Bucks looking at Bledsoe, probably.

LUKE23 · Post #2441 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:31 pm

I'd easily trade Knight before Henson.

emunney · Post #2442 » by **emunney** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:31 pm

M-C-G wrote:
mlloyd10 wrote:[tweet]https://twitter.com/GeryWoelfel/status/489141282661335040[/tweet]

Got my hopes up and now this

Crap, so we don't have interest in Bledsoe now...

Pretty frustrating since the Suns want to play ball.

Nowak008 · Post #2443 » by **Nowak008** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:37 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I'd easily trade Knight before Henson.

No way. Henson sucks. Knight at least could be your 5 or 6th best player on a contender. Henson hasn't even shown he is a good back up player.

stillgotgame · Post #2444 » by **stillgotgame** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:43 pm

Nowak008 wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:I'd easily trade Knight before Henson.

No way. Henson sucks. Knight at least could be your 5 or 6th best player on a contender. Henson hasn't even shown he is a good back up player.

Henson can't leave, all the fast food joints in Milwaulee will go out of business :lol:

LUKE23 · Post #2445 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:44 pm

Nowak008 wrote:No way. Henson sucks. Knight at least could be your 5 or 6th best player on a contender. Henson hasn't even shown he is a good back up player.

Henson improved his offensive game this past season (.497 to .543 TS). He has to work on his help D awareness and his jumper still, but he scores relatively efficiently, plays good D at the rim, and he can board. To say he can't even be a good backup is a pretty laughable comment. Would I want him starting over Sanders? No, of course not.

But to make an argument (with no backing, mind you) that Knight is undoubtedly a better player is hilarious.

Baddy Chuck · Post #2446 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:45 pm

Nowak008 wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:I'd easily trade Knight before Henson.

No way. Henson sucks. Knight at least could be your 5 or 6th best player on a contender. Henson hasn't even shown he is a good back up player.

Really hasn't been given the same opportunity Knight has though. Through their first 2 years Knight has like 1900 more minutes than Henson did. I don't like Henson at all, but I don't doubt he'd be able to put up some pretty meaningless box scores given the minutes like Knight did.

Nowak008 · Post #2447 » by **Nowak008** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:46 pm

LUKE23 wrote:But to make an argument (with no backing, mind you) that Knight is undoubtedly a better player is hilarious.

Let's say Knight and Henson were both unrestricted FA's at the beginning of the off season, who gets more money?

LUKE23 · Post #2448 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:48 pm

Nowak008 wrote:Let's say Knight and Henson were both unrestricted FA's at the beginning of the off season, who gets more money?

Probably Knight. PPGZ get overpaid. Means nothing to who the better player is.

JoeJohnson2two · Post #2449 » by **JoeJohnson2two** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:49 pm

Nowak008 wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:But to make an argument (with no backing, mind you) that Knight is undoubtedly a better player is hilarious.

Let's say Knight and Henson were both unrestricted FA's at the beginning of the off season, who gets more money?

Awful example is awful

Baddy Chuck · Post #2450 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:51 pm

I honestly think Henson gets paid more. Bigs with potential, especially with good per minute numbers, get paid out the ass.

Nowak008 · Post #2451 » by **Nowak008** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:53 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
Probably Knight. PPGZ get overpaid. Means nothing to who the better player is.

Sure it does. Big men get paid too.

coolhandluke121 · Post #2452 » by **coolhandluke121** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:57 pm

Henson is the Gumby version of Gooden. Empty points and rebounds. Better ability to challenge shots than Gooden, but that's offset by much less ability to body people. Glaring weaknesses negate everything he does well, and then some. I can't see him not being a liability at any point in his career. No frame to add muscle, and poor mobility.

Of course I can't see Knight improving much either, because you can't teach the things he lacks. But they can at least find a role for him I think. And he plays with heart. I can't see Henson growing a pair at any point.

But the real answer is to try like hell to package them both in a trade for one superior player or a draft pick. That seems obvious to me.

Baddy Chuck · Post #2453 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:57 pm

If Henson got the same minutes Knight did I don't even think it'd be close.

