Thursday, August 19, 2010
Griz Notes: The Xavier Henry Situation
Posted by Chris Herrington on Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:31 PM
After an unplugged vacation and another week of playing catch-up on more pressing matters, I've missed a lot of Grizzlies news over the past couple of weeks. I'm going to try to get up to speed over the next few days with a series of (hopefully) small posts, starting with the mess that is the Xavier Henry situation.
- Xavier Henry
As pretty much anyone who follows the Grizzlies knows, the team still has not signed top draft pick Henry or fellow first-rounder Greivis Vasquez, making these the only two first round picks yet unsigned. And the contract stalemate with Henry has grown increasingly public in recent days.
Salaries for first-round picks are on a scale based on where players are selected, but with some negotiation room: Teams are allowed to play players up to 120% of the scale, a practice that has been commonplace since the league introduced the rookie scale. Typically, teams set up minor requirements — participation in Summer League, reporting to camp on time, offseason workouts, etc. — for players to meet to get the 120%. This is what the Grizzlies have always done — until now.
The Grizzlies have been demanding performance incentives in order for Henry to obtain the full 120%. According to the Commercial Appeal, these meeting one of three goals: playing in NBA rookie/sophomore game during All-Star weekend, earn an all-rookie selection, or averaging 15 minutes in at least 70 games.
On the surface, this sounds reasonable, and perhaps something like this should very well be the norm in the NBA. But it isn't. And Henry's powerhouse agent, Arn Tellem, is balking at what he considers to be disparate treatment for his client. And he's right.
If other teams aren't making similar demands, then the Grizzlies are essentially asking Henry to take less guaranteed money than players who were taken after him. And to do so to play for a small-market team with a bad on- and off-court track record.
For the Grizzlies, this is not worth fighting, neither for monetary reasons (the financial difference this season will be something like half of a percent of the team's total payroll) or for setting a perhaps justifiable precedent. (A precedent, by the way, it's hard to see Tellem being a party to setting.) Let someone else be the canary in that particular coalmine, not a team trying to climb into the playoffs that needs the bench shooting Henry is supposed to provide. Not a team that already has a history of struggling to get prospective players to come in for pre-draft workouts or otherwise get enthused about playing in Memphis. Not a team with a reputation for an erratic and at-times penny-pinching operational style.
And yet, here we are. And in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, one has to assume that this is all coming straight from owner Michael Heisley, who paid handsomely for Rudy Gay this summer on one hand and has spent the rest of the summer careening in the opposite direction — selling a draft pick (and it's a wonder the team didn't sell two), refusing a very reasonable qualifying offer for free agent Ronnie Brewer, and now playing hardball with draft picks over a relatively paltry sum.
And not only is there no evidence that this isn't driven by Heisley. There's plenty of evidence that it is. For one thing, Heisley — as has been far, far too often the norm since Jerry West's departure — is the lone Grizzlies source quoted directly in the Commercial Appeal's story today, underscoring that he's the de facto head of basketball operations. For another — and this is my favorite part of the story, really — the Associated Press piece on the situation quotes Henry thusly:
"Whatever team I go to, I'm going to try to bring my best," he said. "If it is Memphis, I'm still going to try to bring my best even though this contract thing is going on, because I know the coaches have called me, they're saying it's just like the owner and the organization, so it's not them saying we don't want to pay you 120 percent. So I still know my coaches and my teammates want me there, so I'm going to give them my best effort."
Now, let's acknowledge that the true meaning of this revelation is not crystal clear. Did Henry say that the unnamed coaches in question told him it's "just like" the owner to do this, meaning, essentially, "Heisley does this crap all the time." Or was it more "just [pause] like," meaning, "hey, this is an ownership thing and we don't want to get mixed up in that, we just want you here."
If it's the former, it is certainly impolitic of Henry to make that exchange public, but is it at all surprising that a Grizzlies coach might have been grousing off the record about the way the team is run? Of course not. Though you will never hear it publicly for obvious reasons, my sense is that frustration with Heisley's management of the team is palpable throughout the organization. And this incident highlights the organizational dysfunction that coach Lionel Hollins and his starting lineup almost overcame to the point of a near-winning record last season: The erratic, stubborn owner runs the show. The only quasi-effectual general manager tries to make progress where he can but isn't able to or hasn't asserted the kind of control you want top executives to have. Frustration runs down the organizational chain, where people try to do their jobs despite the hurdles presented to them. And, along the way, shortsighted battles do potentially lasting harm to an organization that doesn't need more stories like this.
Comments (20)
Showing 1-20 of 20
like
dislike
Or, Xavier could come out and say "I don't mind being challenged. Let's get this show on the road."
