Consolation Prize - Magloire

by laflyhalf on Jul 26, 2006 6:55 PM PDT

Magloire update
Jamaal Magloire is still a member of the Bucks, but Harris said discussions were continuing about a possible trade involving the 6-11 center.

Magloire was the Bucks' starter at center last season, and rookie 7-footer Andrew Bogut started at power forward. But Bogut will move to his natural position of center this fall, and Charlie Villanueva is expected to start at power forward after being acquired in the deal that sent guard T.J. Ford to Toronto.

"There are still a number of teams we're talking to," Harris said. "We have contacted two or three teams more than once at this point.

"I don't know that there's a resolution, but there are certainly more conversations going on over the last week. Now players are getting signed, free agency is dwindling down and everybody is looking at their rosters.

"As I look at it, the 1 (point guard), 3 (small forward) and 5 (center) are the positions where we can add some depth. Hopefully we can accomplish that with Magloire, if we do trade him."

I sure hope we're one of the two or three teams thinking about getting JMag. He isn't a star, but he'd be a huge upgrade at center. He's almost a double-double guy.

They need small forwards, send Dun-nothing.

It's just a thought. I think I'm just so antsy for the W's to do something, anything.

Anyone think Magloire would be a good pick up?

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

magloire would be nice

magloire would probably help our team in the short term, however we alrady have four centers, and adding a fifth while getting rid of our only true sf, but believe me i hate dun dun too, might not be a good idea

by mydedgerbil555 on Jul 26, 2006 7:01 PM PDT reply actions

Nice post man

I'm all for moving Dunleavy for Magloire. You ALWAYS trade a small for a big especially when the small is at the bottom tier at their position and the big is an above average center.

Not sure why the Bucks are worried about getting a wingman. Unlike double-double big men, athletic wingmen grow on trees. That's why it's so shocking that Mullin and crew gave the below average (at best) Dunleavy that lucrative extension.

The reality is that if the Warriors are having such a tough time moving TMurp who actually contributes with double-doubles imagine how tough it's going to be to trade Dunleavy.

(By the way, don't forget to drop a link to the spot you got the quote from.)

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?

by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 26, 2006 8:38 PM PDT reply actions

Magloire was an All-Star

if i can recall, i saw magloire play in a an all star game a few years ago, as a memeber of the Olreans Hornets...i wonder what happened to that. Doubt he'll be an all star again ever, but Ill take magloire for dumbleavy anytime!! we always got pietrus at 3! and we can dump off the other centers.

by chingychink2006 on Jul 26, 2006 9:34 PM PDT reply actions

Biedrins and Dunleavy

That gives them two of their needs, and a young center with potential (even after 3 years). I'm not sure if this works salary though. Plus two, if we bring in Magloire without shipping out a center we would have a major logjam at center!

by John Patrick on Jul 26, 2006 9:50 PM PDT reply actions

I don't know...

Kind of tough to say we really have 4 centers. Taft hasn't been healthy since the day he was drafted and who knows when he'll be available and what he can contribute, although he has shown flashes of playing well in the brief and limited minutes he played.
O'Bryant clearly isn't ready to contribute much at this point, but we're all hoping there is some promise there in the future.
Everything I've been hearing this summer leads me to believe the W's top brass see's Biedrins primarily playing the 4 this comming season, or at least significant time there. Not to mention his low post game is not developed enough to play starting minutes.
And lord knows I don't even need to mention Aluminum Foyle. :(
I'd prefer to move Murphy for Magloire over Dunleavy, but getting rid of both would be sweet. Maybe involve a 3rd team to ship DunDun to? Not sure who on Milwaukee we could swap for him.

by MoUpInTheO on Jul 27, 2006 9:10 AM PDT reply actions

Odd

Kind of strange that they want to trade him when they are thin at the center position. Does this guy have some mental problems that I'm not aware of? I think he would be a big upgrade over what we currently have at center, but I'm not sure who we could trade to get him.

I wouldn't want to trade Dun without another SF on the roster. While he definitely hasn't earned the contract he signed, he isn't the worst player in the league either (ahem, foyle). I'm not even sure how tradable he is in the base year of his contract. I do see the Warriors trading Biedrins in the near future if we don't see some improvement soon. Maybe we could work out a deal involving him, Zarko and Brown/Pietrus for Magloire. By drafting two centers, it looks like Andris' time is nearly done here

by chrisz42 on Jul 27, 2006 10:53 AM PDT reply actions

SF

Agreed - Why is Magloire so available? and is he that big an improvement over Foyle/Biedrins? The math says probably not - and isn't he a FA after 07? Pietrus or Brown (if he sticks) could slide over to SF, and you are right - GSW lists Zark-zero, bad-back-Taft, and 7'2 Perovic as SF so that is thin. But there is NO reason to hang on to Dun if we have a chance to move his contract. He averages 11.5 ppg but gives up way more than that on defense and is grossly inconsistent. Magloire for Dunleavy would be fine but the contract numbers don't work.

by hardcore on Jul 27, 2006 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions

Magloire a free agent after '06-'07?

Is it to hopeful to wish Dunleavy is wanted by the Bucks. A package of Dun and any center of their choosing works for me.

by bigrobbieb on Jul 27, 2006 1:29 PM PDT reply actions

Note

You have to compare Magloire to other centers in the league. He is a respected player, which we need at center. Trade Dun/Biedrins for Mag. Assuming we can move Murphy:

BD
Monta
JRich
Ike
Magloire

OK, think about it. BD+JRich combo plus Monta+Ike combo. That's magic in the making. Mags in the middle for defense, rebounds and put-backs. You might say Richardson is a poor defender but not only can Monta guard the better opposing SG/SF but Richardson is still a defensive upgrade from Dun! We'd need to move Murphy for some bench pieces though.

by John Patrick on Jul 27, 2006 11:01 PM PDT reply actions

Defensive problems

While your lineup would be great on offense, we'd give up 120pts/game with that lineup. Baron has trouble on defense; Ellis has a hard time guarding SGs because of his lack of height and strength; JRich will be quick enough to guard 3s, but is too short; Ike is too short to guard 4s.

Magloire would be the only one able to defend his man, and he would be out of position on help defense all the time. We would either play no defense to have energy on the offensive side, or get worn down so much trying to guard bigger guys that our offense would suffer greatly. This type of thing works for Phoenix becuase their players are tall and long, but we don't have that on our team.

I still have the question: If Milwaukee has no other center, why are they actively trying to get rid of Jamaal?

by chrisz42 on Jul 28, 2006 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Andrew Bogut

It's like with Murphy and Diogu. Last year they started Bogut at PF and he is really a center. Mag and Bogut were stepping over each other all year. They want to deal him for another position.

I agree that the lineup wouldn't be a great defense. But you have to compare to last years lineup. Baron does need to improve, everyone else is an improvement from last years player! Ellis is a very pesky defender and against the Lakers didn't you see him get those steals against Bryant. He will need to work on strength but he will get there soon. Richardson, while not being an excellent defender, is certainly better than Dunleavy and I do not think he is too short (6'6). Ike is too short, but again, compared to Murphy defensively? Again a small step up. You are right in your points but compared to last year's defense, it is a little better IMO.

by John Patrick on Jul 28, 2006 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions