Xavier Henry?

[beb0p]

We're talking about trading next year's pick for a guy who was just the 12th pick in this year's draft. Somehow without even playing a minute you've decreased his value to a low teens pick in the 2011 draft.

He's got a ceiling is a borderline star and he's a good bet to be an above average starter. Which unless you're picking in the top 5 is actually a really good value for a first round pick.

You're twisting my words. I never said Henry is equivalent to a late teen 2011 pick. Never.

As for him being a 12th pick; so what? Adam Morrison was a #3 pick. Acie Law was #11. Brandon Rush was #13. Being a #12 pick means nothing. Aaron Brooks was #26 and he was better than the #4 picked that year.

So maybe a couple of years from now, Henry turns out to be an "above average starter"; are those guys hard to find? Somehow almost all winning teams armed with MLEs managed to sign one. "Above average starter" is what the free agency is for.

Again, I'm not against getting Henry but there is no need to overpay.

 

[Bricklayer]

You obviously do not give up any of our promising young pieces just to get another random young piece, but I don't understand the resistance to a protected pick. Henry was a #12 pick, which is right about where he was projected to go. Basically any future pick in a similar or later range is right about spot on for value. You Top 10 protect the pick you give up, you can't lose valuewise more than a couple of draft spots tops. And then it all just comes down to how Geoff feels about this kid. If he feels like Henry's a kid he would draft at #12 given the chance, and he likes Henry's fit with us, then you can't lose value by trading a protected pick for him. You have just essentially taken your pick next year a year early. If he feels like Henry's really just going to be a mediocre roleplayer and you could do better at #12, then don't make the trade. But if you liked him, we have a roster spot available, and its the only position where we are lacking a promising young player.

 

[Spike]

That, and you never pass on a man with two first names. Here is one instance where a phone call is definitely in order - what's the worst they can say, "no?"

But if you liked him, we have a roster spot available, and its the only position where we are lacking a promising young player.

Potential at all 5 positions is a gd luxury. Growing your own all-star team doesn't happen...ever. Of course, I'm sure the Mavs felt this way with Kidd, Mashburn, and Jackson. Hey, Toni Braxton is off the market, right?

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Why not a Henry for Whiteside trade. The Griz are pretty well set at center but not so much at PF.

Henry could certainly fit with the Kings need for an outside threat that can play some D.

Both of them probably wouldn't play much right away but could work out for both teams in the future.

dude, the kings considered him at #5! thats how high they think of him...........

 

[hammystyle]

You're twisting my words. I never said Henry is equivalent to a late teen 2011 pick. Never.

Oh really?

I wouldn't go overboard with offering a first round pick unless we know for sure that pick is at best late teens, which means I wouldn't offer a pick at all because not even God knows how the Kings will fare. That pick could be in the late lottery, at which point I would rather keep it.

Because that's exactly what this says. That you think he's worth a late teen pick and not a late lottery.

So maybe a couple of years from now, Henry turns out to be an "above average starter"; are those guys hard to find? Somehow almost all winning teams armed with MLEs managed to sign one. "Above average starter" is what the free agency is for.

Yes they're hard to find! Just by definition above average starter means in the top 10-15 best players at their position. Henry could be top 10, and with the exact type of game we would want at the position.

BTW - Name me these MLE guys who are supposedly above average starters. Maybe Mike Miller would be one. Mike Miller who was the #5 pick in the draft and a former rookie of the year. All Miami needed to do to get him was secure one of the greatest three player cores in NBA history.

 

[beb0p]

Oh really?

Because that's exactly what this says. That you think he's worth a late teen pick and not a late lottery.

No, this is what I said.

"I wouldn't go overboard with offering a first round pick unless we know for sure that pick is at best late teens."

Meaning, for this to be a good deal for the Kings, the pick to be traded must be at a lower value than Henry's future value. I.e. the Kings trade a future late teen pick for a late lottery talent, that's a good value return, get it? Because my whole point was that it's pointless to get Henry unless there is added value there. It does not mean Henry is equal to a late teen pick, it means Henry is better than a late teen pick thus getting him for a future late teen pick is a good deal. Do you get it now?

