# Garnett trade rumors getting stronger



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I just can't see Garnett holding out any longer with this team if they don't make the playoffs this year. It won't be too long before Garnett demands trade (in private, of course). I can't see him in a Timberwolves uniform to start next season, and I think if Minnesota is still struggling before the deadline, he'll be traded. It's only a matter of time, barring any miracles. 

Garnett is as good as it gets. He is a right way player. He works harder than anyone and plays harder than anyone. He loves the game and has a drive to succeed that very few have. 

I think the Bulls are in an excellent position, especially if the Knicks keep struggling. We have a lot of young talent on rookie contracts, that pick and our own pick, plus a lot of cap space to be flexible. 

Just to throw it out there, would anyone not do something like Hinrich, Chandler and both draft picks for Garnett and Hassell? Not sure if it works under the cap, but just one of many scenarios. 

I think it's obvious that Garnett's days in Minny are numbered, and I would be dissappointed in Paxson if Garnett was traded to another team without Paxson really making an honest attempt to acquire him. Opportunities like this won't come along very often. Garnett is a guy who could definitely take our team to the next level. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I just can't see Garnett holding out any longer with this team if they don't make the playoffs this year. It won't be too long before Garnett demands trade (in private, of course). I can't see him in a Timberwolves uniform to start next season, and I think if Minnesota is still struggling before the deadline, he'll be traded. It's only a matter of time, barring any miracles.
> 
> Garnett is as good as it gets. He is a right way player. He works harder than anyone and plays harder than anyone. He loves the game and has a drive to succeed that very few have.
> 
> ...


My thoughts are that I agree with all of that, including the part about the Bulls having as much or more to offer for Garnett than other teams. 

But I'm too lazy to figure out what trades work under the CBA, so I don't really know what it would take to get it done. 

But its too early in the season to know what KG will want or what Minny wants. He is, though, tops on the list of "legit superstar who may change teams in-season".


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

How are his knees?


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

Nociono, 2 first round picks, Tim thomas, and kirk


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

nanokooshball said:


> Nociono, 2 first round picks, Tim thomas, and kirk


Um, sure. :banana:


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Just to throw it out there, would anyone not do something like Hinrich, Chandler and both draft picks for Garnett and Hassell? Not sure if it works under the cap, but just one of many scenarios.


I know you were just throwing it out there, and I know it's KG we're talking about, but I would really, really hesitate in including Chandler in any deal. Bulls just need his size.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Kneepad said:


> I know you were just throwing it out there, and I know it's KG we're talking about, but I would really, really hesitate in including Chandler in any deal. Bulls just need his size.


Garnett does everything Chandler does, and does it better. I don't think there is one thing that Chandler does better than Garnett.


----------



## aNgelo5 (Oct 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I just can't see Garnett holding out any longer with this team if they don't make the playoffs this year. It won't be too long before Garnett demands trade (in private, of course). I can't see him in a Timberwolves uniform to start next season, and I think if Minnesota is still struggling before the deadline, he'll be traded. It's only a matter of time, barring any miracles.
> 
> Garnett is as good as it gets. He is a right way player. He works harder than anyone and plays harder than anyone. He loves the game and has a drive to succeed that very few have.
> 
> ...


I agree man, they never make playoffs and Garrnett is always busting his ***


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Garnett does everything Chandler does, and does it better. I don't think there is one thing that Chandler does better than Garnett.


That may be true, but do you want KG to have to guard 5's?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

jbulls said:


> That may be true, but do you want KG to have to guard 5's?


No, but that wouldn't be a dealbreaker in any way. I think you have to acquire him, then patch up those minor things later. There a boatload of guys who can solidly defend centers, there is only one guy in the league (imo) better than Kevin Garnett. So taking the same motto with trades as you do with a draft, you don't draft a center to fill a spot if a Michael Jordan is available, even if you already have a great shooting guard. You collect as much talent as possible, then sort it out later. It's much easier to sort it, than it is to collect it.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

The better of our two picks, Deng, Sweetney, Kirk, Tim Thomas for Garnett + McCants

Duhon
Gordon
Noch
Garnett
Chandler

Pargo
Sweetney
McCants
Songaila

That's a very decent lineup. We'd have a need at SF, but I think it could be filled. We would still have depth and have the starting lineup to really get it done.

I'd really want to see Kirk and Garnett together, because I think it would help both of them become more excellent (Kirk becoming the next Terrell Brandon except with even better defense and athleticism) but I don't think we can do that without giving up Chandler, and losing a big like Chandler would hurt us too deeply in our smallish frontcourt.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

If the Wolves let go of Garnett, they will want salary flexibility, so they would probably want to steer clear of Chandler at this point. Sweetney would probably be necessary to give them a big back, or Songaila, so we wouldn't be able to do it until December 15 (actually, Trade Checker says December 4).

Sweetney, Gordon or Hinrich, Thomas, and next year's two first round picks for Garnett works. Would that be enough? If we have to throw in another player from our core like Deng, which I'd hate to do, we'd have to keep at least one of the first rounders.

Let's say they wanted Gordon. We'd look like this:

Duhon, Pargo
Hinrich, Pike, Basden
Deng, Nocioni
Garnett, Songaila
Chandler, Harrington

That's a hell of a team, which leads me to believe we'd have to give up more to get him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> The better of our two picks, Deng, Sweetney, Kirk, Tim Thomas for Garnett + McCants
> 
> Duhon
> Gordon
> ...


We give up a lot, but we get a lot. Seems fair. If push came to shove, I'd throw in another draft pick, if we had to. Call Pax.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> If the Wolves let go of Garnett, they will want salary flexibility, so they would probably want to steer clear of Chandler at this point..


