he was truly as bad as people seem to imply, i'm pretty sure jj would have told rob not to bring him back.

i suppose the duffy connection could overrule that, but i doubt it as it would be bad for his client to sign somewhere where the coach was going to nail him to the bench.

 

Kind of the nature of these threads. After the OP has 10-20 comments added to it a little negative or irritation has grown into stalks that hold up giants in the clouds. Magic beans don't always sprout but more often than not they seem to. I know I'm guilty of piling on at times. Probably not productive but passes time...lol.

 

Honestly, I'm not a fan of this move.

Hayes outplayed his vet minimum contract and was shifted into a starter role when he's a 3rd stringer center at best but in the two seasons the Lakers have had him, he hasn't improved defensively.

I'd preferably would have liked the Lakers to take a chance on someone who could still be developed, e.g., Zubac. Hayes isn't going to get any better. He's got a limited skillset, which is fine for vet minimum, but with Ayton and likely another backup big behind him, you could have done better than Hayes imo.

Not upset at the move, though.

 

Lakers have that development guy on a two-way in Koloko. Not sure there was a better option in that mold via free agency.

 

maybe kai jones, but he's kinda nutty.

 

100% agree

We have to have someone who can step in for DA and help us to win

Not be a hindrance if he out for a few games or weeks

You never know

I'm not convinced Kleber is the one

 

this is all fine; i think hayes is probably ok as a backup, but i get why someone would disagree.

hayes grades out statistically ahead of many of the guys people (including myself) have looked at longingly (including richards).

also, i'm not sure it's impossible that other teams might have had interest in hayes but we had already told him we had an upgrade on the vet min available. it may have taken the slight upgrade to keep him from signing elsewhere.

 

Hayes was defending well during the regular season and that’s all we needed from him. I doubt he sees any minutes in the playoffs.

As for his contract he was offered 500k more to waive his implicit no trade clause. Which is smart and gives us optionally during the season. Some people are complaining in that it means we can only use 3.9m of a 5.1m BAE. And like, who cares? Which player would come here for 5 that wouldn’t come here for 4?

 

Jaxson earned his little pay increase IMO.

 

It's about 1) the next contract, teams are going to you based on your current deal even if you find yourself earning a raise. You're a lot more likely to go from $3.9 to $6m and $5m to $8m than $3.9m to $8m. For players 6-9 on the rotation, that kind of money matters. 2) if it's a competitive market, you're looking for any advantage you can cobble together. It's a perception league.

 

i'm not sure i agree, but i'd have to take some time to look at the history of such things. my vague feeling is that it's more tiered, as svtzr is suggesting. like, you're a vet min, or you're a tpmle/BAE or you're an MLE or you're a max or whatever. and once you dip, you've dipped. once you jump, you've jumped. and you can jump and dip and back again, though it's rare.

it's quantum.

 

I kind of see it that way, whether you’re a BAE or TPMLE, it’s not really going to matter too much. You’re not going to suddenly become a MLE or slightly higher level player 5 years into your career.

So a player that sees himself at the higher level won’t come here for the BAE unless it’s to ring chase. So once again, what’s the real difference between 4m and 5m to the players we could actually get for that? I presume it won’t really change the type of players we can go for much. But it’s sure fun to attack our front office for not knowing what we’re doing.

I guess if they manage to include Hayes in a mid season trade, they won’t get props for getting rid of that no trade clause though.

 

In his two seasons with the Blazer, Ayton played 55 and 40 RS games.
In his five years in Phoenix, there are two seasons in which he played 38 and 58 games.

The evaluation of signing Hayes cannot include the fact that Ayton is a player who does not provide many physical guarantees:
we are literally talking about a player who comes from 95 games in two seasons.

In this light, does it make sense to re-sign Hayes?

The player is not even bad as a backup C.
With him on the field we finished the RS as third in the West...
...but then in the PO he played practically zero, JJ clearly showed that he does not trust him at all.

It is difficult to say if something different could have been done, but I am not very excited about this re-signing.

 

I always take # of games in tanking teams with a pinch of salt. Many of the games missing is due to the team trying to lose and/or develop their younger guys, like Clingan in this case. Plus the inevitable shutdown period of this type of guys after the trade deadline.

Doesn't mean Ayton couldn't play more games. It was certainly the case last year.