Yes they're hard to find! Just by definition above average starter means in the top 10-15 best players at their position. Henry could be top 10, and with the exact type of game we would want at the position.

BTW - Name me these MLE guys who are supposedly above average starters. Maybe Mike Miller would be one. Mike Miller who was the #5 pick in the draft and a former rookie of the year. All Miami needed to do to get him was secure one of the greatest three player cores in NBA history.

No it does not! The top 10 SGs in the league imo are:

Kobe
Wade
Joe Johnson
Brandon Roy
Ray Allen
Manu Ginobili
Vince Carter
Andre Iguodala
Rip Hamilton
Monta Ellis

And I didn't even include Michael Redd, Gilbert Arenas (next position next to John Wall), Jason Terry, OJ Mayo, Kevin Martin, Ben Gordon, Eric Gordon, Barbosa, Stpehen Jackson, Allen Iverson, T-Mac, etc. Being top 10 in the NBA means ALL-STAR, or very close to it!! Heck, being top 20 means you're pretty damn good, the type of SGs that defenses focus on.

I'm talking "Above average starter", you just turned that meaning into All-Star or borderline All-Star. NO it does not mean that. Even Mike Miller would not make the list of "Above average starter" by your definition.

If you think Henry is going to be better than those top ten guys on the list, then I must respectfully disagree.

 

[hammystyle]

No, this is what I said.

"I wouldn't go overboard with offering a first round pick unless we know for sure that pick is at best late teens."

Meaning, for this to be a good deal for the Kings, the pick to be traded must be at a lower value than Henry's future value. I.e. the Kings trade a future late teen pick for a late lottery talent, that's a good value return, get it? Because my whole point was that it's pointless to get Henry unless there is added value there. It does not mean Henry is equal to a late teen pick, it means Henry is better than a late teen pick thus getting him for a future late teen pick is a good deal. Do you get it now?

I don't think you get it. You're perfectly describing how you are devaluing a late lottery player to a late teen player. Look at it from the Grizzlies perspective. they just used a late lottery pick on him and a month later all you're willing to offer is a late teen pick. That means they traded 5-6 spots of value with out him even stepping on the court.

I and others are saying it would be a good deal for us even if it is a late lottery pick. Because a player of Henry's talent is well worth that.

No it does not! The top 10 SGs in the league imo are:

Kobe
Wade
Joe Johnson
Brandon Roy
Ray Allen
Manu Ginobili
Vince Carter
Andre Iguodala
Rip Hamilton
Monta Ellis

And I didn't even include Michael Redd, Gilbert Arenas (next position next to John Wall), Jason Terry, OJ Mayo, Kevin Martin, Ben Gordon, Eric Gordon, Barbosa, Stpehen Jackson, Allen Iverson, T-Mac, etc. Being top 10 in the NBA means ALL-STAR, or very close to it!! Heck, being top 20 means you're pretty damn good, the type of SGs that defenses focus on.

I'm talking "Above average starter", you just turned that meaning into All-Star or borderline All-Star. NO it does not mean that. Even Mike Miller would not make the list of "Above average starter" by your definition.

If you think Henry is going to be better than those top ten guys on the list, then I must respectfully disagree.

I have all sorts of qualms with your top 10 list and the honorable mentions (Hamilton.... McGrady, and Iverson??)...but yes an above average starter is one of the top 10-15 players at his position. Its hard to quantify cut off points but roughly, top 10 is above average, 10-20 is average, and 20-30 is a below average starter. Not overall player, just starter. The average starter is the 15th best player at his position in the league. What else could it be?

And yes, I'd say Xavier Henry's upside is a Michael Redd, Richard Hamilton, Kevin Martin level player. He could actually be better than those guys. Big strong athletes with huge wingspans who can defend and are gifted with a perfect jumper can be really good.

 

[Bricklayer]

And yes, I'd say Xavier Henry's upside is a Michael Redd, Richard Hamilton, Kevin Martin level player. He could actually be better than those guys. Big strong athletes with huge wingspans who can defend and are gifted with a perfect jumper can be really good.

Okay...kinda whoa horsey.