It's Heisley's pocket. Don't forget that.
Heisley isn't negotiating with Xavier Henry. He's negotiating with Arn Tellem. Henry is a 19 year old doing what his agent says.
Henry isn't your average 19 year old. With his family and background I am not inclined to treat him like your run of the mill teenage athlete.
Or, Xavier could come out and say "I don't mind being challenged. Let's get this show on the road."
It's Heisley's pocket. Don't forget that.
Posted by 38103 on August 19, 2010 at 12:54 PM | Report this comment
Or Heisley could bargain in good faith, which he's not doing. If it is customary for NBA teams to pay a certain amount, and Heisley is in effect offering less than that amount, when he lacks the leverage to extract any kind of premium, and Henry is not allowed to court offers from other teams and his only leverage is to hold out until he's traded to a team that will negotiate with him in good faith, then he's doing the right thing by holding out.
And make no bones about it. Heisley is bargaining in bad faith. The customary practice is to pay 120% with nominal incentives that just about any rookie should be able to meet. Regardless of what anyone thinks about whether that sought to be the practice, it is in fact the practice. And Heisley is making a fool of himself and the organization, and harming the organization's prospects of trying to hold on to/ attract, not just Henry, but other high caliber players in the future by trying to take the so-called high ground. LA or Orlando might be able to get away with this (though they probably wouldn't need to). Memphis can't
The fact is, Heisley foolishly drafted Thabeet (and Caroll, too) last year and got burned. Now he's trying to take that out on Henry. But it isn't Henry's fault that the Grizzlies draft poorly. That lies purely at the feet of the organization
Bas-O-matic.
What does "bargain in good faith mean"?
Does that mean an offer of 100% is somehow bad faith?
I don't think Heisley is taking anything out on Xavier. I think Heisley is a billionaire for a reason and understands performance incenctives.
I don't think he really knows that much about basketball, but I think he knows how to keep the lights on.
The problem is that 100% of the contract isn't 100% of the contract. That is the whole point. Everyone else in the NBA is getting 120%, (according to the half reporting done on the part of the CA...and I have no way of independently verifying this as fact) so why should Xavier be different?
I am all for the Grizzlies trying to set standards and being financially prudent (the whole Rudy Gay contract fiasco aside). But right now, Heisley looks like an idiot. If you want to draw this line in the sand, the do it with better public relations. The Grizzlies come across as cheap and incompetent...thus, the city has its name attached to something that is seen as cheap and incompetent. For those of us younger folks who grew up here and are struggling with the idea of staying in Memphis or moving, this is just another weight tipping the scale to moving. I know that may seem far-fetched, but it is true, and I am not the only one who is tired of seeing Memphis on the news for being cheap or incompetent.
38103,
Are you a fan of the Grizzlies or of Mike Heisley's business empire? The average fan doesn't and shouldn't care about whether the owner makes money on the team. They should care about whether the team wins.
If anyone becomes an NBA owner to make money while owning the team, then they are not as business savvy as their bank account would indicate. Practically every team not located in a top 10 TV market loses money every season. Owners make their money when they sell the team, not by penny pinching at the expense of putting a quality product on the floor.
Its a terrible shame that Memphis finally gets a professional team, but we end up with a minor league owner. In the end, when the Grizzlies move away, it will only be remembered that Memphis didn't support the team, when in reality, the truth is Heisley made so many egregious actions towards fans that I, for one, feel like if I buy a ticket I am endorsing those actions and I refuse to do so. I love the Grizzlies and will watch their games for free on TV, but Heisley will never get a penny from me directly.
Heisley's a billionaire and he's arguing over hundreds of thousands of dollars. I hope that money is worth the bad PR the team's getting over this. If this costs a few people buying tickets because they think the team is cheap, then he's lost all the savings he could potentially gain by dragging this out.
I'm a fan. I'm just choosing not to bash the owner over money. I'll bash him all day long on talent issues. Thabeet and Iverson, Carrol, etc. etc.
I think the average fan isn't very astute. So I have no trouble not being an average fan. I know it is cool to hate an owner and all. But it is slightly tiresome. I'm glad the Grizz are here.
Good for you. You can be part of the "astute" 0.0000001 percent of people who think this is a good idea.
You and Heisley have something in common: you're often wrong, but never in doubt.
Heisley may be a genius in business but he's like a petulant little child when it comes to running the Grizzlies. "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!" He has made the Grizzlies into the laughingstock of the league, and I give credit to Arn Tellem for standing up to him. Here's a suggestion to make everybody happy: How about trading the rights to Xavier Henry even up for Rudy Fernandez?
