# What if Garnett's available?



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

What should the Knicks do if Garnett becomes available? Youth would certainly have to be sacrificed so would you all be willing to scrap the rebuilding movement and trade for him? Do you believe he has legit interest in NY and if so what would your proposed be to try and wrestle him to NY?


----------



## jdlhi (Apr 28, 2005)

marbury frye, curry, #1 for garnett and fillers


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

We have nothing to offer the Wolves as far as I'm concerned. Unless McHale feels sorry for us and sees us as a charity case.


----------



## mjm1 (Aug 22, 2005)

At the present time, the Timberwolves are actually the better run and built team. It would be illogical for Garnett to leave a bad situation, for one that is arguably worse. He wants to contend for a Championship this season, and the next. The Knicks are making the right moves, but are years away from championship contention.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

mjm1 said:


> At the present time, the Timberwolves are actually the better run and built team. It would be illogical for Garnett to leave a bad situation, for one that is arguably worse. He wants to contend for a Championship this season, and the next. The Knicks are making the right moves, but are years away from championship contention.


The Timberwolves may very well be in a better situation than the Knicks but not by much from a personnel standpoint. The key fact that we all have to realize is that the Wolves being in a slightly better situation than us means very little when you consider the fact we are in two drastically different conferences. The Wolves aren't projected to even make the playoffs but a team like the Knicks can easily do so with a dramatic move like that and even contend possibly. The "garbage" most of you guys refer to are experienced veterans who generally fit the profile of a "role player." While they are overpaid, this does not lessen the fact that these guys could contribute doing what they do best which could only be magnified by a superstar in Kevin Garnett and a hell of a no.2 player in Stephon Marbury; personally, I believe the supporting cast left to support that group would be no worse than the Miami Heat's who won the NBA title this year. This is why I believe it is not completely illogical to see Garnett in New York because I think we'd be very close to a title than most would think with him. Garnett has went on record stating his greatest regret is not being able to play alongside Marbury throughout his career. Deep down inside, I believe he recognizes the amazing accomplishments the two can accomplish since there games mesh so well together. I'll respond to why the Wolves would be interested in a deal with the Knicks in my post to Kitty, directly following this one.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Kitty said:


> We have nothing to offer the Wolves as far as I'm concerned. Unless McHale feels sorry for us and sees us as a charity case.



I beg to differ with that thought. Unlike most teams, I feel the Knicks are in prime position to land a player of Garnett's stature. You see, while our payroll is generally looked upon in a negative light, situations such as this one tend to put us ahead of the pack when we have to match dollars for large salary packages. Any deal involving Kevin Garnett will involve the Wolves looking to jettison all long term contracts which the team has several of. That's a given because if the team is forced into dealing Garnett there not going to do so to become a better team. You just don't move a player of Garnett's ability and expect to become better so it is likely they'll look to rebuild and assets that fit that vision in a deal. This means ridiculous trades that people praise as fair and advantageous for the Wolves like Troy Murphy and Jason Richardson are highly unlikely since both are owed ridiculous sums of money in the future and could not better there own teams situation let alone another's. The Knicks on the other hand could without a doubt satisfy the Wolves need to rebuild by dealing several expiring or near contracts, along with our collection of young players and draft picks. The Wolves have already started to gather up talented young players (McCants and Brandon Foye) so there ahead of the process and would have it accelerated with such a move. When you look at it in this light, rebuilding would not be such a bad idea for them because they can do so and look to win in the near future rather than waiting to collect enough young talent to do so.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

jdlhi said:


> marbury frye, curry, #1 for garnett and fillers


Why would the Timberwolves deal for Marbury when moving one of the best players in the league?
If they do move Garnett, I doubt the team would be willing to add win now players because there skill would be wasted and along with that skill is attached a big dollar contract. I think there first objective when moving Garnett is to collect as many young players as possible to accelerate the rebuilding process in order to keep their fan base intact while also reducing there payroll in order to make some sort of profit. Marbury does not fit that objective and I would not want to include such a talented player in a deal anyway since he and Garnett would be the centerpieces of the Knicks.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

