# Done Deal!!



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Or so it appears.......

http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/index.php?blogid=24


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

YEAHHHHHH BOOIIIIIIIIII :banana:


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

So now we just need to get Miles to goto New York and there will be dancing in the streets!!!! :banana:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I'm not sure I get this trade. I thought we wanted to dump Miles or Randolph, not Steve Blake. Is Magliore really worth giving up Blake? Even though we have a logjam at shooting guard, I like the idea of having somebody like Blake who is steady, smart, and a good shooter.

But maybe I'm underestimating Magliore. I don't think I've ever seen him play. Is he good?


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Miles for Rose and then next summer Portland wouldn't have any cap problems


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Hooray! I'd much rather have a logjam at center and power forward than point guard. We're having a great offseason thus far.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> I'm not sure I get this trade. I thought we wanted to dump Miles or Randolph, not Steve Blake. Is Magliore really worth giving up Blake? Even though we have a logjam at shooting guard, I like the idea of having somebody like Blake who is steady, smart, and a good shooter.
> 
> But maybe I'm underestimating Magliore. I don't think I've ever seen him play. Is he good?


9.5/9.5 this season. He is a Top 10 Center, atleast Top 15. Trust me. We got a steal. 

Magloire/Joel/Raef
Zach/LaMarcus

is what our frontline will look like. That't verrry solid.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> I'm not sure I get this trade. I thought we wanted to dump Miles or Randolph, not Steve Blake.


We don't want to "dump" anyone. I think that Blazers management (post-Nash) is realizing what some of us knew all along: dumping players is BAD. Addition by subtraction leads to more losses.

Trades should be made to improve the team on the floor, rather than to placate some people who want changes for other reasons.

Ed O.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

HOWIE said:


> So now we just need to get Miles to goto New York and there will be dancing in the streets!!!! :banana:


If NY gets Jared Jeffries, I doubt they'll be trading for Miles...


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Storyteller said:


> If NY gets Jared Jeffries, I doubt they'll be trading for Miles...


For 5 years and $30 mill. Not much better than Miles contract. I don't get why people say he has a bad contract, 6.5-7.5 mill a season isn't bad if Darius is focused. That is the thing though, *if*.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

> If NY gets Jared Jeffries, I doubt they'll be trading for Miles


Agreed. As much as I would love to dump Miles on NY, it seems very unlikley now. Goint into the offseason NY wanted an athletic SF that can defend and rebound. Well, now they have two, Balkman and Jefferies. Now Miles looks redundant.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> We don't want to "dump" anyone. I think that Blazers management (post-Nash) is realizing what some of us knew all along: dumping players is BAD. Addition by subtraction leads to more losses.


I never said we shouldn't get someone good in return for either Miles or Randolph. By "dumping" I just meant getting rid of through a trade. And for the record, I doubt anyone in the Nash days ever thought just giving away a player was a good thing. The players that we ended up "giving away" simply wouldn't garner much on the open market--so we had to take what we could get, which wasn't much.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

oh, god, please let this happen.

BLAKE IS OVERRATED by you guys...you act like hes not replaceable. 

...we have like 4 guards, all of which are equally effective IMO.




GREAT TRADE FOR US!

but i hope management doesnt **** this up. :curse:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

presumably this means the blazers ARE counting on at least spot minutes at point for roy, giving webster more room at 2.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blake is pretty replaceable talent. I don't consider giving him up to be a loss. Ha Seung-Jin was never likely to amount to anything in the NBA, he was always a longshot flier. Brian Skinner I thought was a useful reserve, but Magloire has the potential to do more than Skinner.

Magloire and Pryzbilla gives Portland a heck of a center rotation. It also allows them to deal Randolph, without starting Aldridge...Portland could always start Magloire at power forward.

This is the perfect sort of acquistion to me. It shouldn't take them out of the Oden lottery, but gives them more useful pieces to surround whomever they get in the 2007 draft.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

this is a really nice steal for us. we'll basically be able to run a front court of Randolph, Przybilla and Magloire, with Aldridge getting garbage minutes. 

with Magloire and Roy basically replacing the minutes played by Ratliff and Telfair, our rebounding woes should be over with.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I hope the 2 open roster spots are setting up a follow-up trade.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> presumably this means the blazers ARE counting on at least spot minutes at point for roy, giving webster more room at 2.


Or they will sign Pargo, or think Dickau is a servicable 2nd string PG.


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Blake is pretty replaceable talent. I don't consider giving him up to be a loss. Ha Seung-Jin was never likely to amount to anything in the NBA, he was always a longshot flier. Brian Skinner I thought was a useful reserve, but Magloire has the potential to do more than Skinner.
> 
> Magloire and Pryzbilla gives Portland a heck of a center rotation. It also allows them to deal Randolph, without starting Aldridge...Portland could always start Magloire at power forward.
> 
> This is the perfect sort of acquistion to me. It shouldn't take them out of the Oden lottery, but gives them more useful pieces to surround whomever they get in the 2007 draft.