Nowak008 · Post #2454 » by **Nowak008** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:57 pm

Baddy Chuck wrote:Really hasn't been given the same opportunity Knight has though. Through their first 2 years Knight has like 1900 more minutes than Henson did. I don't like Henson at all, but I don't doubt he'd be able to put up some pretty meaningless box scores given the minutes like Knight did.

He played 26.5 min a game last year, how much more of an opportunity does he need?

emunney · Post #2455 » by **emunney** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:00 pm

Knight and Henson would both get shocking paychecks.

Badgerlander · Post #2456 » by **Badgerlander** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:01 pm

coolhandluke121 wrote:Henson is the Gumby version of Gooden. Empty points and rebounds. Better ability to challenge shots than Gooden, but that's offset by much less ability to body people. Glaring weaknesses negate everything he does well, and then some. I can't see him not being a liability at any point in his career. No frame to add muscle, and poor mobility.

Of course I can't see Knight improving much either, because you can't teach the things he lacks. But they can at least find a role for him I think. And he plays with heart. I can't see Henson growing a pair at any point.

But the real answer is to try like hell to package them both in a trade for one superior player or a draft pick. That seems obvious to me.

I don't get this idea at all. Who cares if he puts a body on a guy when what matters is do their shots go in or not and Henson's rim protection is second to Sanders on the team.

AussieBuck · Post #2457 » by **AussieBuck** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:01 pm

Nowak008 wrote:
Baddy Chuck wrote:Really hasn't been given the same opportunity Knight has though. Through their first 2 years Knight has like 1900 more minutes than Henson did. I don't like Henson at all, but I don't doubt he'd be able to put up some pretty meaningless box scores given the minutes like Knight did.

He played 26.5 min a game last year, how much more of an opportunity does he need?

Isn't he the same guy as Knight so far? Bad player who puts up numbers when given the minutes. Both guys have a long way to go to be worth paying any decent money to.

LUKE23 · Post #2458 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:02 pm

Nowak008 wrote:
Sure it does. Big men get paid too.

If every GM was completely the same in terms of analyzing free agents, and had the same predictive ability of a players talents, then sure, it would matter. One GM being an idiot and overpaying a guy doesn't mean anything when saying how good the player actually is. I mean, we can go back and look by all means. Won't be hard to find dozens of examples that go against your theory.

coolhandluke121 · Post #2459 » by **coolhandluke121** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:02 pm

DocHoliday wrote:
coolhandluke121 wrote:Henson is the Gumby version of Gooden. Empty points and rebounds. Better ability to challenge shots than Gooden, but that's offset by much less ability to body people. Glaring weaknesses negate everything he does well, and then some. I can't see him not being a liability at any point in his career. No frame to add muscle, and poor mobility.

Of course I can't see Knight improving much either, because you can't teach the things he lacks. But they can at least find a role for him I think. And he plays with heart. I can't see Henson growing a pair at any point.

But the real answer is to try like hell to package them both in a trade for one superior player or a draft pick. That seems obvious to me.

I don't get this idea at all. Who cares if he puts a body on a guy when what matters is do their shots go in or not and Henson's rim protection is second to Sanders on the team.

I wasn't just referring to basket defense. It's about boxing out, screens, post defense, etc.

Baddy Chuck · Post #2460 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:02 pm

Nowak008 wrote:
Baddy Chuck wrote:Really hasn't been given the same opportunity Knight has though. Through their first 2 years Knight has like 1900 more minutes than Henson did. I don't like Henson at all, but I don't doubt he'd be able to put up some pretty meaningless box scores given the minutes like Knight did.

He played 26.5 min a game last year, how much more of an opportunity does he need?

His minutes were jerked around all season, namely due to him not being very consistent/good, but on the same hand a guy like Knight had the same struggles and was thrown into the fire every night no matter what.

I don't think he proves anything with more minutes, I'm just saying he puts up better meaningless box score numbers like Knight did with more minutes. And 7-8 minutes a game gets him a lot of those stats.