If Garnett does become available, I'd look to include a package of Jalen Rose (expirer), Maurice Taylor (expirer), Channing Frye (talent), Quentin Richardson, Jerome James, Nate Robinson (talent), Mardy Collins or Ronaldo Balkman and 2 future first round picks for Kevin Garnett, Trenton Hassell, Troy Hudson and Marko Jaric. I think this could get the job done because it accomplishes two task's a rebuilding team aspires to, financial flexibility, proven young commodities and draft picks. This would allow them to lower there payroll and make some sort of profit for a product that will have bumps ahead. If this deal is available, I make it regardless of the young talent we'd have to give up. As the Heat have shown, if a title is feasible you always have to go for it because there will always be chances in the future to retool for another run.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

If Garnetts available this season: Stephon, Eddy, Maurice, first round pick '07-'08, 2 second round picks '06-'07, '07-'08 for Garnett, Hudson, Hassell.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> If Garnetts available this season: Stephon, Eddy, Maurice, first round pick '07-'08, 2 second round picks '06-'07, '07-'08 for Garnett, Hudson, Hassell.


Yeah the wolves would go for that.....


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

To even think about KG coming here is a pipe dream.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Kitty said:


> To even think about KG coming here is a pipe dream.


I'd like some reasoning to get some insight on that. As of right now, I don't see any reason why not. What's more, stars play a bigger role than ever deciding what distination they want to go to. I think it's clear Garnett would love a fresh start in New York next to Marbury, with whom he could realize his dream to be a contender.

Just some articles that suggest the contrary and support Garnett likely being moving:
http://timberwolves.realgm.com/articles/78/20060815/free_kg/
http://www.realgm.com/src_feature_article/110/20060815/can_the_wolves_satisfy_garnetts_demands/


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

I think another important question would be, who else do know of available on the market that can hit into what we'd do together with Garnett and Marbury?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Gotham2krazy said:


> If Garnetts available this season: Stephon, Eddy, Maurice, first round pick '07-'08, 2 second round picks '06-'07, '07-'08 for Garnett, Hudson, Hassell.


I still don't understand people's rationale behind moving Marbury. Marbury is easily a better player and PG than Francis has or ever will be. He looks to distribute the ball more, he's more refined and definately a more skilled player. Right now, I'm not looking to move Marbury if I don't have to and I believe in any Garnett trade, it is not necessary to move Marbury. Besides, they'll still likely have Foye and James not including the PG's they'd recieve in the deal or as last minute walk on's. No need to add to a position already strong and no need to dedicate that much money to a player when your not going to or looking to do anything in the win column.


Also, I'm definately not looking to move Curry if we deal for Garnett. Their games are perfect meshes for one another. Garnett's strength comes with his face up game and ability to pass the ball. With the kind of attention he'd create down low, Curry could more the likely enjoy the best statistical year of his career. Vice-versa, because Curry's low post game also creates space if he learns how to pass out of pressure or a double. Garnett being in the fold also takes the rebounding and defensive pressure off of Curry seeing that Garnett does both and does so well.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> To even think about KG coming here is a pipe dream.


Yes cause we have nothing they want or will take for KG.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Wrong, you have the only thing of value to them. The Knicks are the only team that can give them what they are TRULY going to want.....*cap relief* . Remember, KG has a player option after this season and NY is one of the few teams that would/could give him another 5 years/$100 million deal.

Jalen Rose, Maurice Taylor, Malik Rose, Channing Frye, Mardy Collins, future 1st rounder

for

KG, Mark Blount, Troy Hudson, Marco Jaric, Mark Madsen

PG Marbury, Francis, Robinson, Hudson*
SG Crawford, Q, Jaric
SF Jeffries, Balkman
PF KG, Lee, Madsen
C Curry, Blount, James


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Dolan's wallet=as of right now is close. If he opens up his wallet, I would be shocked. He is tired of giving other teams cap relief, and adding salary just to be out of the playoffs year after year. This trade all balls down to the owner, not Isiah, not McHale, and not KG.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Wrong, you have the only thing of value to them. The Knicks are the only team that can give them what they are TRULY going to want.....cap relief . Remember, KG has a player option after this season and NY is one of the few teams that would/could give him another 5 years/$100 million deal.
> 
> Jalen Rose, Maurice Taylor, Malik Rose, Channing Frye, Mardy Collins, future 1st rounder
> 
> ...


They would not want that type of down grade in talent.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Kitty said:


> Dolan's wallet=as of right now is close. If he opens up his wallet, I would be shocked. He is tired of giving other teams cap relief, and adding salary just to be out of the playoffs year after year. This trade all balls down to the owner, not Isiah, not McHale, and not KG.