I would hope Chandler's contract would be a deterent, but I don't see it that way. I do think they would unload some bad contracts with KG, so be ready to have some of Madson, Hassel and Troy Hudson would be coming this way.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I would hope Chandler's contract would be a deterent, but I don't see it that way. I do think they would unload some bad contracts with KG, so be ready to have some of Madson, Hassel and Troy Hudson would be coming this way.


That's probably true too, and despite KG's upside, could kill a deal. KG + whatever roster we have left ain't going to get us to the promised land. If we get a bunch of bad contracts in the deal and lose our flexibility to improve, we become...Minnesota, with KG, but nowhere to go.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I would hope Chandler's contract would be a deterent, but I don't see it that way. I do think they would unload some bad contracts with KG, so be ready to have some of Madson, Hassel and Troy Hudson would be coming this way.


More likely than not, all three of them.

KG, Madsen, Hassell, Hudson

for

Deng, Gordon, Thomas, Harrington, Pike, Allen, two 2006 #1 picks

(This trade can't happen until December 15th due to the CBA rules)

Honestly, I can live with that deal

1- Duhon, Hudson
2- Hinrich, Hassell
3- Garnett, Nocioni
4- Songaila, Sweetney, Madsen
5- Chandler

Chandler, Hinrich and Duhon are proven players with upside remaining. If Chandler can become an all-star level player (like we're paying him to be) and our guards continue to play well, I think we'd have a shot.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

^^^ Yep, that's about what it would look like....



Mikedc said:


> If Chandler can become an all-star level player (like we're paying him to be)


30 guys are getting paid $12M or more this year. So we ain't paying him like an All-Star this year.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Keep in mind, if the CBA remained the same, we will have to keep OUR pick since we did not have a pick last year, and the Knicks pick is not garaunteed. But at the tradeline, if it is not possible mathematically for the Knicks to be top 5 team in the league, that could change.

Deng, Chandler, Tim Thomas, Our 1st Rounder, for KG and Something They Don't want.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

I think chandler has to go, yes he has a big contract,but he's a young big who can reb/def, those aer rare in the league today. probably will take at least 2 out of our top4 players+tim thomas(for cap relief) and 1 or 2 picks. i personally wouldnt mind giving up chandler+gordon or kirk +tt+2 no.1 picks for garnett and another player.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> More likely than not, all three of them.
> 
> KG, Madsen, Hassell, Hudson
> 
> ...


Madsen also plays some center, and isn't horrible at it defensively, at least.

I'd feel better about starting Sweetney over Songaila. Garnett likes to be in the paint, yes, but if Sweetney stays on the other side of the court, he can also make a good target for entry passes from Garnett.

With a core of Duhon, Hinrich, KG and Chandler, and some decent pieces on the bench, I'd have to say that talent-wise we'd be significantly improved and ready to make a run at the EC Finals. I have to believe that Duhon will soon be greater than Sam Cassell and Hinrich is already more valuable than Spree.

I'd really want to keep one of those picks, though. Maybe we could work it out so that between our two picks and Minny's pick next year, they get the two highest and we get the lowest? I feel like it's important to be able to add pieces flexibly through the draft. What if we really do need some bulk? We sure aren't going to have the cap space to get it. What if we find that Garnett's better against the PF's in the East and we need more talent at SF? A low 1st-rounder can get a very decent SF in most drafts.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Garnett and Sczcerbiak 

for 

Thomas, Piatowski as the fillers 

Hinrich, Deng , + the rights to our 2006 pick 

We keep New York's 

Minnesota clears the decks and starts over with 

?
Griffin
Deng
Jaric 
Hinrich

?
Madsen
Hassell
McCants
Hudson

They would have their own draft pick ( likely lottery ) and ours and around $12M in cap space to try and address their needs upfront..they could resign Kandi I suppose and add further depth in around him and Eddie Griffin upfront 

Bulls would look like :

Chandler
Garnett
Nocioni
Gordon
Duhon

Harrington
Sweetney
Songaila
Sczcerbiak
Pargo

+ The Knicks likely lottery pick


----------



## bryzzz01 (Feb 21, 2003)

after all this time... after all the ppl who called me an idiot... now see what's up... KG talks again... but here's how I see it... here are the ppl we need to keep:

KH

and just him... there are a couple ppl I'd like to keep...

Du, Deng, Tyson, and BG... but then who would we give up for KG?

I'd part w/ BG, noc or deng, sweet, tt... we have a decent core..its tempting to get KG.. but the cost may not be worth it...

like someoen said b4... we dont want to become the new minny.

chandler + kg = total ownage on D...
du + kh = good D... good passers on O
SF.. i'd like ot keep deng simply b/c of potential.

du
kh
deng
kg
chandler...

that lineup would be fast as hell... talk about new suns... they'd be so fun to watch!


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

Okay, I'll try my Sam Smith imitation

Garnett and Dwayne Jones for Tyson and Pargo (If Pargo isn't enough, I guess I could reluctantly substitute him for Hinrich, but I don't think Skiles would like it)


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

OK, So we blow up our team to get 30 year old Garnett (arguably top 5 NBA player) + crap space balast for the likes of:

2 first round picks, Thomas (for money), Pike (for money), Hinrich or Gordon, Deng and maybe Chandler?

Ummmmm, no, sorry, not worth it.

The "we'd still have Duhon + KH or BG" which makes still a playoff team is rediculous.


Not to mention that teams rarely get better quality when trading a superstar.

Garnett is an perennial All-Star, top 5 player. But we won't plug the holes created quick enough to get a championship while he is still at that level.


