# Preferred Magloire trade?



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Which one of these deals would you guys like more then the other for Big Cat?

Harrison and Jackson from Indiana

or

Jefferies and Daniels from Washington?


----------



## MRedd22 (Jun 10, 2006)

XMATTHEWX said:


> Which one of these deals would you guys like more then the other for Big Cat?
> 
> Harrison and Jackson from Indiana
> 
> ...



Washington


----------



## bigdbucks (Jun 7, 2002)

I thought I also read in that article that Danny Granger could be of some interest. If its Granger instead of Stephen Jackson I'd go with Indiana. Otherwise i'd like to see Jared Jeffries and Antonio Daniels for Magloire and something.

Jeffries is a tall pretty decent defender. I thought he did OK on LeBron in the playoffs. My only problem with our starting team is our defense. NONE of our players are really good defenders. From my perspective on a 1-10 scale with 10 being Ben Wallace and a the Bucks rank up like this Mo-4, Redd-3, Simmons 5, Villanueva-5, Bogut-5. Nobody is exceptional. Our second teamers all are better defensive players than our starters IMO.

Mo/Daniels
Redd/Bell
Simmons/Jeffries/Noel
Villanueva/Smith
Bogut/Gadz


----------



## MRedd22 (Jun 10, 2006)

bigdbucks said:


> I thought I also read in that article that Danny Granger could be of some interest. If its Granger instead of Stephen Jackson I'd go with Indiana. Otherwise i'd like to see Jared Jeffries and Antonio Daniels for Magloire and something.
> 
> Jeffries is a tall pretty decent defender. I thought he did OK on LeBron in the playoffs. My only problem with our starting team is our defense. NONE of our players are really good defenders. From my perspective on a 1-10 scale with 10 being Ben Wallace and a the Bucks rank up like this Mo-4, Redd-3, Simmons 5, Villanueva-5, Bogut-5. Nobody is exceptional. Our second teamers all are better defensive players than our starters IMO.
> 
> ...




Granger involved is a diffrent story


----------



## naibsel (Dec 21, 2005)

washington trade definately


----------



## absolutebest (Jun 10, 2002)

MRedd22 said:


> Granger involved is a diffrent story


Granger is basically untouchable. It would either be Jackson and Harrison or Harrison and Tinsley. And Jeffries is a RFA, so that hurts Washington's chances a bit.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=461391 - mentions the possible trade with Washington involving Antonio Daniels. It be nice if Indiana would trade Granger, but that ain't happening.


----------



## ChadWick (Jun 26, 2006)

Harrison and Jackson-Indiana


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Both these deals seem pretty weak. Magloire must be worth more than that.


----------



## Waukee (Jul 14, 2006)

I would like to add Harrison and Jackson but I don't think Indiana can afford to lose those guys. I believe they just extended Harrison's contract as well.


----------



## PaCeRhOLiC (May 22, 2005)

Waukee said:


> I would like to add Harrison and Jackson but I don't think Indiana can afford to lose those guys. I believe they just extended Harrison's contract as well.



Yeah Harrison like Granger is going nowhere, Jackson though I think is gone which I hate because I want him to stay, but either way I hope, and doubt that we're still pursuing Magloire.

Welcome to our board btw Waukee... :cheers:


----------



## Waukee (Jul 14, 2006)

PaCeRhOLiC said:


> Yeah Harrison like Granger is going nowhere, Jackson though I think is gone which I hate because I want him to stay, but either way I hope, and doubt that we're still pursuing Magloire.
> 
> Welcome to our board btw Waukee... :cheers:


 Thanks for the welcome, why are you guys looking to get rid of Stephen Jackson?


----------



## PaCeRhOLiC (May 22, 2005)

Waukee said:


> Thanks for the welcome, why are you guys looking to get rid of Stephen Jackson?



Well since we have added Daniels, and have way too many guards, I would think that he'd be involved in a package for us getting a big since his value is somewhat decent...

I hate this move because I love Jax, and he's more durable than Energizer, but unfortunetly I'm almost positive that his days as a Pacer are numbered, it's a real shame, and I'm still hoping that we get rid of other people (Jones, Tinsley, Sarunas) instead of him.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

Work a three team move involving BOTH Indy and Washington...

Indiana send Tinsley with a 2nd rounder to Milwaukee and Sarunas to Washington;
Washington send Jeffries to Milwaukee and Brendan Haywood to Indiana;
Milwaukee send Magloire to Bucks and Joe Smith to Indiana;


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Waukee said:


> Thanks for the welcome, why are you guys looking to get rid of Stephen Jackson?


1. We have too many guards
2. We have too many forwards
3. Jackson is a headcase
4. Jackson threw a punch at JO
5. Jackson is streaky
6. Jackson takes any shot he can
7. When he doesn't feel like it, he doesn't play defense


----------



## Auggie (Mar 7, 2004)

Zuca said:


> Work a three team move involving BOTH Indy and Washington...
> 
> Indiana send Tinsley with a 2nd rounder to Milwaukee and Sarunas to Washington;
> Washington send Jeffries to Milwaukee and Brendan Haywood to Indiana;
> Milwaukee send Magloire to Bucks and Joe Smith to Indiana;


we dont get anything out of that trade...

sjax is the player i like the least on our team so i'll happily part with him, but harrison no. 



> Both these deals seem pretty weak. Magloire must be worth more than that.


well milwaukee got him for desmon mason. and, since hes publicly said that he wants out, the offers are gonna be low


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

Auggie said:


> we dont get anything out of that trade...
> 
> sjax is the player i like the least on our team so i'll happily part with him, but harrison no.


I didn't include Harrison or even SJax in this Milwaukee-Washington-Indiana trade idea... And if you were talking about Haywood, you're getting someone who is at least a useful big man, along with a veteran PF with an expiring contract (Joe Smith)


----------