Call me stupid but somehow I think that Dolan's willing to make an exception for a package including Kevin Garnett. After all, superstars are hardly guys that I consider to be taken so lightly. Besides, weren't we suppose to be excersing fiscal responsibility when we let Jackie Butler walk for $7 million only to later sign Jared Jefferies for $30 million? Again, Dolan would make the exception especially when you consider the money a guy like Garnett could pump into the franchise.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> They would not want that type of down grade in talent.


Funny thing is that any deal involving a superstar like Kevin Garnett would be a down grade in talent. The fact of the matter is no team could provide the Wolves with a package good enough to eclipse the contributions and impact KG makes as a player. If he demands a trade which he said he would in the event they are not in contention (which is very likely), they have no choice but to blow the team up and import young players to build for a better tommorrow. I think we would be without a doubt in place to land Kevin if this situation plays out the way it likely will.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> Yes cause we have nothing they want or will take for KG.


Nothing? Take a good look at the man whose picture you have up (Channing Frye) because that is the man that definately interest the Wolves and have the package centered around. All of you are so high on him to claim that he's going to be a perennial all-star so why would it be so hard to envision him being a key in the trade? Of course he wouldn't be enough but a guy of his abilities would certainly peak the Wolves interest because of that potential and the fact that most teams with high caliber big men would not bother dealing them since they would not be in a position to make much use of KG's services even if they found a way to match his contract as well as others dollar for dollar. Hopefully the Wolves suck so Garnett demands a trade.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Call me stupid but somehow I think that Dolan's willing to make an exception for a package including Kevin Garnett. After all, superstars are hardly guys that I consider to be taken so lightly. Besides, weren't we suppose to be excersing fiscal responsibility when we let Jackie Butler walk for $7 million only to later sign Jared Jefferies for $30 million? Again, Dolan would make the exception especially when you consider the money a guy like Garnett could pump into the franchise.


Dolan: Hmm Jackie Butler or Jared Jefferies? I have Curry at 70 million, I have Jerome James at 30 million, so I'm going to pay luxary tax for a *3rd string center*..hmmmm I rather get someone who can play some D in Jefferies and play more than 1 position if I'm going to shell at that much cash, and he has playoff experience yes that's a good idea. Sign him Zeke. 
:thinking: 



> While the Sixers vied for a sign-and-trade for Jeffries, Philly weeks ago approached the Knicks, asking Thomas to make an offer for rejuvenated Chris Webber. *A source said Thomas has been discouraged by Dolan to add significantly to the payroll after the Jeffries' splurge ($30 million, $30M luxury tax).* Hence, his offer was weak - Richardson ($32M, uninsured), Maurice Taylor's expiring pact and Malik Rose in one scenario for Webber and another player, a package that would not increase the Knick payroll. Obviously, the Sixers passed. But watch out at the trade deadline if the Knicks are in contention and Dolan reopens the vault.


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/steph__isiah_will_thrive_amid_heat_knicks_marc_berman.htm


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Kitty said:


> Dolan: Hmm Jackie Butler or Jared Jefferies? I have Curry at 70 million, I have Jerome James at 30 million, so I'm going to pay luxary tax for a *3rd string center*..hmmmm I rather get someone who can play some D in Jefferies and play more than 1 position if I'm going to shell at that much cash, and he has playoff experience yes that's a good idea. Sign him Zeke.
> :thinking:
> 
> 
> ...



The funny thing is that the Knicks already had 3 SF's that were versatile in Quentin Richardson, Jalen Rose and Qyntel Woods not to mention David Lee, Ronaldo Balkman or a Mardy Collins who I feel could fill that position adequately. Do we improve with Jared Jefferies? Definately but I think Jackie Butler backing up Jerome James is an improvement in itself. Dolan easily makes the deal for any package involving Garnett because unlike a Jared Jefferies (whose signing I support), Garnett puts fans in the seats and moves merchandise. More than that, Garnett puts you damn close to a title.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Forget about that....*

Any trade for Garnett that involves Frye and multiple 1st rounders is insane. We would still be less than a title contender and we would have no picks, expiring contracts, or trade assets to build again. The team would be built on the backs of a 30 year-old stud with above average wear and tear and a self-proclaimed 30 year old star with high mileage legs. Besides the fact that those two playing together means nothing, really, if either went down, the team sinks and has no pick as a reward.

