Because, as is clear in the context of my original post, and as Ainge has recently discussed, great players are the pathway to championships. Gobert is a guy who could continue to develop and be a great player. Hayward is a really good player, not a great player. The Celtics currently top out at really good players who have no prospect of ever being great players. Choosing to stay with the guy who is already almost great versus jumping to the team that has a couple of guys with some chance of being great but no one who is close to there yet is not a clear-cut decision (I'm omitting IT and Horford because, as good as they are, they have no chance to ever be truly great players).As for the bolded, my first reaction is, "Oh."
Obviously I didn't take your post the way you intended or I would have skipped the rest of my response (I'm glad I didn't spend a lot of time on my response) since it's obviously not germane to what you intended.
But I'm curious to see why you think it matters that the Cs don't have a player who is better than Gobert right now? You're basically saying that Gobert is better than IT4 - and while I'm not going to necessarily argue with you with that point but I just don't see how it matters. Why would Heywoodie care about who the best player is on a team right now? I would guess that most free agents care about money, coach, organization, location, and chance to win - in varying degrees. If Haymarket cares about chance to win, he's going to be looking beyond who the next best player is and I think it's pretty clear that HeyWardCleaver's chance to win is higher with the Cs than the Jazz.
If the he signs with the Cs, the odds of that SayHayward plays with a player better than Gobert over the life of his next contract is pretty high, and if I were a free agent, that's what I would be looking at.