04/19/24
October 22, 2002
Should TWolves trade Kevin Garnett?:
This writer thinks so. I'm not so sure. Their history of being knocked out in the first round has been well documented. They had draft picks revoked due to the Joe Smith fiasco. They can't seem to yield a continually healthy team. They have problems attracting top talent to Minnesota.
That said, if trading KG is the only way, what is the best deal? What team could come up with enough contract dollars to match his? What trade would make sense?
posted by jmevius to basketball at 04:00 PM - 12 comments
You trade Garnett cause his huge salary makes it difficult to field a team around him and still remain under the cap. Unfortunately, this issue is often conflated with the playoff problems... but I don't think those are Garnett's fault. Alas, his salary is insurmountable. Or you hold on to him till the contract expires, with an understanding that he'll take a reasonable pay cut. The article assumes Garnett won't be willing to take a reasonable salary. I think that's a bad assumption. Are other teams going to sink half their salary caps into him? Nope. So how does he command 25 million a season from the Timberwolves? He doesn't, and he knows it, and Kevin McHale knows it. So why not take 14 million from the Timberwolves? He's got a great attitude and seems to like Minnesota. I don't see why he wouldn't stay.
posted by Bryant at 06:05 PM on October 22, 2002
Ufez: FWIW, career numbers: G. Hill: 21.4PPG, 6.2APG, 7.9RPG KG: 18.9PPG, 4.1APG, 9.9RPG And the same total number of first round series wins. So... absent Grant's injury problems (which, admittedly, mean that KG will be in the Hall and Grant probably won't) a comparison is not at all unreasonable. If you say Grant hasn't had an impact at all, you obviously weren't paying much attention to the NBA when he was healthy.
posted by tieguy at 06:39 PM on October 22, 2002
If the decision is made to trade KG (which I think would be very difficult), where could he go? As a Mavs fan, I think the idea of a KG for Nash / Finley / LaFrentz deal is silly (but I would love to see Garnett and Nowitzki play together).
I don't think you could get equal value except for Shaq, but I doubt LA would return calls. What team has the firepower to pull off the deal? Where would you try to trade KG if it was you?
posted by jmevius at 08:58 PM on October 22, 2002
The Wolves turned down Sheed and Bonzi for Garnett - that's as good an offer as they were going to get!
posted by djacobs at 10:00 PM on October 22, 2002
The Wolves turned down Sheed and Bonzi for Garnett - that's as good an offer as they were going to get! Wow...how did Minnesota turn this one down? Can you imagine the influence McHale would have had on Rasheed? Trade Bonzi to get some real value to build around Sheed and Szczerbiak, and to split up the negative vibe from the two Blazers being together. Portland and Paul Allen can afford to pay the luxury tax and cover Garnett's salary. The problem is that KG works his balls off, is a great guy, and a pretty damn good player. You don't want to be the guy that trades him -- even if it is the right decision -- because the upside will take years to come and you'll be run out of town by then.
posted by smithers at 11:31 PM on October 22, 2002
I agree. It doesn't seem there are too many teams that could take KG on. Paul Allen's deep pockets might be one of three places that would be willing to dip that deep into the wallet.
Bonzi could have been traded for a good PG and they've got a good team.
posted by jmevius at 09:57 AM on October 23, 2002
Bonzi and Rasheed are the only untradable Blazers. Everyone else is expendable. I am glad the T-wolves *didn't* do that trade. We don't need a PG, we have 3 good ones.
posted by djacobs at 10:22 AM on October 23, 2002
Ufez: I agree with what you said, except I think it's clear that Wally stinks. If 10 of your teammates love you and 1 hates you, don't you think it's easier to trade the 1 than you and the 10?
posted by djacobs at 02:45 PM on October 23, 2002
Garnett is still very young. Most NBA players peak between 28-32 years old. Shaq didn't really become a complete player until very recently, as much as having Kobe around helps. One can only dream where the T-Wolves would be if Steph were still in Minnesota, combined with having Wally around.
posted by McBain at 10:13 AM on October 24, 2002
He's a threat in every phase of the game, except maybe driving to the basket. Unfortunately, that really limits his impact on a game in crunch time, according to the media. But, you don't trade him, you draft guys that will play for you in Minnesota, you sign quality mid-level free agents. You try to trade Wally, the Kelly Tripucka of the 21st century for a handful of players who can make you better (something along the lines of the Jalen Rose deal last year comes to mind). McBain is right, Garnett is a young veteran, and will probably step it up and play even better than he already does.
posted by pastepotpete at 10:26 AM on October 24, 2002
This was an interesting read, but I think this guy is dead in the water wrong. There's no way that the Wolves would (or should) trade Garnett. He's a franchise player, only 26 years old, and completely happy where he's playing. Why would you trade him? For his sake? So he can get a championship? He wants one, badly, but he wants it with Minnesota. Keep in mind, the West right now is probably stronge than any conference has been ever. Add to that the Laker dynasty (sigh) and it's not just internal problems in Minn. Personally, I think they should trade (cut-paste) Szczerbiak. For a number 2 player, he and Garnett don't play well enough together to earn a championship. It's not all Wally's fault, but in the interest of all parties, I think it'd be for the best if he was elsewhere. Oh, and Garnett for Nash, Finley, and LaFrentz? Doesn't that seem a bit lopsided? And even then, I don't think the Mavs would get it done. Finley carried them last year when Dirk and Nash weren't producing. I don't think Van Exel can do that on his own if Dirk and Garnett were to go cold. Najera's too much of a defensive player. I think they'd fail there as well. (sorry, last point). I also found the Garnett/Grant Hill comparison more than a bit disturbing as we have Garnett, who has produced well in the NBA, (and playoffs, despite failing to earn a series win). Hill was a highly touted college player who had a bunch of commercials for Sprite and McDonalds but who has yet to make an impact at all due to injuries. Maybe it's a shame, maybe not, but I'm guessing any impact that Hill would have made (with or without McGrady) is dwindling. Sadly, I think he's already past what would have been his prime. There's no comparison to be made there. Thanks for the link though, jmevius.