If Garnett moves, his hometown has the best chance of landing him. Extra picks, deep talented youth, and the advantage of being home. Bulls win this one.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Forget about that....*



alphadog said:


> Any trade for Garnett that involves Frye and multiple 1st rounders is insane. We would still be less than a title contender and we would have no picks, expiring contracts, or trade assets to build again. The team would be built on the backs of a 30 year-old stud with above average wear and tear and a self-proclaimed 30 year old star with high mileage legs. Besides the fact that those two playing together means nothing, really, if either went down, the team sinks and has no pick as a reward.
> 
> If Garnett moves, his hometown has the best chance of landing him. Extra picks, deep talented youth, and the advantage of being home. Bulls win this one.


unless they trade ben wallace and pj brown they really cant get him , leaving them with absolutely no interior at all, because every1 on their team seems to be on their rookie deal. ...and to perfectly honest garnett is not worth what he used to be.

Da Kid isn't a kid anymore he's 30, and he wasn't on the nba 1st or 2nd team last year...he is losing that enthusiasm that made him special and there are rumblings of knee trouble.

not that he still isn't great player but just like people talk about how the knicks players value diminishes due to high slaries and low wins ...thats what garnett has been the last couple of seasons , if next year goes bad that makes 3 years ...how high should his value be then?

the knicks have the depth , big names and multiple high salaries to make a deal fair on both sides...plus they have a high amount in ending deals giving a small market team a new shot with a roster that isn't expensive ...the bulls do not have this at all.

the knicks are still the frontrunner. and under no circumstances should they ever include frye or even curry in any deal.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Forget about that....*



alphadog said:


> Any trade for Garnett that involves Frye and multiple 1st rounders is insane. We would still be less than a title contender and we would have no picks, expiring contracts, or trade assets to build again. The team would be built on the backs of a 30 year-old stud with above average wear and tear and a self-proclaimed 30 year old star with high mileage legs. Besides the fact that those two playing together means nothing, really, if either went down, the team sinks and has no pick as a reward.
> 
> If Garnett moves, his hometown has the best chance of landing him. Extra picks, deep talented youth, and the advantage of being home. Bulls win this one.



Could you lay off strong words like "insane" when the name of a superstar like Kevin Garnett is involved? If we have any package capable of landing a player of his caliber, you take the chance on him because he puts your closer to the true goal of all 30 teams in the league and that is to contend. The Heat took the chance of breaking up a young up and coming team to acquire Shaq and it payed off. The reality of the situation is that you'll have plenty of young up and coming team's in the future when it comes time to rebuild but rarely have a championship caliber team. This is a risk I'm willing to take. Of course we would not likely win the title this immediate year but as the Heat have shown, it's feasible to acquire the players necessary to build around that core. The players they acquired this year to fufill that quest is no better than the quality of players we currently have on this roster. The same things that were said of the Antawn Walkers' and Jason Williams' being "poor defenders", "me first players," and "losers," have been said about quite a few players on our team. Lesson of the story, the combination of two stars tend to make the most of any contribution their supporting cast makes. One thing is for sure, no matter how flawed and overpaid people believe our roster to be, our guys can play and Marbury and Garnett will make the most of their efforts now and in the future.


It's funny though that somehow Garnett and Marbury are on the verge of breaking down in your opinion when they've maintained very healthy career's. Check out NBA.com to see just how healthy they've been. If you have a tough time locating that information, I'll certainly show it to you. When you consider the fact that both now could share the burden of the team's responsibilities, the stress on there body should be lessened especially by an already deep and capable supporting cast. By next year this time if Garnett's already a Knick, we could look to make the final adjustments for an effective title run as the Heat did when no one believed there supporting cast good enough to land quality players.

P.S., as Grinch stated earlier, the Bulls are not in a better situation to land Garnett than us. Reread his post regarding that topic because I felt it was accurate and conveyed a similar belief as mine.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Forget about that....*



TwinkieFoot said:


> P.S., as Grinch stated earlier, the Bulls are not in a better situation to land Garnett than us. Reread his post regarding that topic because I felt it was accurate and conveyed a similar belief as mine.


You may think it's accurate but that doesn't mean it's true. It's all about opinions and if someone disagrees then it's nothing you can do. You agree to disagree. In this case, I wouldn't waste my time thinking Garnett is coming here, every time you get your hopes up as a Knick fan you always get your heart broken.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Forget about that....*



Da Grinch said:


> ...Da Kid isn't a kid anymore he's 30, and he wasn't on the nba 1st or 2nd team last year...he is losing that enthusiasm that made him special and there are rumblings of knee trouble.
> 
> not that he still isn't great player but just like people talk about how the knicks players value diminishes due to high slaries and low wins ...thats what garnett has been the last couple of seasons , if next year goes bad that makes 3 years ...how high should his value be then?...