Sorry, I'd pass if it meant trading 3 out of these 4 (BG, KH, TC, LD). + our two first rounders.

Unless Minn decides to fold and trade him at the deadline (Which puts Minn at a huge disadvantage in terms of return), I don't see it.

Thomas, Pike and Sweetney have expiring contracts, but as we ourselves have said, this FA crop looks to be very weak. Also, we have no ideal where the picks will fall and what their true worth may be. What if NY and us continued to suck and we ended up with two lottery picks in the top 10. In a good draft, that could be huge, in a Jamal Crawford/Chris Mihm year that could Suck even more.

I'm sorry, but getting Garnett is like dreaming about MJ in his prime or Kobe being traded. Nice dream, but not likely to happen or bring you a championship if it did happen.

If you could end up with Machine head's roster:

"Bulls would look like :

Chandler
Garnett
Nocioni
Gordon
Duhon

Harrington
Sweetney
Songaila
Sczcerbiak
Pargo

+ The Knicks likely lottery pick?

You might have something. I'm no fan of crap space, and I'm even less of a fan of losing Deng. If you swap Noc for Deng and flop picks (so we end up with the latter 1st rdr, I''d warm up to that.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I would much rather target Kobe Bryant if we were to make a megadeal for a franchise player. In no particular order,

-- KG's got some nagging injuries that are not exactly reassuring in a soon-to-be-30-year-old with about a billion miles on him. Bryant doesn't have that worry, and he's a couple years younger.

-- I simply can't imagine Minnesota trading KG to us and not demanding Chandler in return. Having KG without Chandler makes it a much less appealing proposition imo. On the other hand, given the presence of Bynum, Odom, and (to a much lesser extent) Kwame, I can at least entertain the notion of prying away Bryant with a package that doesn't include Tyson. 

-- Whatever "will to win" and "warrior" qualities we ascribe to KG, Kobe's got 'em in just the same amount. However, KG is not a superlative clutch player, and I don't care what anyone says, he is in some way culpable for the T-Pups' playoff flameouts. A majority of NBA GMs believe that Kobe is the game's most clutch player. He has dominated fourth quarters of NBA Finals games and basically has accomplished everything there is to accomplish on an individual and team level, yet still plays the game like a rabid dog.

-- KG has some sort of bizarre personal hatred for the Bulls' organization that has persisted long after Krause's departure. Bryant, on the other hand, apparently came within a blink of an eye of demanding a sign-and-trade to Chicago. 

Don't get me wrong -- it makes me feel a little creepy even to imagine Jordan's most slavish imitator donning a Bulls uniform. And given everything I've laid out here, not to mention the committment to Kobe the Lakers made when they jettisoned Shaq, it's highly unlikely he's even in play. But we've got too many assets, both actual and potential, to not make a giant swing for the fences. 

In my mind, Kobe's the best possible player we have even a semi-plausible chance of landing (although I wonder about Nowitzki if Dallas has a not-great year and Barkley/Kenny keep pushing Cuban's buttons). Guys like LeBron, Dwight Howard, Amare, Duncan, etc., probably aren't available at any price.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Are we even allowed to trade our pick this year since we did not have one last year (at least in a mid-season trade that is)?

If we want to retain Chandler, I think that Gordon and Sweetney would definately have to be included (I'm assuming they won't Garnett for either one of Gordon or Chandler) and they will want a returning big to fill the void. I think at the absolute minimum (retaining Chandler) the very basis for a trade would be something like this:

(NOTE: I think minimum, so maybe Deng instead of Nocioni or us taking Madsen or Hudson instead)

*Chicago trades*
Gordon ($3.6m)
Nocioni ($2.8m)
Sweetney ($2.1m)
Tim Thomas ($14)
NY #1 (unprotected)
Total Salary ~ $22.5mil

*Minnesota trades*
Garnett ($18mil)
Hassell ($4.3mil)
Frahm (salary not listed on hoopshype, but I'm assuming he's under the $4.5mil to be within the 120% salary rule)
Total Salary ~ $22.3mil + Frahm's deal

*Chicago Depth Chart*
C - Chandler/Harrington/Allen
PF - Garnett/Songaila
SF - Deng/Hassell/Pike
SG - Hinrich/Frahm/Basden
PG - Duhon/Pargo

*Minnesota Depth Chart*
C - Olowokandi/Madsen/Tskitishvili
PF - Griffin/Sweetney/Jones
SF - Szczerbiak/Thomas/Nocioni
SG - Gordon/McCants/Dupree
PG - Jaric/Carter/Hudson
(cuts Wright)

*Chicago '06 Salary Cap*
$8.7mil (Duhon, Deng, Hinrich) + $9mil (Chandler approx) + $20mil (Garnett) + $4.3mil (Hassell) + (I couldn't find out anything on Frahm's deal) = ~$42mil + possibly Frahm's deal 

Retained players: Garnett, Hassell, Chandler, Duhon, Deng, Hinrich & maybe Frahm
FAs: Harrington, Piatkowski, Songaila & maybe Frahm

*Minnesota '06 Salary Cap*
$30.1mil (Szczerbiak, Hudson, Jaric, Griffin, Madsen, McCants, Tskitishvili) + $3.9mil (Gordon) +$3mil (Nocioni) + $2.7mil (Sweetney) = ~$39.7mil

Retained Players: Gordon, Nocioni, Sweetney, Szczerbiak, Hudson, Jaric, Griffin, Madsen, McCants, Tskitishvili
FAs: Tim Thomas, Olowokandi, Carter


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

What reason do we have to believe that a skinny guy who relies on athleticism will maintain his level of play into his thirties when his athleticism begins to fail him?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> -- KG's got some nagging injuries that are not exactly reassuring in a soon-to-be-30-year-old with about a billion miles on him. Bryant doesn't have that worry, and he's a couple years younger.