He's like a petulant little child that OWNS the Grizzlies. There is a difference.
38103,
I don't think anyone questions Heisley's right to do whatever he wants with his money. We are all questioning the wisdom of taking a stand on this particular issue.
Heisley's behavior has always puzzled me because I think he tends to be short sighted both when he pinches pennies (letting Brewer walk) and when he splurges (the immediate decision to max Rudy). All economic studies of the NBA I have ever seen suggest that one thing and one thing only drives ticket sales: wins. If Heisley ever wants the team to make a profit, then he should commit himself to the hard work of building a winning team and forget trying to pinch pennies on draft picks and engaging in stunts like the Iverson signing. Primarily, that means he needs to stop viewing every decision through the prism of its immediate financial impact, and allow the basketball people to build a winning team. He doesn't have to pay the luxury tax, but he does need to prove he can spend money judiciously to build a winner without all of the sideshow crap we have become accustomed to.
38103,
You won't bash him about money, but you'll bash him about talent issues? Can't you see how the two are tied together? Can't you see that all you should be able to bash him about is money? He's the owner, not the GM. If we had a normal organization then you'd blame Chris Wallace for lack of talent. You don't because everyone knows Heisley is running the show. Also, if you think toying with one of the biggest agents in the NBA over a couple hundred grand is going to help the talent level you are blind. Did you notice how kids didn't want to work out for the Grizz last year? Do you think this will help that problem? Why work out for the Grizz if they won't pay you your slotted salary? I'd rather get picked after the Grizz and get paid more. This is insanity.
It's also insane because the incentives don't make sense. Xavier will not control how many minutes he plays. I assume he will be behind OJ, Tony Allen and Sam Young. How is he going to get 15 minutes a game? If he doesn't get 15 minutes a game, how is he going to make the rookie team or the all rookie team? Only 9 guys make the rookie team at the all star game and 10 make the all rookie first or second team. Xavier was picked 12th and last years first pick will actually be considered a rookie this year. So, even if Xavier got playing time, which he won't, he shouldn't make the teams over the 11 players picked ahead of him and last years number one pick.
It's time for Heisley to suck it up and pay Xavier and Vazquez. He picked them. Pay them. Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Bashing him for talent issues to me, is when he thinks someone has talent, and they don't. And Heisley isn't a big talent guy.
I get a bonus based on individual performance and company performance. I know I'm not in the NBA, but it makes sense to me. 20% is a pretty nice bonus. Now, if I thought the coaching staff would bench him, just to save the money, I would be enraged.
I was reading an article about SA. Seems they like to make the bonuses a little more difficult also.
I do wonder what the new CBA will have on this matter. Is it possible that the 20% could mean millions in the next few years? Or could it limit cap space considerably more?
"I get a bonus based on individual performance and company performance. I know I'm not in the NBA, but it makes sense to me. 20% is a pretty nice bonus."
Here is the entire problem with your argument. You are caught up in the idea that this "extra" 20% is an actual bonus. It may be worded that way, but in reality it is NOT. Every 1st round pick gets 120%. That includes every 1st round pick this year, and every pick for the last decade. This also includes every 1st round pick the GRIZZLIES have selected for the last decade in Memphis. Are you seeing a pattern here? No one in the league, not players, agents, coaches, management, or owners (outside of Heisley) see the additional 20% as an actual bonus. It is an expected part of a rookie's pay.
Your argument that you wouldn't be upset if you weren't guaranteed an "extra" 20% at your job is flawed. Would you feel that way if EVERY OTHER person where you work were guaranteed that extra 20% up front, but you were given a laundry list of stipulations before you earned yours?? That is the situation between the Grizzlies and Henry.
And no matter how many times you try to point out it is "Heisley's money" and he can do what he wants... it won't change the fact that during next year's draft, every player in the green room will be praying the Grizzlies don't take them. That is NOT a good situation for any team. Especially not for a small-market team that already has trouble convincing players to come here.
To re-cap: 120% of the allowed rookie contract is what 100% of the people in the NBA (other than Heisley) expect a rookie to be paid.
The reality is. It is a bonus, if it is treated like a bonus. And there isn't anything that says otherwise. If other teams want to sign rookies in the first week and give them a bonus for having a pulse, great.
I'm tired of seeing under performing rookies sitting on the bench, or jacking up terrible shots. I say make them earn it.
That shabby orginization in SA seems to like to negotiate that 20% also. laughing stock Spurs.
I was going to counter your ridiculous assertions again. But... then I looked through all of the replies here, and realized there is no point.
Your argument has been dismantled roughly a half-dozen times, but you keep making the same points anyway. So, feel free to continue.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