Regardless of whether Garnett was not on the first or second All-NBA Team last year, he still averaged 22ppg, 13rpg and 4apg that was quite similar to the 24ppg, 14rpg and 5apg he had during his MVP 2003-2004 season. His hustle and enthusiasm is not as strong as it once was when he was younger but that generally erodes with age. That does not mean that the overall effectiveness of the player decreases because often times that enthusiasm is replaced with the skill and know how of how to get the most of your minutes. To be honest though, I don't think Garnett's enthusiasm might be fading so much as his frustration with playing so hard with littles results in the win column. From the reports I've been hearing, both Garnett and Marbury seem infatuated with "what could have been" had they stayed together. Both have claimed they want to reunite most likely because the two feel they could accomplish great thing with one another. Why else cry about spilled milk? This is why I believe the two could find the strength to recapture and rekindle their confidence, enthusiam, and love for the game because it seems as though they honestly believe in the potential of it each. This is especially why I'd be willing to sacrifice just about anyone to bring both Marbury and Garnett together. I don't think anyone on this roster is that good for us not to take a garaunteed shot at a title run which is very realistic. The "top tier teams" in the East are no longer the big bad meanies most thought them to be. While I believe the Pistons have not regressed much by losing Wallace since his role in the system was limited to begin with, they no longer scare teams. The Heat being a veteran team have probably lost alot of passion winning a title and making already accomplished players feel complete. The Pacers are better than they were last year but that does not mean injuries will not play a role in there effectiveness all year as it has every year thus far. So I got to ask the question, WHO in this league is that much of a lock to win the title that we shouldn't take a chance on this? The league in general is wide open and I'd be willing to take the chance on taking full advantage of the situation.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Forget about that....*



Kitty said:


> You may think it's accurate but that doesn't mean it's true. It's all about opinions and if someone disagrees then it's nothing you can do. You agree to disagree. In this case, I wouldn't waste my time thinking Garnett is coming here, every time you get your hopes up as a Knick fan you always get your heart broken.



While opinion's are just opinion's, some hold more weight than other's if it's actually defended with facts. In that case, these opinion's are validated in a sense which is why I make every attempt in my arguments to include as much reasoning based on facts. If someone disagrees, then it's their own prerogative but do so if there's some ground to doing so. Don't give me some garbage and then support it with just "because it does." I cannot respect something like that because I essentially feel that's a waste of time.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Forget about that....*



TwinkieFoot said:


> While opinion's are just opinion's, some hold more weight than other's if it's actually defended with facts. In that case, these opinion's are validated in a sense which is why I make every attempt in my arguments to include as much reasoning based on facts. If someone disagrees, then it's their own prerogative but do so if there's some ground to doing so. Don't give me some garbage and then support it with just "because it does." I cannot respect something like that because I essentially feel that's a waste of time.


I'm still trying to see how facts are involved in this conversation. How do we know the Bulls can't make a great offer? Why are we so quick to eliminate the Bulls or any other team in their quest to grab KG? Where are those facts that state we are going to get them? No one knows until it happens so right now we are all "speculating" and aren't providing facts because their aren't any to provide. Once again, it's "your opinion" on whether a not someone's posts holds more weight than others. It's a message board, not everyone will agree with you, sometimes you have to learn to deal with it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Forget about that....*



TwinkieFoot said:


> Regardless of whether Garnett was not on the first or second All-NBA Team last year, he still averaged 22ppg, 13rpg and 4apg that was quite similar to the 24ppg, 14rpg and 5apg he had during his MVP 2003-2004 season. His hustle and enthusiasm is not as strong as it once was when he was younger but that generally erodes with age. That does not mean that the overall effectiveness of the player decreases because often times that enthusiasm is replaced with the skill and know how of how to get the most of your minutes. To be honest though, I don't think Garnett's enthusiasm might be fading so much as his frustration with playing so hard with littles results in the win column. From the reports I've been hearing, both Garnett and Marbury seem infatuated with "what could have been" had they stayed together. Both have claimed they want to reunite most likely because the two feel they could accomplish great thing with one another. Why else cry about spilled milk? This is why I believe the two could find the strength to recapture and rekindle their confidence, enthusiam, and love for the game because it seems as though they honestly believe in the potential of it each. This is especially why I'd be willing to sacrifice just about anyone to bring both Marbury and Garnett together. I don't think anyone on this roster is that good for us not to take a garaunteed shot at a title run which is very realistic. The "top tier teams" in the East are no longer the big bad meanies most thought them to be. While I believe the Pistons have not regressed much by losing Wallace since his role in the system was limited to begin with, they no longer scare teams. The Heat being a veteran team have probably lost alot of passion winning a title and making already accomplished players feel complete. The Pacers are better than they were last year but that does not mean injuries will not play a role in there effectiveness all year as it has every year thus far. So I got to ask the question, WHO in this league is that much of a lock to win the title that we shouldn't take a chance on this? The league in general is wide open and I'd be willing to take the chance on taking full advantage of the situation.