Garnett has only missed 3 games since 99. He has played all 82 games in all of the past three seasons. He is easily the most durable superstar. Kobe is durable too, but not as much as Garnett. 



chifaninca said:


> OK, So we blow up our team to get 30 year old Garnett (arguably top 5 NBA player)


Arguably? He is arguably the best player in the league. I don't think you can argue that he isn't top five. Who would you put ahead of him?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Garnett has only missed 3 games since 99. He has played all 82 games in all of the past three seasons. He is easily the most durable superstar. Kobe is durable too, but not as much as Garnett.


The fact that he's played so hurt and so frequently in the past is one of my red flags. We have to consider what KG will give us AFTER a trade, not what he's done in the past.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> The fact that he's played so hurt and so frequently in the past is one of my red flags. We have to consider what KG will give us AFTER a trade, not what he's done in the past.


He put up decent numbers then and continues to do so. So i doubt you should really worry what he would give us after a trade.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> The fact that he's played so hurt and so frequently in the past is one of my red flags. We have to consider what KG will give us AFTER a trade, not what he's done in the past.


I really don't think it would be a problem with Garnett until he is 34-35 years old. He has a skinny frame, but he is pretty strong, and obviously doesn't bang downlow as much as most power forwards do. He gets rebounds with his athleticism, height and length (like Tyson), and generally plays the midrange game the most. He would do wonders for our perimeter players with his passing. Plus his defense is top notch. The only knock on him is finishing games as a scorer, you can't just go to him and expect a bucket. But with Gordon/Hinrich I think we would be good to go in that aspect. 

If it came down to Kobe or Garnett, I'd be torn simply because of the age factor, but the Lakers look like they're on their way up and Kobe is having an unreal season so far. I don't think Kobe is much of a possibility unless him and Phil starting going at each other and the team crumbles.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Arguably? He is arguably the best player in the league. I don't think you can argue that he isn't top five. Who would you put ahead of him?


You can't argue that he isn't top five AT THIS MOMENT, but looking over the next five years, I'd take:

Kobe
LeBron
Dwight Howard
Duncan (I think his game is less predicated on athleticism and he'll age better than KG)
Amare

over KG.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

step said:


> He put up decent numbers then and continues to do so. So i doubt you should really worry what he would give us after a trade.


Even assuming KG isn't on a downhill trajectory physically and would continue to put up his numbers, I'm still not sold. 

As others have said here, if you give up too much for Garnett, you end up just like the Timberwolves. I have no reason to think that the Wolves will be interested in giving him away, and I have every reason to think that if KG is put on the market, there will plenty of suitors that will force whoever acquires him to probably overpay a little bit.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

While I'd probably be willing to give up one of either Deng, Gordon and Hinrich, I would not be willing to part with any combination of two of them, AND our draft picks.....that's WAY too much.....even for Garnett. Those three guys are especially what separates us from them as far as the TALENT on the team, WITHOUT Garnett. GIving them up, AND giving up the means to replace them through the draft immediately turns us into the "Twolves east".


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

For the next five years, Duncan and LeBron are the only guys I'd take over Garnett. But that's really besides the point. I can understand someone taking Amare, Howard, Kobe, etc, but how many of those guys are even close to being available? Most of those guys are so locked down that the thought of them being traded would make their general managers fall on the floor laughing. That's why I think the Garnett situation is such a good opportunity. You could probably get me to agree that a few guys are a better fit and younger, etc, but with Garnett it's become a reality. It's pretty rare for a player of his calibur to be playing under such horrible management for so long.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If it came down to Kobe or Garnett, I'd be torn simply because of the age factor, but the Lakers look like they're on their way up and Kobe is having an unreal season so far. I don't think Kobe is much of a possibility unless him and Phil starting going at each other and the team crumbles.


It's a huge longshot. I acknowledged that from the get-go. But because of the factors I listed, I believe there's at least a glimmer of hope there that doesn't exist with any other player of comparable quality.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> OK, So we blow up our team to get 30 year old Garnett (arguably top 5 NBA player) + crap space balast for the likes of:
> 
> 2 first round picks, Thomas (for money), Pike (for money), Hinrich or Gordon, Deng and maybe Chandler?
> 
> Ummmmm, no, sorry, not worth it.


Not even close. :clap:



> The "we'd still have Duhon + KH or BG" which makes still a playoff team is rediculous.


:clap:



> Not to mention that teams rarely get better quality when trading a superstar.
> 
> Garnett is an perennial All-Star, top 5 player. But we won't plug the holes created quick enough to get a championship while he is still at that level.


:clap:



> Sorry, I'd pass if it meant trading 3 out of these 4 (BG, KH, TC, LD). + our two first rounders.


:clap: And even giving up two is asking alot, AFAIC.



> Unless Minn decides to fold and trade him at the deadline (Which puts Minn at a huge disadvantage in terms of return), I don't see it.


I agree.



> Thomas, Pike and Sweetney have expiring contracts, but as we ourselves have said, this FA crop looks to be very weak. Also, we have no ideal where the picks will fall and what their true worth may be. What if NY and us continued to suck and we ended up with two lottery picks in the top 10. In a good draft, that could be huge, in a Jamal Crawford/Chris Mihm year that could Suck even more.


Agreed.



> I'm sorry, but getting Garnett is like dreaming about MJ in his prime or Kobe being traded. Nice dream, but not likely to happen or bring you a championship if it did happen.


