Magloire A Valuable Trading Chip

[Hunter]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>League sources said that Jamaal Magloire has not asked to be traded.

His one-year, $4 million contract, however, could be a valuable trading chip, especially since the Nets are closer to getting back Nenad Krstic. -- Bergen Record</div>

 

[Dumpy]

The Nets will be able to trade Magloire if they want to. The interesting part of that is, in doing so, they have to consider what their team will likely look like next year--before the draft, before they decide what tact to take with regard to their free agents--since the player they get back will have a long-term contract and almost certainly won't play for the Nets at all this year. For example, if you traded Magloire for a wing like Rasual Butler, which is probably realistic, how would that affect the futures of Antoine Wright and Nachbar? Is it better to try to acquire a jump-shooting big, and let Malik Allen and/or Krstic go? There's no right answer, but when you just have 14 or so roster spots, one player will have a cascading effect on the rest of the team.

 

[cpawfan]

The Blazers couldn't trade him last year and he was an expiring contract. The concept that he is a valuable trading chip is f'ing idiotic.

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Blazers couldn't trade him last year and he was an expiring contract. The concept that he is a valuable trading chip is f'ing idiotic.</div>

no, it isn't. First, you don't know what the Blazers were asking for. Given the way they have rebuilt, I wouldn't be surprised if they were asking for a player plus a pick, and that will never happen. Second, the Nets' needs are different than the Blazers. The Nets--rightly or wrongly--are searching for that elusive combination of role players to put this team "over the top." An overpaid role player could be just what they need, given their record of success(?) in the free-agency market.

There are plenty of mediocre players with long-term deals that can be moved in a one-for-one deal. I have NO DOUBT about that. David Wesley was traded TWICE after he retired.

 

[Petey]

I'd rather see the money come off the books so the Nets can at least ponder offering money to Krstic, Boki and/Wright.

-Petey

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Jan 15 2008, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd rather see the money come off the books so the Nets can at least ponder offering money to Krstic, Boki and/Wright.

-Petey</div>

That may be the better way to go. We don't know whether the Nets want Boki back, though. I assume that they want to resign Krstic and Wright, but it only takes one other team to be willing to overpay.

 

[Kid Chocolate]

link?

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jan 15 2008, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Blazers couldn't trade him last year and he was an expiring contract. The concept that he is a valuable trading chip is f'ing idiotic.</div>

no, it isn't. First, you don't know what the Blazers were asking for. Given the way they have rebuilt, I wouldn't be surprised if they were asking for a player plus a pick, and that will never happen. Second, the Nets' needs are different than the Blazers. The Nets--rightly or wrongly--are searching for that elusive combination of role players to put this team "over the top." An overpaid role player could be just what they need, given their record of success(?) in the free-agency market.

There are plenty of mediocre players with long-term deals that can be moved in a one-for-one deal. I have NO DOUBT about that. David Wesley was traded TWICE after he retired.
</div>

Yes it is and yes I have decent knowledge of what the Blazers were asking (I have well functioning friend of a friend connection there that I don't talk about).

The Nets have ~55.5 million locked in salary to Kidd, Vince, RJ & Twin next season leaving them ~14.5 million in salary to fill at least 9 other spots and stay under the tax. Sean, Boone, Marcus and the Nets 2008 First rounder take ~5.1 million so that leaves ~9.4 million for at least 5 other roster spots. If Magloire is traded for an overpriced player making at least 3.2 million next season you are locking the Nets into a bunch of minimum contract guys and no use of the MLE.

Plus, to get an overpriced role player from another team, it would have to be somebody that is greatly underperforming, because at that price range (3.12 to 5.1 million) those are guys generally worth holding onto in this tax sensitive NBA.

 

[Dumpy]

You're arguing over the meaning of the word "valuable" in the context of the Nets' roster and salary structure. That's perfectly fair. You're position, then, would seen to aline with Petey's. That doesn't change my view that they could, in fact, trade Magloire for a mediocre player with a long-term contract such as Rasual Butler (since he has become my stereotypical slug for this discussion). Whether they'd WANT to in light of their current situation is a different matter. I am expressing no opinion on whether the Nets would or wouldn't want to exceed the cap next year, and thus it isn't affecting my use of the word "valuable."

And of course, this brings us back to what the Nets plan to do about Boki and Krstic, and to a lesser degree Wright (who they could probably resign for $1.0-$1.5 million)

Of course, for all you know, the Nets are planning to deal Kidd or Carter, making your objection moot.

 

[Shapecity]

Magloire for Puke Walton.

