There absolutely is a group think mentality on this forum, I don't want to go off topic but most times I know what 95% of the posters are going to say on any given thread even before I read it. There is minimal dissenting opinion on this board. That's a fact and a lot of the fans who I know stopped coming here. The homogeneousness simply has gotten boring. Furthermore, there tends to be much hostility and nastiness direct at the dissenting voice. Just read thru some of the posts on this thread. Capt, I think you're one of the few respectable posters left on this forum, I hope there's more like you but with differing opinion on the popular belief. Fortunately, there are more and more alternative to this forum, unlike a few years ago.
For the record I was against drafting Rubio, against firing Theus (because I knew Natt sucks), against handing out PT to Hawes before he earned it, against doing the same to JT, against the popular belief that Petrie only likes soft shooters, against the signing of Beno. So you can imagine the blunt of the insults I took over the years; not from you of course, but from the rest of board who could not tolerate differences of opinion. And I have to say, it'd be much easier to keep quiet and just let it be, but as a diehard Kings fan, I feel like I should contribute to the discussion, even though I could feel another wrath of nastiness coming my way again.
Back to the topic at hand. Knowing that not-All-Star but solid big man like Drew Gooden and Paul Millsap got paid $6-8 millions per, what is the going rate for Hickson? Based on his performance last season and let's assume for a minute the old CBA remains in place, Hickson can probably fetch $7-8 millions per from somebody, in the Charlie Villanueva range. That's the going rate for him now, and if he doesn't improve he will still probably commands similar range of salary, anyone thinking of signing him for the MLE (assuming there is still one) is dreaming. Would you re-sign Hickson for $7-8 millions per? Let's do the math, three years from now Tyreke, Cousins, JT, and Thorton are all up for or already had their extension. That's already about $35 millions committed to four players, and that's assuming Dalembert doesn't re-sign. If you add Hickson's $7-8 millions that's $43 millions to five players. It's doable but not very flexible and it certainly does not leave enough room to go after a big name FA in the near future.
On top of that, whether you believe Hickson can improve his defense, he is not and never will be a shot-blocking seven-footer that Cousins need next to him. So why would the Kings re-sign a guy that isn't really a great fit next to Cousins? Personally I wouldn't re-sign Hickson unless he put up Al Jefferson-like performance, but the catch is that if he does, he will cost too much.
I think it's funny that you make yourself a martyr just because your opinion is sometimes disagreed with by the majority. Won't deny that sometimes people are overly critical of dissenting opinions, but you make it sound like you're the lone wolf. I think you go too far.
Regardless, when it comes to Hickson's contract, I think we're putting the cart before the horse. Any concern about contract issues should be tabled until we have a new CBA. I feel the same way about market values as you do; Gooden, Millsap, Villanueva, Haywood, etc., all got grossly overpaid for their services, and it bodes ill for teams with middling players coming up on contract years. That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a major market correction once a new CBA is done. These guys who have been in the $6-9 million range for the last three or four years will probably have their compensation cut in half over the next couple of years. At least, that's what I anticipate. Either way, I think your projections for Hickson's next contract might be a bit high. We just have to wait and see. Same thing for every other contract extension we plan on giving out in the next few years, and any new deal for Dalembert.
I don't think Hickson is an ideal starter alongside Cousins, but I do think we'll get more out of him than we would Casspi, even if it's just for one season. My only trepidation about this deal is whether we'll miss having that pick, whenever we happen to lose it. The protection works out to our benefit, but that's still up in the air. And even if he turns into a super-productive Al Jefferson type guy (which I think is a very aggressive projection), he's still not the ideal frontcourt mate for Cousins. But I would still say we came out on top in the trade. We'd still need to make some upgrades defensively, if we were to lose Dalembert. I just don't think worrying about his contract is an issue at this point.