Exactly. You have to gut your team to get him. No thanks.



> If you could end up with Machine head's roster:
> 
> "Bulls would look like :
> 
> ...


Yup. +rep on the way.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> For the next five years, Duncan and LeBron are the only guys I'd take over Garnett. But that's really besides the point. I can understand someone taking Amare, Howard, Kobe, etc, but how many of those guys are even close to being available? Most of those guys are so locked down that the thought of them being traded would make their general managers fall on the floor laughing. That's why I think the Garnett situation is such a good opportunity. You could probably get me to agree that a few guys are a better fit and younger, etc, but with Garnett it's become a reality. It's pretty rare for a player of his calibur to be playing under such horrible management for so long.



I agree. I just don't think he's the answer here, because of how much we'd have to give up. I believe we could be better off going after Bosh, who would likely come MUCH MUCH cheaper than the asking price for Garnett. We might not even have to give up TC to get him.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i dont think KG is a top5 player anymore. he is just a big stats guy. 

kobe/duncan/wade/lebron/t-mac/dirk/amare i would take those 7 players over KG any day. not to mention, shaq/AI and others.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> You can't argue that he isn't top five AT THIS MOMENT, but looking over the next five years, I'd take:
> 
> Kobe
> LeBron
> ...


Dwight Howard hasn't proven he can approach top 5 impact. Speculative. 

Duncan won't decline any more than KG will, that's not predictable, despite what you may believe about their athleticism.

Amare is going to be coming off of major knee surgery in a few months, I'd wait to see how he is at that point.

Either way, he still looks top 5 in 5 years. And besides, 5 years is still a lot of time for the Bulls to win a championship with Gordon, KG, and company if a trade were to go down. 



ScottMay said:


> Even assuming KG isn't on a downhill trajectory physically and would continue to put up his numbers, I'm still not sold.
> 
> As others have said here, if you give up too much for Garnett, you end up just like the Timberwolves. I have no reason to think that the Wolves will be interested in giving him away, and I have every reason to think that if KG is put on the market, there will plenty of suitors that will force whoever acquires him to probably overpay a little bit.


As long as the Bulls don't give up Gordon, they'd be OK. Duhon/Gordon/Deng/KG/Sweetney looks like a pretty decent team to build on. My proposed trade would be Hinrich, Chandler, and some #1's.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> I agree. I just don't think he's the answer here, because of how much we'd have to give up. I believe we could be better off going after Bosh, who would likely come MUCH MUCH cheaper than the asking price for Garnett. We might not even have to give up TC to get him.


Yeah, this actually came up in a conversation with one of my friends yesterday. What do you think it would take? Gordon or Deng, and a first? Doubtful that a combo of Duhon, Nocioni, Thomas, Sweetney et al could get it done.

Win/win situation IMO, Bulls would have Duhon, Hinrich, Nocioni, Bosh, Chandler (Gordon 6th man), Toronto would have PG by committee, Deng, Graham, Villenueva, Center by committee.

Toronto would be a pretty exciting team with that line-up, and then they can add the likes of Daniel Gibson through the draft. Bulls clearly come out pretty favourably too


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> No, but that wouldn't be a dealbreaker in any way. I think you have to acquire him, then patch up those minor things later. There a boatload of guys who can solidly defend centers, there is only one guy in the league (imo) better than Kevin Garnett. So taking the same motto with trades as you do with a draft, you don't draft a center to fill a spot if a Michael Jordan is available, even if you already have a great shooting guard. You collect as much talent as possible, then sort it out later. It's much easier to sort it, than it is to collect it.



guarding centers isn't a minor thing....and how exactly do you patch something up like that midseason?

any 7 fter with a pulse is employed in the nba or overseas by now.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

If we lost 1/2 of our core players in obtaining KG, would we still be competitive with KG? Lets say we lost Chandler and Kirk along with 2 picks.

Duhon
Gordon
Deng
KG
Whowever

is it better than the teams McHale has put together over the years? Or

Deng, Gordon or Hinrich, two picks and fillers for KG - which i doubt the Wolves will bite.

Duhon
Gordon or Hinrich
Noce
KG
Chandler


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Deng, Gordon or Hinrich, two picks and fillers for KG - which i doubt the Wolves will bite.


I figure that they probably would bite if we included Sweets, but i wouldn't want to trade Deng. Though we probably could emulate the Spurs if we did trade him.
The only reasonable option on our part in my view without gutting our team would be Gordon, Sweets, TT and a pick.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Sloth said:


> Keep in mind, if the CBA remained the same, we will have to keep OUR pick since we did not have a pick last year, and the Knicks pick is not garaunteed. But at the tradeline, if it is not possible mathematically for the Knicks to be top 5 team in the league, that could change.





Rhyder said:


> Are we even allowed to trade our pick this year since we did not have one last year (at least in a mid-season trade that is)?


What's happened in the past is irrelevant. The CBA only prevents a team from trading _future_ consecutive first round picks. Once a draft has passed (in this case the 2005 draft), a team (in this case the Bulls) can trade their 2006 first round pick regardless of whether or not they had a 2005 first round pick, since the 2005 pick is no longer a future pick.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> What's happened in the past is irrelevant. The CBA only prevents a team from trading _future_ consecutive first round picks. Once a draft has passed (in this case the 2005 draft), a team (in this case the Bulls) can trade their 2006 first round pick regardless of whether or not they had a 2005 first round pick, since the 2005 pick is no longer a future pick.


