What the Hickson Decision Could Mean to Our Future Roster

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

glazeduck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
1,107
Likes
1,172
Points
113
In discussing whether or not the Blazers should trade JJ with my father-in-law, I laid it out to him in terms of extremes and what that would mean to the future of the roster (he still didn't bite...), and I thought it was an interesting and eye-opening perspective worth bringing here. While there's obviously plenty of wiggle room for things to happen between the following two extremes, I think it provides some decent insight on the decision...

Extreme #1: All in on J.J. Olshey decides to keep Hickson and lock him up long-term with most of our cap space, resigning himself to the fact that he won't be able to get the C upgrade he's wanting on the open market.

-Keeping JJ past the deadline, the team rallies around each other and makes the playoffs (remember we're talking extremes), but realistically are in over their heads and are bounced 6 games into the first round.
-Our draft pick ends up higher than its current protection and is shipped off to Charlotte.
-The front line we build around is now LMA, JJ and Meyers Leonard, and using what little cap room remains, Olshey picks up a bench scorer.

End Result: The downside is minimal roster improvements, lack of cap flexibility and banking on internal development of a LOT of guys, (not to mention a big investment in a guy who greatly disappointed when financially secure). The upside is roster continuity and cohesion - something very rare in the NBA these days. Ultimately, this doesn't seem like the path to a championship run to me...

Extreme #2: Olshey decides he HAS to trade JJ at the deadline. Knowing about his NTC, Olshey can only target teams with a solid shot at a ring (OKC, MIA, CHI, NYC, SA, LAC) and will be looking for expiring contracts, young/cheap players and picks. The following trades work with the above teams:
OKC w/ the potential of swapping some picks (I'd demand Toronto's guaranteed lotto pick)
CHI Do we have any interest in a high-potential rookie PG to back up Lillard? Who knows. We'd need them to throw in picks here. They also have a TPE of $5M so they could essentially just buy Hickson from us with that, not a ton of potential there...
MIA- nothing works w/ what we'd want
NYC- have a ton of big bodies, don't see a fit there, only player we'd want is Shumpert and don't see NYC giving him up.
SA- don't see a great fit w/ them straight up. We'd likely want Leonard, they have a lot of long term deals we wouldn't want...
LAC- another trade where we'd have to see a pick come back. Olshey would obviously want Bledsoe, but I have a hard time seeing them give him up leading into the playoffs...
EDIT: Hickson's from ATL and they could look to be buyers at the deadline to get into the playoff mix, so perhaps there's a fit there and either of these trades fit what we may be looking for...

So in trading Hickson, ideally we can bring back at least 2 young pieces - a cheap/young player and a pick. On top of that, selling him for cents on our current talent dollar, we'd likely miss out on the playoffs securing our own draft pick this year (adding another player/asset) AND have the ability to play Meyers more, hopefully furthering his development. Heading into the offseason, it's hard to envision us doing much worse with our cap room than a Hickson-level player, either by way of unbalanced trade or FA signing...

So comparing extremes, the important question to ask is, does this make us a title contender (otherwise, what's the point?):
#1 doesn't do much but keep the ship afloat, perhaps adding another bench piece or two.

#2 further develops a nice young piece (Leonard), improves our odds ad adding another cheap asset via the draft (our own pick), and adds another cheap young asset or two or three via a trade...

The talent in this upcoming draft is looking very much more like a brick than a pyramid, so 2 mid-round 1st round picks wouldn't be the worst thing in the world this year...
 
Last edited:
It's well thought out and written. I happen to agree that trading Hickson now is the best course t=for the team to take, but I think you are severely over valuating JJ Hickson. No team is going to give us a top 3-4 pick or a young prospect and a 1st for him. Without Bird rights his value is not that high

I also don't agree that Meyers Leonard is a nice young piece. Stotts really hasn't also in the last few games
 
I think Hickson is mentally checked out of a lot of defensive possessions. I believe that if he signs a decent contract here we will see more and more of that. He seems like a quirky kind of dude and Stotts is on him constantly about bad D.