Zbo AINT GOING NOWWHERE!


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I hope we dump both Dan and Dixon in favor of a cheap Pargo. Jannero is a very efficient scorer, who can also handle the ball and play as a true PG. He is very hot-or-cold, but so was Bobby Jackson back in his prime. I think Pargo has been waiting for a chance to get some time as the #2 point guard ever since his 13.5ppg and 3.6apg during his 1st stint with Chicago. Dump Dixon and/or Dickau for nothing, sign Pargo and this is how I see our roster...

PG- J.Jack/J.Pargo/B.Roy
SG- B.Roy/M.Webster/J.Pargo
SF- D.Miles/T.Outlaw/M.Webster
PF- Z.Randolph/J.Magloire/L.Aldridge
C- J.Magloire/J.Pryzbilla/R.LaFrentz

You know what. If Miles can get like half of his brain together and we stay healthy, I could see this being a suprise, 35-40 win team this season.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

maybe this is easy for the front office to do because they feel roy can man some minutes at the point this year...which might be nice...so he can play alongside web


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

This is really intersting. a look at some quick minutes. Barring a trade of one of the bigs...(Storyteller or some other guru could let me know when Magloire, or LaFrentz could be dealt) it looks like this


96 minutes for 4 players at the C and PF possition, not including Aldridge. That's an average of 24 minutes a piece which won't sit well with someone

At the 3 we have 3 players that can all play the possition in Miles(assuming he's still here) Outlaw and Webster...Roy can too, but we will leave him out for now. With Webster ability to play the two the helps, but 48 minutes is what it is. With the starter getting 30+ that leaves roughly 15-18 minutes for Outlaw and Webster a bit

1 and 2 Jack, Dickau, Rodriguez, Pargo?, Roy, Dixon and Webster. That's another 96 minutes. Assuming again that Jack and Webster start and Webster plays 5 or so minutes at the 3 that leaves 40ish minutes for back ups. Rodriguez won't play a lot, Roy should get 25-30 minutes and that leaves Dixon 10-15 minutes which is 10-15 minutes too many as far as I'm concerned. Anyway my point is no problem in the back court. 

Unless the Blazers are banking on Joel to get hurt..(which is not a bad idea because he has been almost every year) They have to be moving someone.....don't they? 

The other thing I think we should start thinking about seriously is the fact that Greg Oden is quickly becoming a player we will not have a shot at...that's both good and bad I guess.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think we will still have a shot at Joel, we will likley still be one of the 5 worst teams. Lets say we improve by 10 wins, were still at 30 wins and have a 5-7 pick, their is still some chance.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> I'm not sure I get this trade. I thought we wanted to dump Miles or Randolph, not Steve Blake. Is Magliore really worth giving up Blake? Even though we have a logjam at shooting guard, I like the idea of having somebody like Blake who is steady, smart, and a good shooter.
> 
> But maybe I'm underestimating Magliore. I don't think I've ever seen him play. Is he good?



I would think this trade is being made so that we can package Magloire with Miles near the trade deadline. Magloire is in the last year of his contract and will be a very appealing player to several teams half way through the season. 

Regardless, this is a steal for the Blazers. We're trading quantity for quality. You do that anytime you can. And Jack is better than Steve anyways.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I think we will still have a shot at Joel, we will likley still be one of the 5 worst teams. Lets say we improve by 10 wins, were still at 30 wins and have a 5-7 pick, their is still some chance.



LOL at the slip there. I'm sure Greg will be happy to know he's getting mixed up with our 7 and 6 center.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> The other thing I think we should start thinking about seriously is the fact that Greg Oden is quickly becoming a player we will not have a shot at...that's both good and bad I guess.


I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself there... this team is still pretty bad, and while I like the additions, we're still pretty weak at the 1, 2, and 3 spots.

Even assuming we can add Pargo, we'll have:

PG: Jack, Dickau, Pargo
SG: Roy, Dixon, Webster
SF: Miles, Outlaw

Unless Miles comes back with his head screwed on straight and Roy and Jack are actually reasonable starters right off the bat, we're going to have troubles at those spots on a nightly basis.

It's OK, because a terrible team can't become good overnight, but we're still one of the worst 5 teams in the NBA... maybe just not THE worst. 

Ed O.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

Great trade but I agree that someone else will go no later than midseason. If anybody would've said we were gonna have a logjam at those positions after summer camp...I would've seriously questioned their reasoning.

Peace


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

I liked Steve Blake. Ah well, hope it all works out.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I would not be surprised at all if the Blazer Brass told Joel and Webster that they will be playing Magliore and Miles a lot before the trade deadline to try and up their value. Both Joel and Webster strike me as people who would not complain if this happened over the short term.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

How many days before Juan Dixon ends up in a Bucks jersey? Any guesses?