Thanks. I haven't read up on the new CBA, and I haven't read the old one since the first year it was in effect.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I really can't come up with a trade now involving Chandler that I like. Of course if go after Ben Wallace in the offseason, there would be multiple deals I would do giving up Chandler for Garnett :biggrin:


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I'm with ScottMay on this, how much longer will Garnett be productive? PF's and C's usually age well, or at least better than guards, but with a player so dependent on his athleticism, it would seem Garnett's decline would come on more rapidly. Everything has been pretty much covered in terms of the pro's and con's of the situation.

As far as Kobe, I don't think he'll be available given the Lakers' start, but that could change (the Lakers started well last season, IIRC --- and that roster looks like crap). We could also always aim lower (i.e. Pierce, Ray Allen?, Gasol?, etc.) but it's still too early to tell which teams will be sellers.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I'm with ScottMay on this, how much longer will Garnett be productive? PF's and C's usually age well, or at least better than guards, but with a player so dependent on his athleticism, it would seem Garnett's decline would come on more rapidly. Everything has been pretty much covered in terms of the pro's and con's of the situation.


Garnett is very, very highly skilled. I think he will age just fine. If we can keep Chandler and 2 out of Duhon, Hinrich, Deng and Gordon, I am tempted big-time to give it a go. I think Nocioni, Sweetney and Songalia all become a lot more effective playing with KG next to Chandler.

As per ScottMay's valid point of the history, you would probably need MJ to facilate a sit-down with KG, Pax and Reinsdorf. So not sure if it happens.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Anyone catch this on TNT last night?



> The Timberwolves' leader might be alienating himself from the rest of the pack.
> 
> In an interview televised on TNT Thursday night, Kevin Garnett questioned team vice president Kevin McHale's leadership when he took over as coach last year for the fired Flip Saunders halfway through a disappointing season, which was filled with player bickering and lackluster performances.
> 
> ...


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2228324

I'd still prefer a Kobe deal, but I certainly hope that Paxson has at least opened a line of communication with McHale.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Anyone catch this on TNT last night?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With the rate things are going, we ought to be able to clear the decks and get both of em 

That's my goal anyway

A Gordon/Kirk for Kobe Package
A Deng/we take your garbage contracts/every pick we have for KG and dross package

I don't know if Chandler can due to the BYC issues. I'd be willing to throw him into one of the deals too, obviously, if it could be done and that's what it took.

Why not?

If we could be left with
Duhon, Hudson
Kobe, Hassell
Nocioni
KG, Songaila
Kandi?

Would we not be in business?

Shaq went for a #1 pick, two good players (Butler and Odom), and a horrible contract included to make things work (Brian Grant). We can make two offers competitive with that.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> With the rate things are going, we ought to be able to clear the decks and get both of em
> 
> That's my goal anyway
> 
> ...


We would definitely be in business . . . and we'd be a front-runner to land a lot of great free agents with our exceptions for years to come.

I'm not sure the Shaq deal is a good benchmark, though. The Lakers had another franchise player to fall back on. I think the Wolves or Lakers will only pull the trigger on a Kobe/KG deal if A. Things have deteriorated to an awful state (much worse than KG's comments here) or B. it's a deal that can be spun as having "fleeced" another team -- multiple first rounders, All-Star or near All-Star level talent, etc. Otherwise they would face a massive public backlash -- these two are wildly popular players, and a lot of fans, even "diehards" who spend a ton on season tickets, don't always use a "big picture" prism when viewing their team. Iverson's the perfect example of this -- even though there are any of number of deals the Sixers could make that might result in a better basketball team down the road, they almost can't because of the fans.

We have a lot of assets, to be sure. I'm not sure we have *that* many, though, unless things get at least one order of magnitude uglier between KG and McHale.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

It's awfully hard to be the top bidder in a trade for 1 top tier player, let alone 2 of them. But yes, either Kobe or KG are no-brainers for just about anything we can give away. If we try hard enough at just the right time, then 2 draft picks + one or two good young players should be a very attractive package.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I think if Garnett was ever going to be traded, it will be between now and the deadline. Seems as if this time it may happen. 

I can see a trade between LA and Minny. I really could. 

As for us? I believe our time has come and gone. If we still had Curry, our chances of trading for Garnett would be better. I dont think we would be as attractive as some other teams out there without eddy. 

For example, Nets fans are talking about a package that includes Carter.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> With the rate things are going, we ought to be able to clear the decks and get both of em
> 
> That's my goal anyway
> 
> ...



If you think this is reasonable, doesn't this mean that Paxson has done a great job of putting us in position to even think about trades like these? Whether or not Paxson could/would pull this off is another question entirely. I do, however, agree with TBF that had we signed Curry we would be more successful in such an endeavor.

Boy, with a lineup like that we'd have huge threads discussing which team was better, the '91-'92 Bulls, '95-'96 Bulls or the '05-'06 Bulls.


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

Kg2ny


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

NYKBaller said:


> Kg2ny


You know? I'm really not surprised if KG comes to NY. Isiah is the most aggresive GM in the league. He's a big time risk taker. He'll trade anything. He's very good at building relationship with players (check out JO in the pass, Jamal). He'll be all over KG.

The Knicks also has Larry Brown, like it or not, he's one of the best coach in the league. Player like KG would love to play for him. Plus, the Knicks has a lot of assets to trade for KG too: Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford, Stephon Marbury, Quentin Richardson, Antonio Davis, Channing Frye, Nate Robinson, Trevor Ariza, and David Lee.

Off all those guys above, I think Isiah and Brown should keep Marbury, Davis, Frye, and Ariza.

Marbury and Garnett will work this time, they're at the age where they're dying to win. I think Marbury is mature enough to make this work now.

