RealGM

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/ ... ckson-too/

I like him, he may be a nice fit with Hibbert and Granger in the frontcourt, and he and Hansbrough both seem to be 20-25 minute guys (for the time being anyway).

Thoughts?

I think I'd rather have Josh but if his offers get too high to match, sure.

Wizop wrote:I think I'd rather have Josh but if his offers get too high to match, sure.

What? How can you possibly want Josh over JJ? JJ is younger, and has shown to be a much better player than Josh, at any point in Josh's career.

Yeah, you trade both Tyler and Josh for JJ if you can get him. He's gonna be a great rebounder. If he can focus on D, then he can be a really good player.

Indy2thaWindy wrote:Yeah, you trade both Tyler and Josh for JJ if you can get him. He's gonna be a great rebounder. If he can focus on D, then he can be a really good player.

Eh, I'd look to add JJ to this roster with Tyler, and possibly with Josh as well. I like Josh as a change of pace big man, especially at center in small ball lineups. Hickson is one of those guys that can step up to center for a few minutes a night to get Hansbrough some time on the court, too. Hickson also started to put it all together in the 2nd half of last year, including playing some decent defense for the first time in his life. Rebounded the ball well, too.

I'd give up the #15 for Hickson. The tough thing is that JJ enters free agency next year, so you only get one solid year out of him at low cost. Granted, he'd be restricted, but that's still tough to invest a ton in.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Indy2thaWindy wrote:Yeah, you trade both Tyler and Josh for JJ if you can get him. He's gonna be a great rebounder. If he can focus on D, then he can be a really good player.

Eh, I'd look to add JJ to this roster with Tyler, and possibly with Josh as well. I like Josh as a change of pace big man, especially at center in small ball lineups. Hickson is one of those guys that can step up to center for a few minutes a night to get Hansbrough some time on the court, too. Hickson also started to put it all together in the 2nd half of last year, including playing some decent defense for the first time in his life. Rebounded the ball well, too.

I'd give up the #15 for Hickson. The tough thing is that JJ enters free agency next year, so you only get one solid year out of him at low cost. Granted, he'd be restricted, but that's still tough to invest a ton in.

Definitely. I don't see what we could give up for him tho. #15 is not enough and we can't trade Josh.

If we had a player like Hickson, we might be picking 20th.

Honeslty, the one year scares me, similar to Mayo, and if we want to ensure they'll resign, the safe route is to wait one more season and make them an offer.

Boneman2 wrote:If we had a player like Hickson, we might be picking 20th.

Honeslty, the one year scares me, similar to Mayo, and if we want to ensure they'll resign, the safe route is to wait one more season and make them an offer.

He's an RFA, you'd be reupping him and Roy together. I don't see losing him being a problem. What do you think he'll be offered in the new CBA? 5/30? 5/35? Roy getting 5/45? 6/54?
$15-16 million for a young starting frontcourt who could imo easily average 32pts/18rebs/5assts/3blks per game is a steal.

I liked the rumors of Hickson and 1st for Murphy back in the day. But now? Eh... Hickson is a nice player but def not worth what the asking price would be. And personally, at this point as a team, i'd prefer we aim higher. Like Paul Millsap?

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssport ... 4/30086797

What would we trade for him? I wouldn't give up George, Hibbert, or Granger for him and I don't see anything else we got that they want for him.

I'd give Rush and pick 15. I wouldn't give up any of our core starting 5. If it turns out he can play guess you have to pay him.

8305 wrote:I'd give Rush and pick 15. I wouldn't give up any of our core starting 5. If it turns out he can play guess you have to pay him.

Cavs could probably get more. I'm thinking picks 7, 9, or 10 for him. That's why I'm saying Hansbrough would have to go to the Cavs with something else.

Indy2thaWindy wrote:

8305 wrote:I'd give Rush and pick 15. I wouldn't give up any of our core starting 5. If it turns out he can play guess you have to pay him.

Cavs could probably get more. I'm thinking picks 7, 9, or 10 for him. That's why I'm saying Hansbrough would have to go to the Cavs with something else.

I wouldn't give Hansbrough for HIckson.

All good teams have that guy or guys who play the game physically. When you don't have enough physical players you field a soft team. For that reason I'd need a more compelling player coming back than Hickson to move our only real physical player. Also why I'd be fine with drafting Faried.

8305 wrote:

Indy2thaWindy wrote:

8305 wrote:I'd give Rush and pick 15. I wouldn't give up any of our core starting 5. If it turns out he can play guess you have to pay him.

Cavs could probably get more. I'm thinking picks 7, 9, or 10 for him. That's why I'm saying Hansbrough would have to go to the Cavs with something else.

I wouldn't give Hansbrough for HIckson.

All good teams have that guy or guys who play the game physically. When you don't have enough physical players you field a soft team. For that reason I'd need a more compelling player coming back than Hickson to move our only real physical player. Also why I'd be fine with drafting Faried.

WHAT???? The impact Hickson would have on our team would outweigh what Hansbrough gives this team. Hansbrough doesnt bring the rebounding/defense that Hickson would and Hickson could still provide the same amount of scoring. I understand you probably have some crush on Tyler, but Hickson would def be an upgrade for us.

Hickson is the PF we need. Have you checked out his stats from the last 15 or so of last season? He was averaging around 20 pts and 12 rebs. A definite upgrade over Tyler. Tyler would be a great complimentary player off the bench.

gman0326 wrote:Hickson is the PF we need. Have you checked out his stats from the last 15 or so of last season? He was averaging around 20 pts and 12 rebs. A definite upgrade over Tyler. Tyler would be a great complimentary player off the bench.

I like this idea too.

I wouldn't give Hansbrough for HIckson.

All good teams have that guy or guys who play the game physically. When you don't have enough physical players you field a soft team. For that reason I'd need a more compelling player coming back than Hickson to move our only real physical player. Also why I'd be fine with drafting Faried.[/quote]


WHAT???? The impact Hickson would have on our team would outweigh what Hansbrough gives this team. Hansbrough doesnt bring the rebounding/defense that Hickson would and Hickson could still provide the same amount of scoring. I understand you probably have some crush on Tyler, but Hickson would def be an upgrade for us.[/quote]

Whenever I've seen Hickson play he's looked clueless on defense. If he was this good Cleveland wouldn't be willing to trade him.

Yeah, I don't know where this belief is that Hickson is a solid defensive player. He only started getting minutes at the end of the year to put up his 20/12 type play because he was just starting to even act like he was playing defense. He's serviceable defensively, and has the physical attributes to aptly defend bigger PF's in the league, but he's not exactly a good defensive player. At least, not yet.

8305 wrote:Whenever I've seen Hickson play he's looked clueless on defense. If he was this good Cleveland wouldn't be willing to trade him.

And Hansbrough doesn't? His help D reminds me of Murphy's. Hansbrough is not a good defender either. Plus he's a bad defensive rebounder with a streaky shot that's off more times than it is on.

Hansbrough is smart and he's gonna get better. He was pretty slipshod as a team defender but as soon as his effort gets funneled correctly from overly incessant boxing out to sound decision-making, he'll be at least average, and I think he can be good. Remember, he's never had a full offseason and his rookie year was basically a do-over.