Another Maggette trade LAC-ORL
Another Maggette trade LAC-ORL
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,514
- And1: 24
- Joined: Jan 03, 2002
- Location: on the bandwagon
Another Maggette trade LAC-ORL
Magic fan here, this is a trade idea I posted on our board. I'm interested to see what the Clipper input is.
It needs some fleshing out but the basic idea is:
Hedo Turkoglu, JJ Redick, pick or fill in for a sign and trade of Maggette and Livingston.
This is partially dependent on the Clippers picking a PG in the up-coming draft.
It needs some fleshing out but the basic idea is:
Hedo Turkoglu, JJ Redick, pick or fill in for a sign and trade of Maggette and Livingston.
This is partially dependent on the Clippers picking a PG in the up-coming draft.

- JJ LoDuca
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,834
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 18, 2007
- Location: SoCal
I'm with Clipper Eric on this one. I'm not a big fan of this trade as it is because it leaves us incredibly thin at the PG spot, and we can't put all our eggs in the draft. I have a feeling Livingston is gonna come back hot, and he & Maggs worth together will be a touch more than what the Magic are offering here.
I do like the idea of a Maggette + filler trade though. Not a big fan of JJ Redick-- first he steals my name and then soils it by floundering in the pros, jeez-- but the Turkoglu incentive is enough to pull the trigger on a slightly modified trade.
I do like the idea of a Maggette + filler trade though. Not a big fan of JJ Redick-- first he steals my name and then soils it by floundering in the pros, jeez-- but the Turkoglu incentive is enough to pull the trigger on a slightly modified trade.
-Ms. JJ
- ClipperEric
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,065
- And1: 5
- Joined: Jan 03, 2008
- Location: Long Beach
loflin3hree5ive wrote:I'd do Maggette for Turkoglu for I doubt Orlando would do that. They need to trade Turk for a true power forward and move Lewis back to the 3 spot.
I don't see why Orlando wants Maggette at all. He's redundant to Rashard.
I think what they need most is better guard play. Jameer is pretty good but outside of that its pretty weak. Why not Turk + ??? for TJ or Hinrich?
They need a PF too.
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,514
- And1: 24
- Joined: Jan 03, 2002
- Location: on the bandwagon
ClipperEric wrote:No Livingston included. We'll take Turkoglu and ??? for Maggette though. Not sure if you'd be willing to include your #22 pick.
Maybe Turkoglu/Redick for Maggette/Knight.
Well, I guess the trade is also dependent on Maggette wanting to come back home and being willing to take the MLE over 5 years. (Security, playoffs and his home state.)
Livingston makes up for us losing our lead playmaker and can play alongside Nelson when we want to play small, depending on him being healthy of course, which is a risk.
We may have a PF or two coming back in Battie and possibly Fran Zasquez (although there is no way you can rely on him) or through the draft, which allows Lewis to move back to SF, with Maggette providing a slasher option at SG.

-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 7,342
- And1: 67
- Joined: Aug 27, 2003
- Location: Clipperland
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,514
- And1: 24
- Joined: Jan 03, 2002
- Location: on the bandwagon
loflin3hree5ive wrote:You guys can pay Maggette more than the MLE if it's a sign and trade.
Yes, but he would have to be willing to come for the MLE before we would have the leverage to create a sign and trade.

I think, also, once that situation is created (ie, Maggette sold on the idea of signing) then it makes more sense to centre the deal around him but also include Turkoglu as compensation to the Clippers and Livingston to off-set the loss of playmaking for the Magic.

-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 26,910
- And1: 5,728
- Joined: Dec 18, 2005
-
On the plus side we would get a 6'10" player than can shoot the 3 and handle the ball. I'd love to have Hedo on the Clippers. Another pick in the draft (which would have to be agreed upon beforehand) could give us a little bit more depth. Redick would also give us another shooter.
Downside (right now) once again is the pg situation. I mean the draft would have passed before this deal were to even occur, so we would have a clear picture of our pg situation before the deal actually could go down. Unless the draft went very well and solved our point problems, I couldn't see us giving up Livingston as Knight is the only other point signed for next season.
Downside (right now) once again is the pg situation. I mean the draft would have passed before this deal were to even occur, so we would have a clear picture of our pg situation before the deal actually could go down. Unless the draft went very well and solved our point problems, I couldn't see us giving up Livingston as Knight is the only other point signed for next season.
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,676
- And1: 24
- Joined: Sep 03, 2006
-
- Junior
- Posts: 299
- And1: 25
- Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Not troling your board but we been talking about Brand.
Just wornding if you guys would consider it.
[Crash] G Wallace and Matt Carroll and a 2009 first.
Wallace gives you 20ppg, Carroll gives you that out side shooting. Both great contracts for the next five years. and a 2009 first rounder.
We have no need for a J Rich and a Wallace both are good threes.
Then you could either draft a nice four with your pick this year and let Corry go . Or be far enough under the cap to sign like a Jamison.
You guys thoughts
Just wornding if you guys would consider it.
[Crash] G Wallace and Matt Carroll and a 2009 first.
Wallace gives you 20ppg, Carroll gives you that out side shooting. Both great contracts for the next five years. and a 2009 first rounder.
We have no need for a J Rich and a Wallace both are good threes.
Then you could either draft a nice four with your pick this year and let Corry go . Or be far enough under the cap to sign like a Jamison.
You guys thoughts
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 7,342
- And1: 67
- Joined: Aug 27, 2003
- Location: Clipperland
- mj_shoefanatic
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,113
- And1: 104
- Joined: Dec 23, 2007
- Location: Lob Angeles
-
Return to Los Angeles Clippers