i never said the knicks shouldn't take a chance , but only if the price is right , if he cost frye i would then say no , he isn't worth frye , he is a better player now but in 5 years he will not be and maybe significantly sooner .

i would give them ending deals and a couple of young guys maybe a guy like francis

something like francis , jalen, mo t, david lee and nate robinson for garnett and some contracts they dont want while they start new .

it would allow the wolves to start fresh with some young talent and shave payroll, and keeping a star type player for a couple years to hold things together a bit...but if foye is the real deal right away they may not even want francis.

that the best any team really offer them a fresh start everything else is a pennies on the dollar starand they will still not be any good. the best deals were like rasheed and a #1 for garnett ...that would have been #30 last season , plus rasheed .

that would not make them a good team garnett is better the pick is not a difference maker, they will have to go for a fresh start. if garnett forces their hand.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Forget about that....*



Kitty said:


> I'm still trying to see how facts are involved in this conversation. How do we know the Bulls can't make a great offer? Why are we so quick to eliminate the Bulls or any other team in their quest to grab KG? Where are those facts that state we are going to get them? No one knows until it happens so right now we are all "speculating" and aren't providing facts because their aren't any to provide. Once again, it's "your opinion" on whether a not someone's posts holds more weight than others. It's a message board, not everyone will agree with you, sometimes you have to learn to deal with it.


In this situation, it's reasoning backed up by facts. The Bulls could try and scrap together a deal to acquire Garnett but I don't believe for a second if Garnett is moved that he will be moved by himself. Why? Because for months, we've been hearing the names of Marko Jaric, Troy Hudson and to a lesser extent Mark Madsen and Trenton Hassell. All of these players have long term contracts that we can infer that management feel's they do not deserve. They haven't been moved yet because those contracts are unattractive, resulting in that same contract being swapped for one equally as bad. What progress is made from doing that? Although those players proved to be solid players with their former respective teams, they were brought in because the Wolves thought they would contribute to something much greater during the course of those contracts. As things go, the entire thing backfired with key players such as Sam Cassell and Laterall Sprewell aging and leaving the team. On a lottery team, which the Wolves are now, they have no real place. If Garnett does demand a trade which he said is possible, the Wolves will most likely try everything in their power to package most if not all of those contracts in a package to another team. If not, they get stuck with role players making big dollars throughout the course of 4-5 years, and prevent them from properly retooling with the young players a guy like Garnett would be traded for. Alot of money is invested in those players so you need to find a team not only with the ability to take on those contracts but exchange those contracts for other's that give the team greater financial flexibility. As much as this is a game about winning, it is also alot about business. The Wolves will have to cut the payroll as much as possible in order to make profit, the true goal of any business. Anyway, all this translates into the Knicks most likely being the best trade partner for the Wolves because we can give them that financial flexibility they want along with a few young players that were or should have been lottery picks.

So, rumors circulating about the Wolves trying to move those particular players because of their contracts. Fact. Long term contracts are unattractive amongst role players, making them hard to move. Fact. Garnett demanding a trade if the Wolves aren't in contention. Fact. Garnett wanting to play with Marbury again. Fact. Knicks ability to give the Wolves financial flexibility better than any team in the league. Fact. Wolves desire for financial flexibility. Fact. Knicks have promising young players that are attractive to teams. Fact. There you go.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Twinkie....*

If you think Marbury is not on the edge of losing effectiveness because of injuries, you haven't been paying attention. He has ankle problems that bother him and THAT is well documented. KG has been playing in the league since he came out of HS, and playing big minutes. Although he has been fine to date, these are the types of players that fade suddenly(high mileage, athletic types). If YOU wish to mortgage the future to put an under-manned team on the floor, fine....I don't. At this point we don't even know IF we need another star. Our talent and chemistry may already be enough so that all we need is time.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Forget about that....*



Da Grinch said:


> i never said the knicks shouldn't take a chance , but only if the price is right , if he cost frye i would then say no , he isn't worth frye , he is a better player now but in 5 years he will not be and maybe significantly sooner .
> 
> i would give them ending deals and a couple of young guys maybe a guy like francis
> 
> ...