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

Well I'll seriously miss Blake. 

But at least he was someone that another team wanted, and not just a throw-in. Losing him just to match salaries would have pissed me off. IMO Steve will improve even more. I don't think he was overrated at all- no one said he was one of the best guards in the league, he was just the best guard on the Blazers last year.

Turning him & Ha+Skinner filler into a top center is great, even if we do seem a bit crowded up front right now.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

I can't find anyone else who is reporting this so I am going to wait until a credible source confirms the trade before getting excited.

Still, good trade if it happens but does this mean Zach is gone?


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Anima said:


> I can't find anyone else who is reporting this so I am going to wait until a credible source confirms the trade before getting excited.
> 
> Still, good trade if it happens but does this mean Zach is gone?


I don't think so. Magloire is a one year rental basically (and quite possibly, just until trade dealine). I think this is just management picking up a tradeable asset. That being said, it does make trading Zach more of an option if they want to keep Mags.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Foulzilla said:


> I don't think so. Magloire is a one year rental basically (and quite possibly, just until trade dealine). I think this is just management picking up a tradeable asset. That being said, it does make trading Zach more of an option if they want to keep Mags.



Mags/Miles to NY for Rose on 12/15.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

And Zach is a scorer, which the Blazers will need until they can find a better option.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Maybe he'll be used as a mentor to Aldridge, just like he was to Bogut. Magloire the Teacher?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Anima said:


> I can't find anyone else who is reporting this so I am going to wait until a credible source confirms the trade before getting excited.
> 
> Still, good trade if it happens but does this mean Zach is gone?



It's on hoopshype.com, it's in the Racine Journaland there's a snippet on nba.com, though that one just says it's being discussed.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

If this trade does go through, does anyone think the Blazers are going to try to retain Magloire when he's a free agent next summer? I'd like to keep him if it was possible.

It's a *great* trade if it does indeed happen. Kudos to Pritterson for getting it done.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

We can go in a variety of different ways after this deal. The ball is in our court. We can trade Zach and replace him with Mags and Aldridge. We can use Mags in a bigger Miles deal. We can even trade Pryz if Mags plays a very good season. Hell, if Mags doesnt play great we can still re-sign him and keep the strong rotation together.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> We can go in a variety of different ways after this deal. The ball is in our court. We can trade Zach and replace him with Mags and Aldridge. We can use Mags in a bigger Miles deal. We can even trade Pryz if Mags plays a very good season. Hell, if Mags doesnt play great we can still re-sign him and keep the strong rotation together.


I was thinking the same thing. If Magloire pans out and Aldridge appears to be the real deal, we could trade Zach and fillers for a starting point guard or small forward, depending on how the Blazers evaluate Jack, Roy, and Webster.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Furness chimes in on his blog, but can't help but take a swipe at the Blazers:



Furness said:


> There has obviously been a lot of feedback from both Portland and Milwaukee in regards to a potential trade between the Bucks and Blazers, as I first spoke about on 1080 The Fan Thursday afternoon (now available via streaming at www.1080thefan.com). Here is one thought from Wisconsin in regards to the potential trade:
> http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=7092
> 
> Speaking to some other media members in Milwaukee yesterday, the word there is the deal is indeed in Portland's court, pardon the pun. Those in the land of beer in cheese also told me that the Bucks may have wanted to delay the announcement because of the Brewer's activity (Carlos Lee trade) as we get close to the MLB trade deadline. In other words, get the biggest bang you can during a slow time of the offseason. Public Relations 101 says never share the headlines if you can avoid it.
> ...


-Pop


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> It's on hoopshype.com, it's in the Racine Journaland there's a snippet on nba.com, though that one just says it's being discussed.


 I meant confirmed as done deal.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

This is the biggest steal since McInnis for Miles!


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

So, I guess this is the mentality...

Bucks: Needed to free up room in the frontcourt and get rid of a disgruntled veteran (Magloire). Having traded TJ Ford, needed a dependable PG (Blake). 

Blazers: Looking for a way to trade Darius Miles, no one was biting on giving up anything of value, the next best approach is to get something of value that you can use in a package in a few months. 

Bucks' positives: Blake is a solid PG with championship (college) experience. 

Bucks' negatives: Magloire is an established veteran at C, and Blake is not a great PG. 

Blazers' positives: Got a veteran who can hold down either C or PF, in case of injuries, etc. 

Blazers' negatives: Magloire was unhappy in Milwaukee, what will make him happy in Portland? Blake was the Blazers' best PG for stretches of last season - will Jack, Roy and Dickau be able to hold down the fort?


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

meru said:


> This is the biggest steal since McGinnis for Miles!


