Cuban wants a deal

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Mediocre Man

Mediocre Man

Mr. SportsTwo
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
44,954
Likes
27,842
Points
113
What about this one?

Hickson
Price

for

Cunningham
Wright
Beaubois
 
oh god no. so we basically trade one of our starters, one of the leading double double guys in the league....for 3 more bench scrubs?

we'd have to get Chris Kaman back if we were to deal Hickson.
 
I think the real asset coming back is wright. And personally, I think it's actually a decent trade. Cuban has the cap space to resign Hickson and still offer Max for a player (possibly Howard).
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
yeah, because what we really need are young bench players that don't know what the fuck they're doing.

real shortage of that on our team.
Click to expand...

Brandan Wright is a pretty good Big and a perfect compliment for Aldridge, IMO. Wright has a PER of 21 man! WTF?!?! He's actually a pretty decent center
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
yeah, because what we really need are young bench players that don't know what the fuck they're doing.

real shortage of that on our team.
Click to expand...

Cunningham is the only rookie involved in the deal.

Wright is a 5 year vet and older than Hickson

Beaubois is a 4 year vet and the same age as Hickson and flourished in Stotts' system
 
Mediocre Man said:
Man you people are short sighted
Click to expand...

But what's the long term view on that deal? You trade for two backup PGs, and a backup big. Beaubois and Wright are both free agents after the season. They have little interest in Beaubois long term. Not too sure on Wright. But he's on a minimum deal. Both seem like guys we can sign this offseason, so we're bsaically trading Hicksn for Cunningham. No thanks.
 
you're basically getting more 7th-10th bench guy types that really haven't broken out whatsoever.

we need starters and 6th men. Especially if we're getting rid of a starter.

You're basically just duplicating the terrible bench even further.
 
Mediocre Man said:
Cunningham is the only rookie involved in the deal.

Wright is a 5 year vet and older than Hickson

Beaubois is a 4 year vet and the same age as Hickson and flourished in Stotts' system
Click to expand...

ok, makes even less sense then!
 
Mediocre Man said:
Cunningham is the only rookie involved in the deal.

Wright is a 5 year vet and older than Hickson

Beaubois is a 4 year vet and the same age as Hickson and flourished in Stotts' system
Click to expand...

Of all the deals you talk about; I actually like this one. Yes, we lose the production of a Hickson. Price is basically shit anyways, so losing him is no skin off my back. I agree about Beaubois flourishing on Stott's system by looking up his career numbers.

Wright is long and able. I think paired with Aldridge will only increase his production. I think Hickson has artificial numbers based on teams trying to concentrate more on the all-star. Hickson would flourish in Dallas if they somehow landed Howard (which is a great possibility).

Dallas can look long term and forsee a possible starting 5 of Collison, Mayo, Marion, Nowitzki and Howard. Carter, Hickson and James being the rotation off the bench.
 
RR7 said:
But what's the long term view on that deal? You trade for two backup PGs, and a backup big. Beaubois and Wright are both free agents after the season. They have little interest in Beaubois long term. Not too sure on Wright. But he's on a minimum deal. Both seem like guys we can sign this offseason, so we're bsaically trading Hicksn for Cunningham. No thanks.
Click to expand...

The one thing I have confidence in is.... When we want to keep a player; they always find a way to keep that player in Portland. either it be fans or management; players don't leave unless they are unwanted.
 
magnifier661 said:
The one thing I have confidence in is.... When we want to keep a player; they always find a way to keep that player in Portland. either it be fans or management; players don't leave unless they are unwanted.
Click to expand...

no one wants these bench scrubs.

this is the basketball equivalent of twiddling your thumbs.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
no one wants these bench scrubs.

this is the basketball equivalent of twiddling your thumbs.
Click to expand...

But keeping a player on the roster that virtually doesn't make you any better or worse isn't twiddling your thumbs? That seems like the exact definition of twiddling your thumbs to me
 
Nikolokolus said:
Indeed. I think that would be a great long-term deal for this team ... apparently people can't bear the thought of missing out on a round one sweep this year.
Click to expand...
How is it GREAT long term? Long term, we add a backup PG who is more combo guard, and two free agents we could sign if we wanted to without this deal.
 
Mediocre Man said:
But keeping a player on the roster that virtually doesn't make you any better or worse isn't twiddling your thumbs? That seems like the exact definition of twiddling your thumbs to me
Click to expand...

who are you referring to? Hickson?
 
RR7 said:
But what's the long term view on that deal? You trade for two backup PGs, and a backup big. Beaubois and Wright are both free agents after the season. They have little interest in Beaubois long term. Not too sure on Wright. But he's on a minimum deal. Both seem like guys we can sign this offseason, so we're bsaically trading Hicksn for Cunningham. No thanks.
Click to expand...

This seems like the most well-rounded post in this thread. I understand the notion by some of getting worse to get better, but I can't get behind an intentional asset reduction. If we're trading Hickson, I'd like to get someone back that has demonstrated the ability to be a legitimate NBA rotation player, and has at least one additional year left on his contract.
 
It is only true depending on who you replace him with.

If he went down tonight for the rest of the Season and you could only start Jeffries or bring in a D-League guy then it is not true.

If you swapped in someone via trade then it can be true.

We lose a lot more games this year if Hickson goes down and is out the Season.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
This seems like the most well-rounded post in this thread. I understand the notion by some of getting worse to get better, but I can't get behind an intentional asset reduction. If we're trading Hickson, I'd like to get someone back that has demonstrated the ability to be a legitimate NBA rotation player, and has at least one additional year left on his contract.
Click to expand...

Wright's advanced stats say he is better than Hickson. I think that qualifies as "legitimate NBA rotation player"

Beaubois first three years in the league (under Stotts) he had Wes Matthews type PER. I think that qualifies as "legitimate NBA rotation player"

Cunningham is a rookie who can play both guard positions and is probably better than anyone on our bench currently
 
KeepOnRollin said:
It is only true depending on who you replace him with.

If he went down tonight for the rest of the Season and you could only start Jeffries or bring in a D-League guy then it is not true.

If you swapped in someone via trade then it can be true.

We lose a lot more games this year if Hickson goes down and is out the Season.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is the case. The Blazers are actually a better rebounding team without Hickson, and if you replace Hickson with Leonard in the 5 man unit our win % goes from 42%-69%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pritchslap Madness
OT: Mavs owner Cuban fined for Twitter post
Replies
0
Views
438
Pritchslap Madness
Pritchslap Madness
ChadWick
Hickson wants to stay in PDX
2
Replies
44
Views
9K
Nikolokolus
Nikolokolus
Natebishop3
You make the calls
Replies
14
Views
777
craigehlo
craigehlo
Blaze01
POR\Philly idea?
Replies
1
Views
257
MAS RipCity
MAS RipCity
BrianFromWA
Full-rebuild, Nuclear-option LMA Trade thoughts
2 3
Replies
67
Views
3K
Mediocre Man
Mediocre Man

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top