I don't see the Wolves making any deal for a player of that caliber without Frye involved. I understand not wanting to deal both Frye and Curry but most likely, we might be able to keep Curry. I do not believe it is that big a sacrifice if this instance because Curry could become the focal point of our rebuilding efforts after the Marbury-Garnett duo has run it's course. As good of prospects both Frye and Curry are, neither promise title contention. Neither of them are likely to become the caliber player Garnett is, so I'd make the deal in a second. Garnett has no shown me he is slowing down anytime soon, so I'd definately do the deal. The trio of Marbury/Garnett/Curry could be one of the best in the league. Couple that with a role players that add defense like Richardson, Hassell, and Jaric and we have a squad.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Twinkie....*



alphadog said:


> If you think Marbury is not on the edge of losing effectiveness because of injuries, you haven't been paying attention. He has ankle problems that bother him and THAT is well documented. KG has been playing in the league since he came out of HS, and playing big minutes. Although he has been fine to date, these are the types of players that fade suddenly(high mileage, athletic types). If YOU wish to mortgage the future to put an under-manned team on the floor, fine....I don't. At this point we don't even know IF we need another star. Our talent and chemistry may already be enough so that all we need is time.



Let me run off the number of games Marbury has played over the past 5 years: 82, 81, 81, 82, 60. On average, that means he has played 77.2 games per NBA season during that span. Considering there's 82 games during the course of the season, I think it's safe to say that health has not been or will be a problem for him in the near future. Apparently, I've take a look much closer. As far as the length of games KG has played in the league, it is known that the guy is a work horse. Guys like Karl Malone has shown that guys with proper conditioning could play extended amounts of time in the league without major injury or blow's to their production. With the league becoming more and more finesse resulting in less wear and tear on the body, I don't think injuries or major drop off's in production should be a major concern for a guy like Garnett. When you consider the guy has maintained steady numbers as Garnett and basically matched those of his MVP season, a drop off in production anytime soon is the least of my worries concerning him. Besides, you don't go from putting up MVP numbers one season to average in the span of less than a year. Declines are usually gradual and none has been spotted so far in Garnett's game. 

As much of a Knick fan I am, I would never go as far to think the current team we have intact somehow would be better than a team with both Marbury and Garnett as it's core. Depth is nice but it has been shown time and time again that quality means so much more. After all, no one thought a team with a supporting cast of Rasual Butler, Udonis Haslem and Eddie Jones as starters could propel into the Eastern Conference Finals and a few minutes within advancing to the Finals. At this point and time, the combination of Stephon Marbury and Kevin Garnett could easily rival Dwayne Wade and Shaquille O'neal in my opinion. You always take the risk if it means a shot at the title now and in the near future.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Never said Superstarbury missed games*

I said he has been hampered by ankle problems. Comparing Garnett to Malone is really dumb. Malone was a beast whose game relied less on quickness than brute strength. Those guys last longer...see Oakley. Slender, athletic front court players lose their edge sooner. I think you would have a difficult time finding a significant number of guys that play a similiar as Garnett that were effective much beyond 33 or so. He will be good, yes...but not franchise saving good. Where are we in 3 years after SM and Garnett can no longer take us anywhere? If it meant a title....go for it, but that is not happening with the team that is left after the trade...plus we now have a whole bunch of new bad contracts.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Never said Superstarbury missed games*



alphadog said:


> I said he has been hampered by ankle problems. Comparing Garnett to Malone is really dumb. Malone was a beast whose game relied less on quickness than brute strength. Those guys last longer...see Oakley. Slender, athletic front court players lose their edge sooner. I think you would have a difficult time finding a significant number of guys that play a similiar as Garnett that were effective much beyond 33 or so. He will be good, yes...but not franchise saving good. Where are we in 3 years after SM and Garnett can no longer take us anywhere? If it meant a title....go for it, but that is not happening with the team that is left after the trade...plus we now have a whole bunch of new bad contracts.