Now THAT would have been a steal. Big George was a great player in his day! That hanging one-hander bank shot!! A thing of beauty.

As it was, Miles was traded for Jeff McInnis.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Public Defender said:


> So, I guess this is the mentality...
> 
> Bucks: Needed to free up room in the frontcourt and get rid of a disgruntled veteran (Magloire). Having traded TJ Ford, needed a dependable PG (Blake).
> 
> ...



Hold down in case of injuries????? You do realize that Magloire is a lot better than any center we have had on our team since Sabas left right?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Hold down in case of injuries????? You do realize that Magloire is a lot better than any center we have had on our team since Sabas left right?


I don't know about that. Wasn't Jason Jennings on the team after Sabas?

barfo


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

man what a deal for the blazers , I know zbo will love playing with Maglore , and blake was nice but i will take dickau over him anyday . I cant deal with another year of him and dixon starting in the backcourt gese. Portland has a nice frontcourt with Zach , Lamarcus , Raef , Przbilla and Maglore.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

barfo said:


> I don't know about that. Wasn't Jason Jennings on the team after Sabas?
> 
> barfo



Wow, what an oversite. I do apologise. How about the best center since Sabas that didn't attend Arkansas.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I hate to say it, but we've got to give some credit to Nash on this one. His Blake and Pryzbilla signings have been very good ones. Blake was clearly the main part of the trade on the Bucks end, as Skinner matched salaries and Ha was there for potental. 

We have to thank Nash's great signing of Blake for getting us a legit center in return only a year later.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Public Defender said:


> So, I guess this is the mentality...
> 
> Bucks: Needed to free up room in the frontcourt and get rid of a disgruntled veteran (Magloire). Having traded TJ Ford, needed a dependable PG (Blake).
> 
> ...


Entirely valid questions.

I'm very disappointed that Blake will be gone from the standpoint that, whether anybody likes it or not, he *was* the Blazers' most efficient PG last season. Obviously I wish him well in Milwaukee and while I think Jack is ready, Portland is going to continue to be young at PG. I cruised the realgm Bucks forum (I don't post on realgm anymore and haven't for a very long time) and there is strong speculation that the piece that Milwaukee REALLY wanted was Blake (I've seen that hinted at here but not so extensively). From the standpoint that Blake really seemed to want to settle down in Portland (not to mention that whole baby thing that the Blakes are experiencing right now), it maybe has to do something for whatever ego he has to be *wanted* by someone?

Magloire was unhappy in Milwaukee ... if I'm not mistaken he wasn't all that happy in New Orleans either. Dunno if he finds any peace in Portland either, but we'll see.

And forgive me for being repetitive, but I am STILL convinced that the Mags/Mason deal happened for reasons that had less to do with basketball and more about promotion and filling seats ... specificially seats in a strange venue in a strange city where the Hornets went after Kat flushed them out of NOLA last fall. Sure Mags was an unhappy Bug, so to speak, but I seem to recall Mason wasn't real thrilled about being traded either (never mind that because Mason became a Hornet, that just meant the adoptive fans in OKC embraced the team even more ... I mean hell nobody knew the Hornets weren't going to suck or anything like they were expected to).

In retrospect, did the Mags/Mason deal have to happen in the first place?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

soonerterp said:


> Entirely valid questions.
> 
> I'm very disappointed that Blake will be gone from the standpoint that, whether anybody likes it or not, he *was* the Blazers' most efficient PG last season. Obviously I wish him well in Milwaukee and while I think Jack is ready, Portland is going to continue to be young at PG. I cruised the realgm Bucks forum (I don't post on realgm anymore and haven't for a very long time) and there is strong speculation that the piece that Milwaukee REALLY wanted was Blake (I've seen that hinted at here but not so extensively). From the standpoint that Blake really seemed to want to settle down in Portland (not to mention that whole baby thing that the Blakes are experiencing right now), it maybe has to do something for whatever ego he has to be *wanted* by someone?
> 
> ...


]



It's great to bring up his unhappiness. I think he will have those same problems here because of our logjam at the two front court spots. I am hoping he stays silent and is a good soldier until the trade deadline so we can pack him out of here with Miles. 

Another thing we should look at is how low his value is right now. I mean the guy almost averaged a doubel double last year and was traded for Steve Blake, Brian Skinner and Ha. Hopefully he'll get his stuff together and play for that contract.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> This is the perfect sort of acquistion to me. It shouldn't take them out of the Oden lottery . . .


You can't be serious. Portland's chances of getting Greg Oden were extremely thin to begin with, and this acquisition plus our draft picks and the further development of our young players gives us a fairly reasonable chance of making the playoffs. I wouldn't even be thinking Oden at this point.

Even if we don't make the playoffs, our record will probably give us a pick in the bottom half of the lottery--rather than the top 3, where Oden will surely go.


