I think they're just going to wait and see what happens with Hibbert before they make a move for Hickson. I can't believe they'd have no interested in Hickson after how well he played for us last year, but Hickson may have played a little too well earned himself a larger salary than Portland would be willing to pay for a backup.
I don't think there is any way Hickson is back. Reading the article I posted, makes it sound like if Hibbert says no, they will rebuild. If Hibbert says yes, we have to renounce Hickson
The Blazers would need need bodies though, and need to reach the minimum salary is 49 million, so I'd like to at least see us sign JJ to a one year deal.
He has other suitors because Olshey wants to "swing for the fences," pursuing only big stars. But they don't want to come here until we have an inventory of good non-stars like Hickson. This summer Olshey will spend that same $4.3M on someone worse than Hickson, who was a bargain. Olshey thinks like a Clipper.
if you think a) Hickson would sign for less than 4.3M guaranteed (however many years on the deal) or b) that he's worth more or c) that he's an effective use of cap space, you're the one who's going to be in 30 of 32 lotteries. WAS is the operative word in that sentence. On a rookie deal, Hickson wasn't horrible. As a FA, not so much. He's not worth transferring your Juwan crush to.
Duncan, Nash, Kidd, Allen, Billups, Garnett, Lin, Lopez, Mayo, Terry, and of course signing and trading for some of the players likely to be traded like Howard.
I don't really know what to say to this list. Your plan was to add an older vet to a young team for what purpose? I am not sure why Duncan, Nash, Kidd, Allen, Billups, or Garnett would possibly want to play on a lottery team or why they are a better option than Hibbert? Lin and Mayo you could have an argument, but I would still disagree. But we are all entitled to our opinions.
