Rumor: M(urphy) for M(agloire)

by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 28, 2006 8:00 PM PDT in News

From Gery Woelfel of The Woelful World of Sports:

The Blazers are just one of several teams the Bucks have had discussions regarding Magloire. I was told earlier this week that Golden State could still be in the picture for Magloire as well. The Bucks have an interest in Warriors' big man Troy Murphy, although his lengthy contract - five years, $50 mliion - would appear to be a major hangup.

My guess is that the Warriors will miss out on Magloire and the Bucks and Blazers will end up pulling off the reportedly close Magloire for Steve Blake, Brian Skinner, and Ha Seung-Jin (Jin jerseys would be record sellers in the Bay by the way!) trade by the end of the weekend. Still, let's pretend the Warriors can pull off a Murphy for Magloire trade. Troy's a better player than Magloire overall, but here's why this trade would be make sense for the Warriors:

Although Magloire is far from a great player (see GSoM reader Clem's great diary on Jamaal Magloire and also laflyhalf's diary on the "Consolation Prize" from Milwaukee), he's a dramatic upgrade over incumbent center Adonal Foyle. Ike and Magloire might make for a decent 4/5 combo.
The last time a healthy B Diddy and Magloire played together they made the playoffs.
After this season Magloire's contract comes off the cap. Packaging Magloire's $9 million dollar expiring contract with the other expiring contracts the Warriors have might be enough to net a star player at the February 2007 trading deadline. The 2007 free agent class is also supposed to be pretty hot too (but that might have changed with the recent extensions that Paul Pierce, Lebron, DWade, and Melo signed).

Jamaal's down with The Informer! [photo from Toronto.com]

Would you move Troy Murphy for Jamaal Magloire? Do you think it would vault the Warriors into the playoffs?

Also see: Rumor: Troy Murphy for Jamaal Magloire

99% of rumors never happen, but 99% of them are fun to talk about!

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

hmmm

"My guess is that the Warriors will miss out on Magloire and the Bucks and Blazers will end up pulling off the reportedly close Magloire for Steve Blake, Brian Skinner, and Ha Seung-Jin "
whaaaaaaaa? Murphy is way better than those 3. Magloire for Murphy might actually be a pretty good deal.

by mistererickk on Jul 28, 2006 8:25 PM PDT reply actions

No Question

Murphy is infinitely better than those 3. The problem is he has a long term deal paying him 50 big ones that a lot of teams are hesitant to add on to their cap.

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?

by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 28, 2006 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Murphy's problem is we have no Center

Murphy's a good player but we can't use him given our weakness at Center and will not use him given how often the Guards shoot without penetrating and passing out to open players like Murphy.

The Bucks have a legit Center but they also added rookie star and 6'10" Charlie V from Toronto. Like Murphy, he plays outside (SF/PF) and is tall so I see some duplication if the Bucks get Murphy.

Still, I'd make the trade and give up Murphy for an expiring contract and legit center.

by joe sez on Jul 28, 2006 10:11 PM PDT reply actions

Can't see the Bucks doing this

Right on about the players they currently have. I mean, between Villanueva, Bogut, and Kukoc, don't they have enough shooting big men in Milwaukee?

I really can't see the Bucks doing this one, guys.

by bruindre on Jul 28, 2006 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions

just to be clear

are we saying we're gonna give up Murphy for one single season of Magloire, who then leaves as a FA?

ok, so my turn to ask for 'cap education - what does the expiring contract do for us?

by hardcore on Jul 28, 2006 10:27 PM PDT reply actions

We won't owe Jamaal

guaranteed money for 2007, which we would have to with Murphy.

Its also a great trading asset.

A player who isn't limited under the weight of a huge contract(which other teams don't want either).

And in that playoff run with the Hornets, Baron wasn't 100%(ankle problems was it it?) up against a playmaking rookie in DWade, Eddie Jones and Lamar Odom.

5 PF's =/= 1 Antawn Jamison

by back2back51s on Jul 29, 2006 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions

Duh

An expiring contract gives us more money to pay Foyle.

by Yoyo on Jul 28, 2006 10:33 PM PDT reply actions

Another Mullin Contract Nobody Wants

Thanks again, Chris Mullin.

by pineriver on Jul 29, 2006 8:11 AM PDT reply actions

Murphy, like Dunleavy

is another player that, while I think shows that he has his merits as a player (and much moreso tha nDunleavy), just doesn't seem to fit in our system. If what we're trying to accomplish is be Phoenix-lite (not that I think that's the best option out there, but it is apparently what we're going for), a guy like Magloire who can be versatile and run the court is way more valuable to us than Murphy.

If you look at the Suns, they don't have a single player that resembles a Troy Murphy, and for good reason. Murphy would be more apt on the Heat or Pistons (at least last year's Pistons) where an inside game was already established and their goal wasnt to outrun and outgun the other team, where his decent rebounding and soft shooting touch would fit better. The system we're trying to implement needs guys who can attack the basket. That's why Ellis and to an extent Diogu were so successful, and why Baron struggled so much (because he attacked the basket less than he had earlier in his career and settled for jump shots way too often.)

by jonathan on Jul 29, 2006 9:36 AM PDT reply actions

If Expiring Contracts Are So Valuable...

Why don't we sign some people to like a one year contract worth about 10 Million? Then we could use them as a tradng commodity. If any stars are not getting along with their franchise, we can just give trade him and try to get another star. We aren't going below the cap anytime soon so why not?

by DaAzNJRiCh on Jul 29, 2006 9:52 AM PDT reply actions

Really Interesting Suggestion

I guess teams don't do it, because if it backfires it's a $10 million dollar mistake. $20 million if you're over the cap too.

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?

by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 29, 2006 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions

interesting but...

players don't sign one year deals. there's no security in signing a one year deal. if i had a chance for a 5 year deal vs a 1 year, there's no way i take the 1 year deal.