----------



## tobybennett (Jun 12, 2003)

I think Magloire will start over Joel. He is more talented, and the all-around better player. Joel will be a good player to bring off the bench considering he is injury prone. Anyways I like the deal, and if the Blazers aren't competing for the playoffs by the deadline, there will always be a market for a veteran center.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

> This is the perfect sort of acquistion to me. It shouldn't take them out of the Oden lottery . . .


What happens if Portland has the worst record again, and they still don't get the top pick? A whole lot of good that would be. I think the lottery has proven that there's no point in tanking.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

ducan proves you can tank 


well blake was a low risk low reward signing when we got him luckily the blazers and himself were able to turn him into a needed tradable player which aloud us to trade him for a lowend pf and a #46pick HA for a 10-15 center in the league! thats great! 

reaf can focus on pf 

i can see 3 squads


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Utherhimo said:


> ducan proves you can tank
> 
> 
> well blake was a low risk low reward signing when we got him luckily the blazers and himself were able to turn him into a needed tradable player which aloud us to trade him for a lowend pf and a #46pick HA for a 10-15 center in the league! thats great!
> ...


I think there is more to this trade for Milwaukee than meets the eye. Skinner and Ha probably wont play for them this year. If they are both let go the Bucks traded their third center for a back up pg. While I think they could have gotten more for Magloire they will probably use the money they will save and get a small forward to back up Simmons. Player for Player portland got the better of this one, but overall this will help out the Bucks just as much as Portland if not more. Milwaukee just cleared a cluster in their front court and solidified their backcourt, while Portland now has two slightly above average centers one signed to a long term deal and the other a baby about his playing time and desire to break the bank in free agency next year. Also Magloire did nothing to help Andrew Boguts development last season and may hinder Aldridge this year. If Portlands whole plan is to package Magloire and Miles together just to get rid of Miles best of luck... they make a combined 15 mil next year and no team other than NY will pick up that kind of contract, and portland would need to recieve at least 12 million player salaries.

Portland got the better player but possibly the bigger headache.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Nothing on OLive, nothing on the 5 o'clock news ... if the teams were just waiting on physicals and paperwork, wouldn't word have leaked out by now?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

wastro said:


> Nothing on OLive, nothing on the 5 o'clock news ... if the teams were just waiting on physicals and paperwork, wouldn't word have leaked out by now?


The fact that its not on OLive should tell you that it is in fact a done deal!  

Anyone know what Magloire is like off the court? Is he a good community guy?


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

B_&_B said:


> The fact that its not on OLive should tell you that it is in fact a done deal!
> 
> Anyone know what Magloire is like off the court? Is he a good community guy?


Not too many people in Milwaukee would know, he is very active in his hometown of Toronto where he would hightail to every second he could. Speculation since he got traded to Milwaukee is that he wants to play for the raptors when his deal is up. Probably just a one year rental for Portland, which may not be bad considering his production compared to his price tag.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

im hyped about this deal, mags is a great center. he is a allstar caliber in the East. on the west cost he is a top 5 center. Hopefully he and Joel can find enough minutes between the two of them. Im hyped whenever you do a 3 for 1 deal the team getting 1 player wins.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

BlazerFanFoLife said:


> im hyped about this deal, mags is a great center. he is a allstar caliber in the East. on the west cost he is a top 5 center. Hopefully he and Joel can find enough minutes between the two of them. Im hyped whenever you do a 3 for 1 deal the team getting 1 player wins.


Magloire is terrible. his best season was 13 and 10 and somehow made the allstar team. There are far more negatives to his game than positve. Also calling Magloire a great center is just wrong. Space filler fits him much better.


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

hello all. remember me? i'm the one that always knew the starting lineup? well i just wanted to throw my two cents in because i know with 100% certainty that yes, the trade is true. it will be announced monday officially. skinner ha and blake for magloire. believe me or don't believe me, either way. just wanted to go on record. i also know that blake was inquired about by numerous other teams this offseason and the blazers refused stating they wanted to keep blake and blake was promised that he would not be traded. ahhh gm's promises. aren't those lovely things?


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

bballchik said:


> hello all. remember me? i'm the one that always knew the starting lineup? well i just wanted to throw my two cents in because i know with 100% certainty that yes, the trade is true. it will be announced monday officially. skinner ha and blake for magloire. believe me or don't believe me, either way. just wanted to go on record. i also know that blake was inquired about by numerous other teams this offseason and the blazers refused stating they wanted to keep blake and blake was promised that he would not be traded. ahhh gm's promises. aren't those lovely things?



i like your style...finally someone who isnt scared to tell it like it is...just like me...lol


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> You can't be serious. Portland's chances of getting Greg Oden were extremely thin to begin with, and this acquisition plus our draft picks and the further development of our young players gives us a fairly reasonable chance of making the playoffs. I wouldn't even be thinking Oden at this point.
> 
> Even if we don't make the playoffs, our record will probably give us a pick in the bottom half of the lottery--rather than the top 3, where Oden will surely go.