To whatever degree I would consider this move reasonable, it would be to try to go get a young Bryant Stith type glue roleplayer. Merely swapping next year's pick (protected of course) for Henry this year seems a reasonable thought to get that roleplayer. But I'm not sure I've seen this star guy under discussion since the high school scouting reports, and even if we got him he would create the same ole Kevin issues and we wouldn't be able to afford him long term.

 

[beb0p]

I don't think you get it. You're perfectly describing how you are devaluing a late lottery player to a late teen player. Look at it from the Grizzlies perspective. they just used a late lottery pick on him and a month later all you're willing to offer is a late teen pick. That means they traded 5-6 spots of value with out him even stepping on the court.

I and others are saying it would be a good deal for us even if it is a late lottery pick. Because a player of Henry's talent is well worth that.

I think it will save both of us a lot of time if you get yourself familiar with the concept of a "low-ball offer." Take note that in such a scenario, what the seller (in this case Memphis) considers as market value is usually irrelevant to the offerer.

I have all sorts of qualms with your top 10 list and the honorable mentions (Hamilton.... McGrady, and Iverson??)...but yes an above average starter is one of the top 10-15 players at his position. Its hard to quantify cut off points but roughly, top 10 is above average, 10-20 is average, and 20-30 is a below average starter. Not overall player, just starter. The average starter is the 15th best player at his position in the league. What else could it be?

What you described is called the "Median." The "Average" is when you take the sum of starters 1 to 30 and then divide by 30. The average could land on the lower end or upper tier depending on the number spread. It is rarely right at the half-way point though. Since I'm too lazy to run the numbers from Kobe to Sefolosha, I am just going to do this subjectively; so to me anyone better than Courtney Lee is at least an "Above Average Starter."

And yes, I'd say Xavier Henry's upside is a Michael Redd, Richard Hamilton, Kevin Martin level player. He could actually be better than those guys. Big strong athletes with huge wingspans who can defend and are gifted with a perfect jumper can be really good.

What Brick said.

 

[hammystyle]

I think it will save both of us a lot of time if you get yourself familiar with the concept of a "low-ball offer." Take note that in such a scenario, what the seller (in this case Memphis) considers as market value is usually irrelevant to the offerer.

I get what a low-ball offer is. Your lowball offer is irrelevant, because Memphis wouldn't take it. I'm trying to talk about a plausible scenario where we could get Xavier Henry...it's not going to happen with a top 17 protected pick in 2011. Its probably not going to happen with a top 10 protected pick in 2011 either, but its at least something Memphis might consider.

What you described is called the "Median." The "Average" is when you take the sum of starters 1 to 30 and then divide by 30. The average could land on the lower end or upper tier depending on the number spread. It is rarely right at the half-way point though. Since I'm too lazy to run the numbers from Kobe to Sefolosha, I am just going to do this subjectively; so to me anyone better than Courtney Lee is at least an "Above Average Starter."

I don't know how to tell you this, but the median is a tool used to describe averages too. They talk about it on the first day of statistics and averages. What you described is the "mean" which is the most commonly used measure. I don't know how to assign each starter a number value and divide by 30, but I could probably subjectively rank them. Which is why I thought median was the better tool to use here. Really, a more detailed tier system is the best way, but the middle tier needs to be average.

 

[hammystyle]

Okay...kinda whoa horsey.

To whatever degree I would consider this move reasonable, it would be to try to go get a young Bryant Stith type glue roleplayer. Merely swapping next year's pick (protected of course) for Henry this year seems a reasonable thought to get that roleplayer. But I'm not sure I've seen this star guy under discussion since the high school scouting reports, and even if we got him he would create the same ole Kevin issues and we wouldn't be able to afford him long term.

I was just talking upside and talent level. Not necessarily comparing the way they play. But consider if Michael Redd had been drafted to a good team with clearly defined stars. He could have been a heck of a 3rd banana. Henry could score a highly efficient 15-18 for us and play good defense...or if placed on a bad team where he's the #1 option I could see him scoring 20+, forgetting about defense, and winning 25 games every year.

Note again, I'm just talking upside. He will probably settle in a notch or two lower.

 

[bajaden]

Okay...kinda whoa horsey.

