Gordon Hayward Extension Watch: Setting the Bar for Chandler Parsons Contract?

They are on similar levels. Parsons is a better all around player/glue guy while Hayward is a better offensive player. But I think Hayward has all star potential.

If you're looking for a complimentary piece to a good team, take Parsons. But if I had to choose one between Parsons and Hayward to start my team, I'd pick Hayward

 

(Parson's has a Robert Horry nutsack. Hayward has a Nick Anderson nutsack.)

Parson sack > Gordon sack

 

Most players can keep their efficiency higher with less minutes. Parson's can do at least just as well in most areas with more burn.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Jazz won't go any farther publicly than acknowledging talks ongoing but I'm told deal -- if completed -- will be richer than Favors' deal</p>&mdash; Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/statuses/392142278682099712">October 21, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


He is saying this could be better than a 4 year 49 million dollar deal. Well, the market may be set a little higher for CP25 than we thought.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Jazz won't go any farther publicly than acknowledging talks ongoing but I'm told deal -- if completed -- will be richer than Favors' deal</p>&mdash; Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/statuses/392142278682099712">October 21, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Looks like its going to be more than Favors, who got $49 mil for 4 years (12.25/yr). Damn.

Still, I think it's too early to tell what Parsons will get, as it depends on if and how much he improves this year.

 

who knows. in fact, the only thing we do know is that ever year we keep seeing more players getting absurd contracts.

with that in mind, I'll say he gets 4yr/40mil. Though if I were a GM, there's no way I'd pay him more than 7.5 a year

Good player, seems like a good person/locker room guy. Super great shooter, just doesn't fill up the stat sheet enough in certain areas to warrant what he'll probably end up getting.

 

yeah, they aren't paying chandler james money. Chandler will probably end up in the 45 over 5 range.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Report: Jazz in talks to give Gordon Hayward 8-figure a year*extension (via Kurt Helin) <a href="http://t.co/tVG4mYWXNP">http://t.co/tVG4mYWXNP</a></p>&mdash; NBA Rumors (@NBARUMORS) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBARUMORS/statuses/392177432213467136">October 21, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Im a big fan of Parsons, but I'll admit that Hayward owned Parsons straight up in the Jazz vs Rockets games last year.

 

Another team aiming for mediocrity. (unfortunately this type of deals make it more difficult for the smart GM like Morey)

 

Not sure how accurate this is. But here you go. Can't believe some of these players are making more than Parsons. Crazy.

Also note* Dan Fegan is a stud.

 

Hayward does everything better than Parsons other than rebounding and he is almost 2 years younger.

They'll both get overpaid as most players in this 8-13M range does.

 

Hayward also makes loads of $$$ (like 200 times) more than Parsons, his salary in one season is more than Parsons' first 2 years. If was Parsons I would aim for the biggest contract I can get.

Hayward
http://m.bkref.com/m?p=XXplayersXXhXXhaywago01.html&t=11

Parsons
http://m.bkref.com/m?p=XXplayersXXpXXparsoch01.html&t=11

 

I don't know which is the better player, but Parsons is the better looking.

He's not going to pick dynasty over contract. Be serious. He's working for charity wages now; he'd be a damn fool to not insist on his full market value.

 

Hayward is a good player, but anything over $10million is nuts. He's a barely above average SF. You could make a case for him + or - relative to Pierce, Deng, Iguodala, Barnes, Parsons, Batum, and Leonard. And then there are plenty of other SFs who are probably a step behind, but not that far back: Jeff Green, Tyreke Evans, Vince Carter, Rudy Gay, etc.

 

Good Bye Chandler and Good Riddance.

 

Here is a reason why Favors will end up getting much more than Hayward-

Favors is big, and Hayward is not.

Favors will have value accross the league even if he never lives up to the potential because he will still bring value. Hayward will not keep that value with this type of contract unless he becomes a superstar player. With a team like the Jazz being where they are now, contracts should ALWAYS be able to sustain value.

And even if the Jazz end up SIGNIFICANTLY overpaying Hayward with a Favors-like salary... good for the Rockets. He's a player that, while very good, is not a franchise pillar. You get your one or two star players first, and then you worry about signing your surrounding role players. This would be a big mistake for the Jazz if they did sign him about 10 million a year. It might not haunt them this year or not, but at some point in the future it will set them back paying guys like Hayward this much.

With Chandler, the Rockets already have their 2 stars. They can afford to overpay slightly for their surrounding pieces if needed. They still need to maintain cap flexibility in the case of a major catastrophe, and to make trades in the future, but Parsons is important enough to this team winning titles that you overpay if you have to in order to keep him.