I think you're vastly overrating Portland. They have a talented young core, but they're not going to be good players relative to NBA players for at least a year or two.

And Magloire didn't change that. We're still solidly bottom-5 in the NBA with as good a chance as anyone to be worst.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Entity said:


> What happens if Portland has the worst record again, and they still don't get the top pick?


Then we'll have to settle for one of the other top studs in one of the best drafts ever, like Durant?


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Then we'll have to settle for one of the other top studs in one of the best drafts ever, like Durant?


Thank you. Although that would cause quite a problem with Roy, Webster, Durant and Jack to play the 1/2/3 positions.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> I think you're vastly overrating Portland. They have a talented young core, but they're not going to be good players relative to NBA players for at least a year or two.
> 
> And Magloire didn't change that. We're still solidly bottom-5 in the NBA with as good a chance as anyone to be worst.


I think we move up to the 7th or 8th worst team with Magloire and the other additions.

Think about it, this years team will have two impact players- Brandon Roy and Magloire. Jack and Randolph will both be healthier.

We will score a lot more and our defense should be decent.

The only really question mark is the 3 spot.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Then we'll have to settle for one of the other top studs in one of the best drafts ever, like Durant?



Good, then there's no need to tank.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Entity said:


> Good, then there's no need to tank.


I don't think it's a matter of tanking... assuming "tanking" requires some active steps to being bad. This team still isn't good, and they can give 100% and still be a bottom feeder.

That's not a criticism. It's just the way it is. At least for one more year...

Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

bballchik said:


> hello all. remember me? i'm the one that always knew the starting lineup? well i just wanted to throw my two cents in because i know with 100% certainty that yes, the trade is true. it will be announced monday officially. skinner ha and blake for magloire. believe me or don't believe me, either way. just wanted to go on record. i also know that blake was inquired about by numerous other teams this offseason and the blazers refused stating they wanted to keep blake and blake was promised that he would not be traded. ahhh gm's promises. aren't those lovely things?


I get it now, you are Blakes wife? It all makes sense now.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

bballchik said:


> hello all. remember me? i'm the one that always knew the starting lineup? well i just wanted to throw my two cents in because i know with 100% certainty that yes, the trade is true. it will be announced monday officially. skinner ha and blake for magloire. believe me or don't believe me, either way. just wanted to go on record. i also know that blake was inquired about by numerous other teams this offseason and the blazers refused stating they wanted to keep blake and blake was promised that he would not be traded. ahhh gm's promises. aren't those lovely things?


I still have misgivings about sending Blake away, but here's hoping that fans in Milwaukee will come to appreciate him a little better than some Blazer fans did. I might as well come out and say that I get way disgusted reading the word "scrub" associated with him, because he's anything but and he's proven that time and again for as long as I've watched him play from afar.

That said, I still think, other than THIS, that the Blazers have improved this offseason and will be a better team next season. But also when you are at rock bottom there's no place to go but up.

Just kind of wish they could have held onto Blake for the rest of his contract ... PG is looking really young although I don't doubt the capability of Jarrett Jack to handle the position. Blake is young but he is a vet, and I'm still convinced that its good for a team to have a vet in that most important floor position (I'm still not totally clear on what the Blazers' plans for Dan Dickau are, need to see how his rehab is progressing).

Also not surprised to see that other teams certainly took notice of him.

Oh and check your rep points.



mgb said:


> I get it now, you are Blakes wife? It all makes sense now.


Whoa there dude I hope that's a stout limb you just went out on.

But just in case, bbc, if you ARE Mrs. Blake, best to you and yours and the coming little one!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> I think we move up to the 7th or 8th worst team with Magloire and the other additions.
> 
> Think about it, this years team will have two impact players- Brandon Roy and Magloire. Jack and Randolph will both be healthier.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't call Magloire an "impact player." He's a nice role-player, but he's reasonably far removed from his All-Star performance. I'd say he's a little better than Przybilla and provides a bit of an upgrade to our center and power forward rotation (we already had LaFrentz, who was a worse defender but better scorer).


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

IMO the Bucks will have to start Blake, unless they want to let Mo Williams struggle and hope he gets better. After Steve comes off the bench for a while and shows what a point guard should do, I think Williams will lose the starting spot.

Milwaukee pulled off a Blakejack.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

soonerterp said:


> But just in case, bbc, if you ARE Mrs. Blake, best to you and yours and the coming little one!


You know soonerterp, I think your on to something - I have suspected the same thing. If true, I also wish the Blakes the best at their new location, which is certainly a lot closer to both their families on the east coast.