To whatever degree I would consider this move reasonable, it would be to try to go get a young Bryant Stith type glue roleplayer. Merely swapping next year's pick (protected of course) for Henry this year seems a reasonable thought to get that roleplayer. But I'm not sure I've seen this star guy under discussion since the high school scouting reports, and even if we got him he would create the same ole Kevin issues and we wouldn't be able to afford him long term.

Not sure if you've seen Henry play or not. But he's a completely different kind of player from Martin. He handles the ball well, and is a willing passer. He's a much more physical player than Martin with more of a Mitch Richmond type of body. He's not as athletic as Martin, but is a more well rounded player overall. In other words he doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective. He's an unselfish player and a consumate team player. I like him a lot and had him rated higher than some that went before him in the draft. He's also capable of playing some SF in the right situations.

I'd gladly swap next years first round pick, top 8 protected, for him. It could put us a year ahead of schedule in the teams progress. I think he would be a great addition.

 

[beb0p]

I get what a low-ball offer is. Your lowball offer is irrelevant, because Memphis wouldn't take it. I'm trying to talk about a plausible scenario where we could get Xavier Henry...it's not going to happen with a top 17 protected pick in 2011. Its probably not going to happen with a top 10 protected pick in 2011 either, but its at least something Memphis might consider.

If you mean to say that you want Henry much, much more than I do, then finally, we're on the same page.

I don't know how to tell you this, but the median is a tool used to describe averages too. They talk about it on the first day of statistics and averages. What you described is the "mean" which is the most commonly used measure. I don't know how to assign each starter a number value and divide by 30, but I could probably subjectively rank them. Which is why I thought median was the better tool to use here. Really, a more detailed tier system is the best way, but the middle tier needs to be average.

Allow me to give you a leg up on your statistics class: the median is not the average. The mean is the average. Don't forget this nifty fact during your test.

The mean (also know as average), is obtained by dividing the sum of observed values by the number of observations.

http://controls.engin.umich.edu/wik...ge,_standard_deviation,_z-scores,_and_p-value

 

[hammystyle]

If you mean to say that you want Henry much, much more than I do, then finally, we're on the same page.

Allow me to give you a leg up on your statistics class: the median is not the average. The mean is the average. Don't forget this nifty fact during your test.

That's fantastic...you just gave me the definition of "mean", but not "average". That's like saying a Camry is a car, so a car is a Camry.

Here you go, from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average
1 a : a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values

Some might say I'm an average looking guy (Some might say above average ), but that doesn't mean they assigned a numerical handsome value to every male in the world and divided by 3 billion and my value and the mean value are the same...it just means I'm somewhere in the middle.

Another example is housing prices...they always tell you the median because even a tyical middle class area has a guy with a $10M mansion on a hill that skews it high. So the median value is most representative number of the average value of homes in that area.

Anywho, fell too deep into the wormhole on this one.

 

[bajaden]

That's fantastic...you just gave me the definition of "mean", but not "average". That's like saying a Camry is a car, so a car is a Camry.

Here you go, from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average
1 a : a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values

Some might say I'm an average looking guy (Some might say above average ), but that doesn't mean they assigned a numerical handsome value to every male in the world and divided by 3 billion and my value and the mean value are the same...it just means I'm somewhere in the middle.

Another example is housing prices...they always tell you the median because even a tyical middle class area has a guy with a $10M mansion on a hill that skews it high. So the median value is most representative number of the average value of homes in that area.

Anywho, fell too deep into the wormhole on this one.

I had to check and see if I was still on Kingsfans.com. We are talking about basketball aren't we? Could you two guys argue about something I'm interested in,: other than just about being right. Which is important only when I do it...

 

[hammystyle]

I had to check and see if I was still on Kingsfans.com. We are talking about basketball aren't we? Could you two guys argue about something I'm interested in,: other than just about being right. Which is important only when I do it...

That was it for me....I just can't help myself sometimes.

I think your take above on Henry is about spot on. The exciting thing about him is not just his raw talent level which is really good, but that he's proven he knows how to fit in around other talent and really excel in a smaller role. A lot of veteran stars can't do that, but this was an 18 year old kid who was a top 2-3 recruit in the nation.

This is just a small thing too, but on draft day, I thought his tears and joy were really genuine. That says something.