Davis is still a servicable big man. Provide leadership and toughness on the defensive end.

Frye is a better overall player than Curry. Garnett and Curry would be scary too though, well the Wolves can take either one, but not both.

Ariza is their starting SF. I like Lee too, but you have to give him up for Garnett.

Jamal, Curry, Q, Nate, and Lee are probably more than enough to get KG. Man, that's a starting 5 right there.

I just know that Isiah is working on something in his lab right now.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

RSP83 said:


> Jamal, Curry, Q, Nate, and Lee are probably more than enough to get KG. Man, that's a starting 5 right there.


I just found a new sig.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

RSP83 said:


> You know? I'm really not surprised if KG comes to NY. Isiah is the most aggresive GM in the league. He's a big time risk taker. He'll trade anything. He's very good at building relationship with players (check out JO in the pass, Jamal). He'll be all over KG.
> 
> The Knicks also has Larry Brown, like it or not, he's one of the best coach in the league. Player like KG would love to play for him. Plus, the Knicks has a lot of assets to trade for KG too: Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford, Stephon Marbury, Quentin Richardson, Antonio Davis, Channing Frye, Nate Robinson, Trevor Ariza, and David Lee.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but I gotta disagree. Isiah wants KG, no doubt, but Isiah will also pay the penalty for signing/obtaining all these big long-term contracts. If Minnesota does indeed trade KG, then I would think that signals rebuilding mode, or at least a quasi-rebuilding. And to rebuild, the last thing you want is big contracts weighing the team down (especially a small market team like the T-Wolves). If they trade KG, it'll be only for a) another superstar, b) a combination of young talent on rookie scale contracts, and/or c) draft picks. Curry, Crawford, Marbury, Richardson...no way Minnesota would want them, IMO. Channing Frye would catch their attention for sure...maybe David Lee or Ariza, too. But remember that Isiah the genius traded away all their draft picks, so he doesn't have a whole lot to sweeten up any deals with.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

badfish said:


> If you think this is reasonable, doesn't this mean that Paxson has done a great job of putting us in position to even think about trades like these? Whether or not Paxson could/would pull this off is another question entirely. I do, however, agree with TBF that had we signed Curry we would be more successful in such an endeavor.
> 
> Boy, with a lineup like that we'd have huge threads discussing which team was better, the '91-'92 Bulls, '95-'96 Bulls or the '05-'06 Bulls.


I think how reasonable it is depends on how much Kobe and KG alienate themselves and dry up the market for themselves in trade.

And no, I don't think it's emblematic of a great job done by Paxson. I think its emblematic of us being bad for a long time and having lots of high potential guys and cap space. Consider that several other teams could probably make similar proposals:

* Atlanta has Joe Smith / Josh Smith / Al Harrington / Marvin Williams / Cap Room to take back bad contracts without sending back an expiring deal / 2 2006 1st round picks
* Chicago has Deng / Gordon / Hinrich / Chandler / expiring contracts / 2 2006 1st round picks 
* Mavs have Daniels / Howard / Harris / expiring contracts for actual NBA players Terry and Van Horn / their pick
* Toronto has Bosh / Villanuea / 2 2006 1st round picks
* A variety of teams have more established players they could offer up (Like the Wizards -Areans, Jamison, Haywood, Thomas, Hayes, Bucks - Magloire, Simmons, Redd, Ford) to get at least one of those guys.
* And yeah, the Knicks with Crawford / Curry / Q / Frye / Lee / Ariza expiring contracts are in the mix too if they want to be.

So I think Chicago is in a pretty good position, but it's not like they're unique or anything. The trick will be executing a plan that's actually going to work.

The reason you try to trade for both of those guys is that each of them has proven they aren't good enough by themselves. A team that trades for just one of them will have a to not give up all that much or risk being in the same predicament the Lakers and Wolves are in now. And that's really the reason we might imagine we'd be able to get them. The sort of offers the Lakers and Wolves will get will be underwhelming because people will want to keep enough of their team together to contend in the first place.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

C'mon Michael ..

Deep down you know it can never happen 

This team has been built in the image of the people that get sold the product 

All tax paying good old fashioned family valued yessirees

No one wants to see the _ _ GG_ being BIGGA

Besides it would ruin the Chairman's bottom line right Scott?

We have at least 3 years before we have " a full boat" payroll of $65M + when we dole out paydays to Kirk, Ben, Luol and Duhon+Nocioni ( again ) Add in a few mid tier " Golly Gee well I'm just happy to be here and God Willing I'll be able to contribute to the ball club " types and a few "Biff n Chip" College Senior "leave the apple on the desk" styled draft picks ....and we'll have a real swell team for the aspirational ( yet crashingly conformist ) Judeao Christian working middle class that "the product" is sold to

Eat healthy kids.. say your prayers , go to bed early , listen to your Mom and Dad , don't do drugs , and stay in school

So if we can have 15 Dudley Do Rights with proper and orderly apportionement of cost so that we never have to wear risk in being hijacked by one or two people ever again ( MJ and Phil that dragged the others with them ) then For Yay that is how it shall be 

Divide and conquer for more effective control..and never allow any concentration of that kind of risk ever again...even it it means building through inferior talents ..at least they will have understand pecking orders in the structure of things and have a very healthy respect for authority 

Besides ..does the Chairman want to have a payroll of $60M now when he can get away with $45M to $50M for the next 2 to 3 years

That's an extra $20M in payroll over 3 years ...and loss of control in being able to put the muzzle on KG whenever he feels pissed and decides to volley up rounds of turd sandwiches for the organisation to munch on ..and then there is Mamba ..or whatever he feels like calling himself and all his crap

I mean what do you think Pax makes of all of KG's ..Kevin McHale whippings at the moment .