Dumb? What's dumb is not understanding that despite body type, conditioning is conditioning. Although he has rather lankly frame, it is one that is built to endure which is evident by the fact he has only missed 9 games in 7 seasons. If he continues to use that same workout regimen as he does and keep his diet in check, I doubt much will change in the future. Besides, the game is no longer focused on power (as was in Malone's day) which means alot of the bumping and bruising that wears on a player's body no longer prominent. I guess all this is something that only a guy that's played organized basketball would know. Could I find a guy that is similar to Garnett's situation who had a lengthy career that rivals Malone? No, and do you know why? Because Garnett is one of a kind which is why I want to trade for him in the first place. There are other players that have been finesse players at other positions that managed to have a lengthy career. The names of Scottie Pippen, Michael Jordan, John Stockton, Clifford Robinson and Robert Horry's of the world that come to mind. 

As far as the deal itself, if you have a shot at a title by acquiring a player, you always take it. There will be plenty of oppurtunities after Garnett and Marbury begin to decline to add young players to take there spot. What I will tell you is that we'd be in a much better situation with those two because not only will we contend with those two at the helm but we'd see the most out of the role players we'd have on this roster up until the point their contracts expire. After that, we'd have the financial flexibility to put together a roster to make another run. I see nothing wrong with this because all the big contracts we have will have expired or soon expire by the time Marbury and Garnett can not carry a franchise, so is the situation really that bad?


P.S., reread my posts. I already established the fact that Garnett would be packaged with Wolves player that could serve as role players on our squad, so no need to worry about depth. Currently, we are at least 3 deep at every position, so couple that with the players we'd recieve from the Wolves and we'd be alright. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither is a championship team. It'll take at least one more season to dot the i's and cross the t's but teams with less to work with as the Heat have shown it is possible. Given Isiah's history of making deals for talent, I think quality players is the last thing the Knicks should worry about when you consider the Heat made the Conference Finals with a Shaq already on the decline and mediocre starters as Eddie Jones, Rasual Butler and Udonis Haslem. No way will any Garnett deal leave us in a situation as poor as that one so I make this deal anyday.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Never said Superstarbury missed games*



alphadog said:


> *I said he has been hampered by ankle problems.*QUOTE]
> 
> Almost forgot to comment on that interesting little tidbit. You kill me how you contradict yourself. You posted today at 2:17PM that "If you think *Marbury is * *NOT* *on the edge of losing effectiveness because of injuries*, you haven't been paying attention. *He has ankle problems that bother him and THAT is well documented."* Now, you claim that "(you) never said Superstarbury missed games...he has been hampered by ankle problems." I'm particularly confused because how could Marbury be "on the edge of losing effectiveness because of injuries" but some how not miss games which you yourself acknowledged? One thing as a young basketball player I learned is that you can play hurt with a sprained ankle, jammed finger, etc. but never injuried, with broken bones, or dislocated joints. If it's not serious to be considered injuried then it's nothing that could jeopardize your play because no ball player ever is pain free. What also has left me bewildered is your claim that these particular injuries have been "well documented." Games played is unrefutable proof of a players endurance, resilence and health. Marbury has played 94.1% of his games over the past 5 seasons so what "well documented" evidence could there be to trump this interesting little fact and prove that he's on the verge of breaking down? Isn't it also interesting that Marbury has never missed games over an extend period of time due to his ankle yet it's some serious issue that will ultimately render him a cripple? I need this to be cleared up...


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Funny thing is that any deal involving a superstar like Kevin Garnett would be a down grade in talent. The fact of the matter is no team could provide the Wolves with a package good enough to eclipse the contributions and impact KG makes as a player.


You just said yourself why this deal will never go down. Congrats you must have a spilit personailty. :worship:


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> You just said yourself why this deal will never go down. Congrats you must have a spilit personailty. :worship:


That was a nice try but reread the quote cause you obviously missed alot. I just acknowledged the fact that deals are not only made on the premise of talent but politics and finance as well. Perfect example would be the Hornets dealing Baron Davis for cap space or the Lakers dealing Shaq for spare parts. Neither deal made the team better from a talent stand point. In the Hornets deal, finances played a huge role in them blowing up their team. From reports I gathered, I believe they felt the team had gone as far as it could and were reluctant to keep paying a player so much money that was often injuried. With the Lakers, Shaq was moved because of political reasons as well as financial. Their management knew that a decision would have to be made about which feuding star would have to be paid and chose Kobe because he was younger, cheaper and better player.


----------