I guess it's now up to JJ and Dickau to get it done.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I get way disgusted reading the word "scrub" associated with him


It just means he's easily replaceable.

Dan


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

bballchik said:


> hello all. remember me? i'm the one that always knew the starting lineup? well i just wanted to throw my two cents in because i know with 100% certainty that yes, the trade is true. it will be announced monday officially. skinner ha and blake for magloire. believe me or don't believe me, either way. just wanted to go on record. i also know that blake was inquired about by numerous other teams this offseason and the blazers refused stating they wanted to keep blake and blake was promised that he would not be traded. ahhh gm's promises. aren't those lovely things?


Get in line with the rest of us who said this was a "done deal" the last few days.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

B_&_B said:


> Get in line with the rest of us who said this was a "done deal" the last few days.


Oh yeah? Well I knew it was going to happen before New Orleans traded him to Milwaukee.....so there! :biggrin:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

B_&_B said:


> Get in line with the rest of us who said this was a "done deal" the last few days.





LOL no kidding. I live in Houston for crying out loud and I knew as much as she did....probably more.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> How many days before Juan Dixon ends up in a Bucks jersey? Any guesses?



:gopray:

Thank God


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

That would be a very solid frontcourt

C Przybilla or Magloire
PF Randolph, Aldridge, Lefrentz


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> That would be a very solid frontcourt
> 
> C Przybilla or Magloire
> PF Randolph, Aldridge, Lefrentz


Good call. 

Maybe they won't get destroyed on the boards this season; it was painful last year to see the Blazers on the boards, especially when Theo and Joel were injured.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Still confirming today...

http://www2.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=477981


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

ABM said:


> Still confirming today...
> 
> http://www2.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=477981


I must admit, I am excited about our frontcourt. Can Magloire play PF in a pinch, if needed?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW, for a little fun reading..

Check This Out


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

ABM said:


> BTW, for a little fun reading..
> 
> Check This Out


Forums like that make me glad to have discovered this board.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> Thank you. Although that would cause quite a problem with Roy, Webster, Durant and Jack to play the 1/2/3 positions.


BF, you make it sound as if adding nearly _any_ player to nearly _any_ team might be a problem because, well, said team already _had_ players at all those positions. We can hope that Jack, Roy, and Webster are all players who will become All Stars with sufficient time on the floor but really, _most_ young players, even most good young players, don't go on to stardom. It seems to me a team in the position the Blazers are in (one where they were _the worst_ team in the league last year, lest we forget) MUST get as much good young talent and see what/who rises to the top. Worst case is that they end up moving someone.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Now THAT would have been a steal. Big George was a great player in his day! That hanging one-hander bank shot!! A thing of beauty.
> 
> As it was, Miles was traded for Jeff McInnis.


In all fairness, George wasn't close to the player in the NBA that he was in the ABA.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Nightfly said:


> In all fairness, George wasn't close to the player in the NBA that he was in the ABA.


I wish I'd have been able to watch his earlier years!!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

ABM said:


> BTW, for a little fun reading..


Those folks don't sound real happy about this trade, do they?

They do make an amusing point, that the Bucks have now, in effect, traded Ray Allen for Steve Blake.

barfo


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> BF, you make it sound as if adding nearly _any_ player to nearly _any_ team might be a problem because, well, said team already _had_ players at all those positions. We can hope that Jack, Roy, and Webster are all players who will become All Stars with sufficient time on the floor but really, _most_ young players, even most good young players, don't go on to stardom. It seems to me a team in the position the Blazers are in (one where they were _the worst_ team in the league last year, lest we forget) MUST get as much good young talent and see what/who rises to the top. Worst case is that they end up moving someone.


I'm not saying that's a bad problem at all to have. And I know most young players don't pan out, but Roy will atleast be a decent player in this league, Jack did just as good as Blake on 1 leg as a rookie. And Webster? He works way to hard not to pan out. 

Having too much talent isn't a bad thing. I know that.


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

Did it occur to some Blazers fans that the new management might be trying to develop the talent and make a legitmate push to the playoffs. Ya'll should stop thinking Oden and look at Al Horford, the guy has maddening skills and for whatever reason, is a top-20 pick on NBAdraft.net lol.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sixerfanforlife said:


> Did it occur to some Blazers fans that the new management might be trying to develop the talent and make a legitmate push to the playoffs. Ya'll should stop thinking Oden and look at Al Horford, the guy has maddening skills and for whatever reason, is a top-20 pick on NBAdraft.net lol.


Um. Yeah.

Ed O.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Hold down in case of injuries????? You do realize that Magloire is a lot better than any center we have had on our team since Sabas left right?


Two points: 

#1 - Magloire is arguably the best center on the team, but not by that much. Przybilla is a better team defender - in terms of rotating to the weak side, etc., but Magloire is better on offense. They're both good man-to-man defenders. 