I say trade him if possible, get what you can, otherwise let him walk and try to develop Leonard.
 
On extreme 2; remember that if hickson is traded before the deadline; he loses his bird rights. So a team like okc or other contenders can't even resign him this offseason because they are all over cap.

What really needs to happen if we are planning on shipping hickson is sign and trade this summer. Then teams over cap can keep him.
 
It's well thought out and written. I happen to agree that trading Hickson now is the best course t=for the team to take, but I think you are severely over valuating JJ Hickson. No team is going to give us a top 3-4 pick or a young prospect and a 1st for him. Without Bird rights his value is not that high

I also don't agree that Meyers Leonard is a nice young piece. Stotts really hasn't also in the last few games

With the exception of OKC, none of these teams' picks will even be in the teens, so it's not like they're giving up a ton with the pick. Also most of the cheap/young players I included are developmental/end of the bench type of guys... The idea, obviously, being that whoever trades for him would be hoping he would be that added dynamic to be enough to put them over the top. I don't think a lowish pick and a young player who's not getting burn is all that much to ask from a team that is convinced that he could make the difference in their title run.

I'd be really surprised if any team that talks to Olshey about JJ is doing so with anything other than this year in mind...
 
On extreme 2; remember that if hickson is traded before the deadline; he loses his bird rights. So a team like okc or other contenders can't even resign him this offseason because they are all over cap.

What really needs to happen if we are planning on shipping hickson is sign and trade this summer. Then teams over cap can keep him.

Definitely another option, but that definitely risks losing our lotto pick as well as valuable developmental time for guys like Freeland, Claver, and most importantly, Leonard.
 
There's a third option: letting him walk at season's end and trying to take that cap space to get players that fit a little better - defensive minded big, a 2 guard who can score off the bounce and a competent backup point guard top the list of needs. Those needs might be worked out with trades into that capspace or signing guys outright.

I bring this up because I find option 1 unpalatable and I think option 2 is incredibly unlikely to happen before the deadline, especially since he can veto a trade and because his contract is about to expire anyway.
 
Definitely another option, but that definitely risks losing our lotto pick as well as valuable developmental time for guys like Freeland, Claver, and most importantly, Leonard.

Option 2 wouldn't work for that reason though. Why would a team like OKC get rid of any value for a mid season rental? Even if they wanted to keep him, they really couldn't. They can't even sign and trade him because they will be over cap.

Hickson would most likely veto any trade involving a rebuilding team in lotto hell. There really isn't any reason for him to accept a move like that. Also, he is getting a lot of burn in Portland and putting up great numbers because we are so thin. What better place can he showcase his talent for contract than Portland?
 
Option 2 wouldn't work for that reason though. Why would a team like OKC get rid of any value for a mid season rental? Even if they wanted to keep him, they really couldn't. They can't even sign and trade him because they will be over cap.

Hickson would most likely veto any trade involving a rebuilding team in lotto hell. There really isn't any reason for him to accept a move like that. Also, he is getting a lot of burn in Portland and putting up great numbers because we are so thin. What better place can he showcase his talent for contract than Portland?

And that's why it's a long-shot he'll be traded.
 
There's a third option: letting him walk at season's end and trying to take that cap space to get players that fit a little better - defensive minded big, a 2 guard who can score off the bounce and a competent backup point guard top the list of needs. Those needs might be worked out with trades into that capspace or signing guys outright.

I think that's the most likely scenario. The way JJ's playing, he's pretty well priced himself out of the Blazers' equation because he's not a great fit at C and we can't afford that much money for a backup PF. I am seeing occasional flashes out of Barton that make me wonder if he would be okay as the 2G backup. If so, then having $13M or so to spend on a C and a backup PG is definitely do-able.
 
And that's why it's a long-shot he'll be traded.