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Jan 15 2008, 12:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>link?</div>

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/ru...atures%2frumors

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/nets/13789552.html

 

[Lavalamp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jan 15 2008, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Blazers couldn't trade him last year and he was an expiring contract. The concept that he is a valuable trading chip is f'ing idiotic.</div>

no, it isn't. First, you don't know what the Blazers were asking for. Given the way they have rebuilt, I wouldn't be surprised if they were asking for a player plus a pick, and that will never happen. Second, the Nets' needs are different than the Blazers. The Nets--rightly or wrongly--are searching for that elusive combination of role players to put this team "over the top." An overpaid role player could be just what they need, given their record of success(?) in the free-agency market.

There are plenty of mediocre players with long-term deals that can be moved in a one-for-one deal. I have NO DOUBT about that. David Wesley was traded TWICE after he retired.
</div>

Yes it is and yes I have decent knowledge of what the Blazers were asking (I have well functioning friend of a friend connection there that I don't talk about).

The Nets have ~55.5 million locked in salary to Kidd, Vince, RJ & Twin next season leaving them ~14.5 million in salary to fill at least 9 other spots and stay under the tax. Sean, Boone, Marcus and the Nets 2008 First rounder take ~5.1 million so that leaves ~9.4 million for at least 5 other roster spots. If Magloire is traded for an overpriced player making at least 3.2 million next season you are locking the Nets into a bunch of minimum contract guys and no use of the MLE.

Plus, to get an overpriced role player from another team, it would have to be somebody that is greatly underperforming, because at that price range (3.12 to 5.1 million) those are guys generally worth holding onto in this tax sensitive NBA.
</div>

Nice analysis cpawfan, and I agree with what you said.

Although there might be a small chance though that they could find a team over the luxury tax, or afraid of going over that would trade a player who isn't underperforming to save money.

 

[kdub]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shapecity @ Jan 15 2008, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Magloire for Puke Walton.</div>

That would make RJ happy

 

[Charles]

I was looking at teams who might be interested in taking a chance on Magloire yesterday, and the best I could come up w/ was Magloire to Toronto for Garbajosa. Only problem is Magloire is in the last year, but Garbo has a year after this one. Even that is a stretch as they still have Rasho w/ Bosh and Bargnani.

 

[Jizzy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Blazers couldn't trade him last year and he was an expiring contract. The concept that he is a valuable trading chip is f'ing idiotic.</div>
you wanted him last year

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ Jan 15 2008, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Blazers couldn't trade him last year and he was an expiring contract. The concept that he is a valuable trading chip is f'ing idiotic.</div>
you wanted him last year
</div>

LMAO

You won't find a post on any website that had me wanting Magloire on the Nets

Just stop fibbing Jizzy or I'll pull up your old posts.

 

[Jizzy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ Jan 15 2008, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Blazers couldn't trade him last year and he was an expiring contract. The concept that he is a valuable trading chip is f'ing idiotic.</div>
you wanted him last year
</div>

LMAO

You won't find a post on any website that had me wanting Magloire on the Nets

Just stop fibbing Jizzy or I'll pull up your old posts.
</div>


well lets see, who posted the wright/collins trade for webster and magloire? it was you, im posititve, i remember asking you about it. i wish i could bring up that old post but itll take me forever to find but im POSITIVE

 

[GMJ]

I know for a fact that Cpaw was against Magloire, because he and I got into an argument about how good Magloire would be, with my point (now proven entirely defunct) supporting the signing.

 

[uptown4784]

Lakers need a Center

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ Jan 15 2008, 04:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ Jan 15 2008, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Blazers couldn't trade him last year and he was an expiring contract. The concept that he is a valuable trading chip is f'ing idiotic.</div>
you wanted him last year
</div>

LMAO

You won't find a post on any website that had me wanting Magloire on the Nets

Just stop fibbing Jizzy or I'll pull up your old posts.
</div>


well lets see, who posted the wright/collins trade for webster and magloire? it was you, im posititve, i remember asking you about it. i wish i could bring up that old post but itll take me forever to find but im POSITIVE
</div>

First it was a post in the Blazers forum to gain information about how highly or lowly they valued RJ as this was last January when RJ was having significant issues. Second it was RJ for Magloire and Webster.

My exact words were
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As fans, would you be comfortable with Magloire and Webster for RJ?</div>

None of that was about me wanting Magoire on the Nets and I was glad to see that the Blazers fans liked RJ.

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jan 15 2008, 05:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I know for a fact that Cpaw was against Magloire, because he and I got into an argument about how good Magloire would be, with my point (now proven entirely defunct) supporting the signing.</div>

Why let the facts get in the way...