#2 - The Blazers are interested in building toward the future. Since Magloire is in the last year of his contract, I'll need to hear something from Magloire that's pretty darn convincing about his future intentions to stay in Portland before I'd believe the Blazers would give significant playing time during a rebuilding year to a guy likely to depart. 

But, as I said, Magloire gives the Blazers a guy with experience who can do a solid job at either frontcourt position, should the need arise. 

For the record, I tend to agree that Magloire looks a lot like trade bait down the road, for the Blazers to use to get rid of Darius Miles.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I don't understand why everyone is so mad about Magloire wanting more playing time? Shouldn't players want to play? Would you rather have players who don't really care if they are playing and just show up to have the boss cut the check?


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Draco said:


> I don't understand why everyone is so mad about Magloire wanting more playing time? Shouldn't players want to play? Would you rather have players who don't really care if they are playing and just show up to have the boss cut the check?


:yes: Great post.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

deal falling through?

Probably not, however....


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

ABM said:


> deal falling through?
> 
> Probably not, however....



Trenton Hassell anyone???


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Trenton Hassell anyone???


Ouch! :laugh:

Call the caterers, quick!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

ABM said:


> Ouch! :laugh:
> 
> Call the caterers, quick!



This would be aweful.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> This would be aweful.



Did you notice on that board that were mentioning Skinner's (bad) knees. Considering the Bucks' history with him (them), it appears to be a legitimate concern.

However, why would they bring that up at the 11th hour? Too many irrate phone calls and/or e-mails from their fans? :laugh: 

That would eerily remind me of the SAR deal falling through with the Nets.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I doubt Barrett would mention it in his blog if there was any chance it was going to "fall thru".


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Appears that we can rest at ease again. This was just posted on that baord...



> The Trail Blazers will hold a noon Monday news conference to announce a three-for-one trade for 6-11 Jamaal Magloire.
> 
> Portland, otherwise facing a crowded roster and logjam at point guard again, is trading point guard Steve Blake and big men Brian Skinner and Ha Seung-Jin to Milwaukee for Magloire.
> 
> ...


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

B_&_B said:


> I doubt Barrett would mention it in his blog if there was any chance it was going to "fall thru".


Given that this is a franchise that held a press conference to announce the signing of Trenton Hassell...only to end up with egg on their faces, I think I'll hold out on the confetti until the announcement on the trade is official.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

There seem to be a lot of people forgetting Spanish Chocolate is on the team at PG now too. Maybe management has a little more confidence in his playing ability, and considered that when making the trade. 

I see this trade as good for the Bucks because they wanted Bogut to get more playing time, and now they have another point guard for depth. Ha could be cut at any time and Skinner is a guy who won't complain for small minutes off the bench.

For the Blazers, it gives them another piece, more depth, and a much cheaper alternative to Theo Ratliff. Any time you can trade 1 Journeyman/2 bench warmers for a player like Magloire you pull the trigger.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> There seem to be a lot of people forgetting Spanish Chocolate is on the team at PG now too. Maybe management has a little more confidence in his playing ability, and considered that when making the trade.
> 
> I see this trade as good for the Bucks because they wanted Bogut to get more playing time, and now they have another point guard for depth. Ha could be cut at any time and Skinner is a guy who won't complain for small minutes off the bench.
> 
> For the Blazers, it gives them another piece, more depth, and a much cheaper alternative to Theo Ratliff. Any time you can trade 1 Journeyman/2 bench warmers for a player like Magloire you pull the trigger.


Agreed. I could see him starting over Jack in 3-5 years. It'll take some time, though.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> Given that this is a franchise that held a press conference to announce the signing of Trenton Hassell...only to end up with egg on their faces, I think I'll hold out on the confetti until the announcement on the trade is official.


As I've said before, the Hassell press conference was held because the MEDIA requested it. The Trail Blazers wanted to wait until it was official, but many members of the media asked for a chance to speak with Hassell since he was in town to sign the offer sheet. The Trail Blazers granted that request, and the same members of the media then bashed the team for doing so when the T-Wolves matched the offer.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

B_&_B said:


> As I've said before, the Hassell press conference was held because the MEDIA requested it. The Trail Blazers wanted to wait until it was official, but many members of the media asked for a chance to speak with Hassell since he was in town to sign the offer sheet. The Trail Blazers granted that request, and the same members of the media then bashed the team for doing so when the T-Wolves matched the offer.


That's a LAME excuse.

Either the media calls press conferences, or the Blazers do.

Might it be inconsistent for the same media members that asked for the press conference to now mock the Blazers for throwing it? Sure.

But did anyone on this board call for it? Of course not.

The Blazers made themselves look ridiculous. I'm sure they've learned from it... although I must confess that I don't always learn from making myself look ridiculous, so maybe not 

Ed O.


----------