 

[steelevt]

I had to check and see if I was still on Kingsfans.com. We are talking about basketball aren't we? Could you two guys argue about something I'm interested in,: other than just about being right. Which is important only when I do it...

i really dont understand the point of this argument. from what ive read, its if we should trade this years #12 pick for next years pick which most posters are saying top 10 protected. whats so wrong with trading a #12 for #11 or later? as long as he was on petries radar for around that pick im all for it.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Not sure if you've seen Henry play or not. But he's a completely different kind of player from Martin. He handles the ball well, and is a willing passer. He's a much more physical player than Martin with more of a Mitch Richmond type of body. He's not as athletic as Martin, but is a more well rounded player overall. In other words he doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective. He's an unselfish player and a consumate team player. I like him a lot and had him rated higher than some that went before him in the draft. He's also capable of playing some SF in the right situations.

I'd gladly swap next years first round pick, top 8 protected, for him. It could put us a year ahead of schedule in the teams progress. I think he would be a great addition.

I think top-8 protected is a completely reasonable gamble, and I like Henry enough to even give a little less protection (top-6, maybe?) There are a couple of things to keep in mind as far as sending a future pick goes. First off, though we might be a young team, I think the collection of players that we have, with Henry on top, would be destined for about the #13/#14 pick, and maybe (if Cousins/Dalembert click, and Whiteside or Henry give more than expected their first year) even lower than that. Second, with the threat of a lockout coming up, I'd be inclined to somewhat devalue 2011 picks. If there's no labor agreement come predraft time, there will be a lot of kids staying in school rather than face the uncertainty of burning those college bridges and then maybe not having an NBA season to look forward to. Low lottery next year may be a pretty weak pick.

Man, getting Henry would put us in an enviable position looking forward. You can count on a new CBA which (in vague terms) threatens to clamp down salaries and severely punish overspending teams, but we'd have a very young team, with nobody making big bucks and seven primary players going forward being rookies to 3rd year players (Evans, Henry, Greene/Casspi, Thompson/Whiteside, Cousins), several of those with star potential (if not already stars). With our current prudent salary decisions along with imprudent ones by most of the rest of the league, we'd be in good position to use the new CBA to our advantage and keep that young nucleus together. We'd have scoring (perimeter and interior), defense (perimeter and interior), youth, star power while huge payrolls sit heavy on the rest of the west...I get giddy just thinking about it.

 

[Boogie-havoc]

I read all the post so far..

But my question is one, how reasonable and real this talk really is?

Do we have any indication of this actually remotely happening?

 

[hammystyle]

I read all the post so far..

But my question is one, how reasonable and real this talk really is?

Do we have any indication of this actually remotely happening?

I'd think its pretty remote...BUT the Grizz just invested extremely heavily in Rudy Gay, have Mayo, and signed Tony Allen. Its bizarre that they are trying to play hardball over 300K that is pretty much standard. Plus in looking at the prospects for next year a lot of the top guys are going to play PG in the pro's. Josh Selby, Kyrie Irving, Brandan Knight, and Cory Joseph are all highly rated for next year. So they'd likely have two picks in the 10-15 range to take a run at their current biggest weakness. That might be a better idea than trying to switch Mayo to point or hoping Conley breaks through. Alternatively, we're looking at next year and seeing a lack of sweet shooting swingmen who can D up, so getting Henry makes sense.

So its still remote, but it would at least make sense.

 

[bajaden]

I read all the post so far..

But my question is one, how reasonable and real this talk really is?

Do we have any indication of this actually remotely happening?

No, none that I know of. Just pure speculation and wishful thinking on our part. I don't even know if this line of thinking is even on Petrie's radar. It's nice to think about though. Ya gatta do something to pass the time during the TDOS... Plus, I'm praying a lot. It could happen!

 

[Bricklayer]

I read all the post so far..

But my question is one, how reasonable and real this talk really is?

Do we have any indication of this actually remotely happening?

No. All based in speculation that Memphis may move him rather than give in on their petty little $300,000 fight.