I agree with you. I would see more Matthews being traded than Hickson. Not because we want to use Matthews; but Hickson is basically untradeable until at least this off-season. At least with Matthews, you have a multi-year player that has good value.

BTW... I don't think we should trade Matthews btw.
 
I think that's the most likely scenario. The way JJ's playing, he's pretty well priced himself out of the Blazers' equation because he's not a great fit at C and we can't afford that much money for a backup PF. I am seeing occasional flashes out of Barton that make me wonder if he would be okay as the 2G backup. If so, then having $13M or so to spend on a C and a backup PG is definitely do-able.

Very doable actually. You could offer the center 11-12 mil per and the back-up PG/SG combo 2.5 mil per and still have 1.5 mil to offer other role players that may help our team.
 
Option 2 wouldn't work for that reason though. Why would a team like OKC get rid of any value for a mid season rental? Even if they wanted to keep him, they really couldn't. They can't even sign and trade him because they will be over cap.

They'd give up value for the rental if they felt his rebounding was a valuable piece for their stretch run, and that it might help them win a title.
 
I think that's the most likely scenario. The way JJ's playing, he's pretty well priced himself out of the Blazers' equation because he's not a great fit at C and we can't afford that much money for a backup PF. I am seeing occasional flashes out of Barton that make me wonder if he would be okay as the 2G backup. If so, then having $13M or so to spend on a C and a backup PG is definitely do-able.

I think Barton will be a valuable guy off the bench, but he needs more time. Probably gonna be slow developing like Leonard but may be worth the wait.
 
They'd give up value for the rental if they felt his rebounding was a valuable piece for their stretch run, and that it might help them win a title.

And Hickson might accept it because--hey, who doesn't want to win a title?

I'm fully convinced that there's a deal with OKC that makes sense for both teams and JJ.
 

Such as that which was proposed by the OP--JJ for Maynor/Jones. Really any two of Maynor, Jackson, Lamb, and Jones would be good return for Hickson.
 
Such as that which was proposed by the OP--JJ for Maynor/Jones. Really any two of Maynor, Jackson, Lamb, and Jones would be good return for Hickson.

Honestly, we'd be lucky to get a second round pick and an expiring mid-level contract for Hickson. He's definitely worth more than that in terms of raw production, but because of his circumstances the Blazers have almost no leverage in a deal.
 
How about offering a back loaded contract to Hickson? Maybe 6 mil first year, 7 second and 8 third? Then you could offer 6-7 million for a Reddick and use MID MLE of 2.5 grabbing a solid role player?
 
How about offering a back loaded contract to Hickson? Maybe 6 mil first year, 7 second and 8 third? Then you could offer 6-7 million for a Reddick and use MID MLE of 2.5 grabbing a solid role player?

Reddick would be nice, but really that team would have all of the defensive issues it currently has with the added downside that all of the team's cap flexibility evaporates for quite awhile without it being good enough to contend.

Personally I think the best avenue is going to be signing a wing and then trying to do an unbalanced trade for the defensive minded big man that they can play next to Aldridge
 
How about offering a back loaded contract to Hickson? Maybe 6 mil first year, 7 second and 8 third? Then you could offer 6-7 million for a Reddick and use MID MLE of 2.5 grabbing a solid role player?

Probably doable, but I would be scared that we might see 'multi-year contract JJ' and we don't want to see that.
 
Honestly, we'd be lucky to get a second round pick and an expiring mid-level contract for Hickson. He's definitely worth more than that in terms of raw production, but because of his circumstances the Blazers have almost no leverage in a deal.

The leverage that the Blazers have is that they don't need to make a deal. Trading him for nothing doesn't benefit this team at all, so they would have no incentive to accept a second-rounder. If OKC wants a productive player to pursue a title, then he's available, but we're not going to sell him for pennies on the dollar. In that regard, OKC (or any other potential trading partner) has no leverage either.

this would be one of the rare situations where if a trade occurred, it would simply be for the purpose of improving each team.
 
The leverage that the Blazers have is that they don't need to make a deal. Trading him for nothing doesn't benefit this team at all, so they would have no incentive to accept a second-rounder. If OKC wants a productive player to pursue a title, then he's available, but we're not going to sell him for pennies on the dollar. In that regard, OKC (or any other potential trading partner) has no leverage either.

this would be one of the rare situations where if a trade occurred, it would simply be for the purpose of improving each team.

But OKC will not be able to resign hickson after this season. I just don't see any incentive for them to accept any deal as well.
 
I sort of doubt Sam Presti is all that worried about adding a garbage man who stuffs the stat sheet and plays pretty bad D, in pursuit of a title.

Assuming that some kind of trade can be worked out with another team, getting a second round pick for a guy that the Blazers probably don't want to tie themselves to long-term isn't "nothing." I think a second round pick and 12-14 million dollars in cap room is pretty fair trade off, vs. no pick and the same 12-14 million of cap room if he walks at the end of the year.
 
Reddick would be nice, but really that team would have all of the defensive issues it currently has with the added downside that all of the team's cap flexibility evaporates for quite awhile without it being good enough to contend.

Personally I think the best avenue is going to be signing a wing and then trying to do an unbalanced trade for the defensive minded big man that they can play next to Aldridge

Then retaining Hickson for a sign and trade maybe the best option. If there is a team like Detroit that has an up and coming dominant center Drummand and an already good center in Monroe; they may look for a deal for Hickson; especially if they lose Maxiell through free-agency.
 
On extreme 2; remember that if hickson is traded before the deadline; he loses his bird rights. So a team like okc or other contenders can't even resign him this offseason because they are all over cap.

What really needs to happen if we are planning on shipping hickson is sign and trade this summer. Then teams over cap can keep him.

This what I'm thinking. If he keeps his bird rights any team in the league can bid on his services. Also I think the Blazers can get more for him in a sign and trade if a trade partner can get him signed to a multi year contract. Now if the Blazers name Leonard the starter and continue to sub Hickson out for Babbitt late in games he may agree to a sign and trade, but I doubt it.
 
Then retaining Hickson for a sign and trade maybe the best option. If there is a team like Detroit that has an up and coming dominant center Drummand and an already good center in Monroe; they may look for a deal for Hickson; especially if they lose Maxiell through free-agency.

The trouble is, Monroe is still on his rookie deal, i.e. cheap contract + good production > expensive contract + good production. I should also add, that I see Monroe as being more of a power forward than a center, Drummond and Monroe look like long-term duo in Detroit.
 
Last edited:
The trouble is, Monroe is still on his rookie deal, i.e. cheap contract + good production > expensive contract + good production.

True but Drummand is also on a cheap rookie contract and you can't play both Drummand and Monroe at the same time. If they lose Maxiell then things really change for them. Hickson would be a good piece to put with a defensive minded Drummand.
 
True but Drummand is also on a cheap rookie contract and you can't play both Drummand and Monroe at the same time. If they lose Maxiell then things really change for them. Hickson would be a good piece to put with a defensive minded Drummand.

I think they can, if they can get a point guard who actually knows how to pass and help them out. Monroe isn't a great shooter right now, but he's got some tools to get better. Eventually he'll probably end up playing more from the elbow and Drummond will get most of his stuff on putbacks and finishes around the rim, even if he doesn't turn into a great low-post scorer.
 
I think they can, if they can get a point guard who actually knows how to pass and help them out. Monroe isn't a great shooter right now, but he's got some tools to get better. Eventually he'll probably end up playing more from the elbow and Drummond will get most of his stuff on putbacks and finishes around the rim, even if he doesn't turn into a great low-post scorer.

I don't know man... I just don't see how Monroe can be scoring outside of the paint. Maybe, but it seems unlikely to me.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top