And the truth of the matter is there is a lot of codespeak to the whole argument anyway. If you advocate giving up anything more than a top 10 protected pick for him, in reality it means that you have a high opinion of him and think he could be a star and better than anybody we could get with whatever we gave up . If you wouldn't move a similar level pick (to where he was drafted at #12) for him next year then it really means you saw a mediocre player his freshman year and would hope to do better with a #12 type pick next year. Then there's me. I am closer to the roleplayer view -- he's not a great athlete, may not be able to create his shot in the NBA, and lacks any one overwhelming skill to hang his hat on -- but happen to think that we need a roleplayer at SG, might very well be looking to use our #12 next year on such a player, and are unlikely to find a considerably better prospect at that positon in next year's draft. So if Geoff liked him, why not swap a Top 10 protected pick? On the other hand my lack of enthusiasm means if Geoff didn't like him I wouldn't be terribly dissapointed. It just seems like a reasonable possibility, not a necessity.

 

[bajaden]

Let me add that what were proposing is reasonable. And its based on the reports that Memphis is low balling Henry on his salary, which is not a good way to start a relationship. Its like saying we drafted you in the lottery, but we really don't think your good enough to make lottery money.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Yeah, outside of the contact lowball there's no real indication that Memphis has put Henry on the block. And I don't recall if we even brought him in for a workout, though we were clearly focused on bigs this year. So it's a lot of idle speculation, but like Baja said, it's not pure pie-in-the-sky to think Memphis might be amenable to dealing him.

 

[Kingster]

I'd offer a top-10 protected first, and maybe throw in the 2nd we just got in the Brockman trade. Worth a shot.

The Kings are kicking the can down the road on FA. Why not kick it down the road on a #1 two years from now (top 5 protected)? Throw in a #2 for good measure.

 

[The Hammer]

Let me add that what were proposing is reasonable. And its based on the reports that Memphis is low balling Henry on his salary, which is not a good way to start a relationship. Its like saying we drafted you in the lottery, but we really don't think your good enough to make lottery money.

I thought salaries for first rounders were pre-determined. And contract lengths and everything, pre-determined?

Anyhoo just to weigh in, I think we should try to get him. I would think a 2011 or 2012 top 8 protected and a second rounder would be a reasonable offer.

 

[Kingster]

I get what a low-ball offer is. Your lowball offer is irrelevant, because Memphis wouldn't take it. I'm trying to talk about a plausible scenario where we could get Xavier Henry...it's not going to happen with a top 17 protected pick in 2011. Its probably not going to happen with a top 10 protected pick in 2011 either, but its at least something Memphis might consider.

I don't know how to tell you this, but the median is a tool used to describe averages too. They talk about it on the first day of statistics and averages. What you described is the "mean" which is the most commonly used measure. I don't know how to assign each starter a number value and divide by 30, but I could probably subjectively rank them. Which is why I thought median was the better tool to use here. Really, a more detailed tier system is the best way, but the middle tier needs to be average.

Capt Factorial will weigh in, but as I recall, if you have a set of say [1,2,3,8,20,21,50] the median is 8 - the middle number; the average, aka mean, is 15.

 

[NME]

I thought salaries for first rounders were pre-determined. And contract lengths and everything, pre-determined?

There's actually a range of +/- 20% from the set amount for each draft slot. It's kind of a facade, because in practice basically all teams have been paying 120% of scale. The Grizz are trying to buck the trend by making the extra 20% conditional on performance targets rather than part of the guaranteed amount as is usual.

 

[hammystyle]

I thought salaries for first rounders were pre-determined. And contract lengths and everything, pre-determined?

Anyhoo just to weigh in, I think we should try to get him. I would think a 2011 or 2012 top 8 protected and a second rounder would be a reasonable offer.

There's an 80%-120% range they can offer. Because rookie deals are so favorable to begin with the 120% max has become the operating standard. Every first rounder gets it. Memphis is offering 100% with the top 20% being incentive based.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

There's actually a range of +/- 20% from the set amount for each draft slot. It's kind of a facade, because in practice basically all teams have been paying 120% of scale. The Grizz are trying to buck the trend by making the extra 20% conditional on performance targets rather than part of the guaranteed amount as is usual.

Though this is not exactly "bucking the trend" anymore - according to ShamSports, having performance incentives for the last 20% has become fairly common recently.