Not very respectful now is it ?

Tisk Tisk

No.... perhaps we need to realise that the Chicago Bulls organisation is in the Social Engineering and Risk Management Business....basketball is ancillary around this


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Garnett would be nice, but the cost would just be too great. With the players we have he would be ideal in almost every way, but we won't have the players we have if we trade for him.


----------



## RipDirty (Jun 17, 2002)

I'd trade the whole damn team and start over if would could land the big ticket. :banana:


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

the only trade that the bulls could make would be ben gordon, sweets, tt, and our two draft picks next year. that is the knicks pick lotto and ours that with the additon of KG would be a mid teens pick. That leaves us with duhon and KH at PG and sg, deng at sf, and KH and chandler up front. noci is the the sixth man and O is the first foward off the bench. And allan finally starts playing some back up center. KH, deng and TC would have to stay. KG can't play center and with out chanlder we are still a very small team so we have to keep him. No way does paxson trade deng he will be a start in a couple of years. The issue is is two picks and gordon and sweets enough for KG? And if now who can put together more without creating a team that is KG and four backup players.

david


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

giusd said:


> who can put together more without creating a team that is KG and four backup players.
> 
> david


That is a good point and a good reason to think KG will be traded for less than most seem to think it will take to get him. 

Would Minny be able to trade KG to a team that he wouldn't be happy with? (a team who would have to give away too much or a team that's already not good) He is a very big investment both because of the size of his contract and because of what it would take to get him, and you can't build around a thirty year old, some pieces have to be in place.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Hehe, I hope they send him to Toronto for Bosh, Villanueva and a big contract and he spends the rest of his carrer in Canada (losing, obviously!).


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Sorry, but I gotta disagree. Isiah wants KG, no doubt, but Isiah will also pay the penalty for signing/obtaining all these big long-term contracts. If Minnesota does indeed trade KG, then I would think that signals rebuilding mode, or at least a quasi-rebuilding. And to rebuild, the last thing you want is big contracts weighing the team down (especially a small market team like the T-Wolves). If they trade KG, it'll be only for a) another superstar, b) a combination of young talent on rookie scale contracts, and/or c) draft picks. Curry, Crawford, Marbury, Richardson...no way Minnesota would want them, IMO. Channing Frye would catch their attention for sure...maybe David Lee or Ariza, too. But remember that Isiah the genius traded away all their draft picks, so he doesn't have a whole lot to sweeten up any deals with.


About Isiah paying the penalty, what do u mean by that? sorry I'm not the most knowledgable person when it comes to Collective Bargaining Agreement. Does that mean Isiah must pay certain amount of money such as fine?

I tried this trade with the RealGM Trade Checker. (NYK - MIN). This trade satisfies the CBA condition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Trade Breakdown
Outgoing

Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
22.2 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg in 38.0 minutes

Troy Hudson
6-1 PG from Southern Illinois
8.8 ppg, 1.3 rpg, 3.6 apg in 21.9 minutes

Trenton Hassell
6-5 SG from Austin Peay
6.6 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 1.6 apg in 25.2 minutes
Incoming

Anfernee Hardaway
6-7 SG from Memphis
7.3 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 2.0 apg in 24.2 minutes

Maurice Taylor
6-9 PF from Michigan
7.8 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 1.4 apg in 23.8 minutes

Jamal Crawford
6-5 SG from Michigan
17.7 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 4.3 apg in 38.4 minutes

Channing Frye
6-11 from Arizona
No games yet played in 2004/05

Trevor Ariza
6-8 SF from UCLA
5.8 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 1.1 apg in 17.3 minutes
Change in team outlook: +1.0 ppg, -4.9 rpg, and -2.1 apg.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Trade Breakdown
Outgoing

Anfernee Hardaway
6-7 SG from Memphis
7.3 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 2.0 apg in 24.2 minutes

Maurice Taylor
6-9 PF from Michigan
7.8 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 1.4 apg in 23.8 minutes

Jamal Crawford
6-5 SG from Michigan
17.7 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 4.3 apg in 38.4 minutes

Channing Frye
6-11 from Arizona
No games yet played in 2004/05

Trevor Ariza
6-8 SF from UCLA
5.8 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 1.1 apg in 17.3 minutes
Incoming

Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
22.2 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg in 38.0 minutes

Troy Hudson
6-1 PG from Southern Illinois
8.8 ppg, 1.3 rpg, 3.6 apg in 21.9 minutes

Trenton Hassell
6-5 SG from Austin Peay
6.6 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 1.6 apg in 25.2 minutes
Change in team outlook: -1.0 ppg, +4.9 rpg, and +2.1 apg.


Successful Scenario
Due to Minnesota and New York being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. Minnesota and New York had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Trade ID
Every trade made by fans is allocated a unique Trade ID which you can share with friends and fellow basketball fans to allow them to see your trade scenario. The Trade ID for this scenario is 2644960.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The trade above basically:
KG + Hudson + Hassell for Penny + Jamal + Frye + Mo Taylor + Ariza

First of all I'm just messing around with the trade checker and see if there is a trade scenario that can possibly work out for both team.

Why T-Wolves does this: KG wants out, they need to rebuild. They want young talents, and expiring contract. Draft picks would be great too, but since the Knicks don't have one, forget it. What Knicks can give to the T-Wolves is Penny's expiring contract, Maurice Taylor expiring contract (ends summer 2007) and just a big body to replace Garnett temporarily, Jamal Crawford is a young talented scorer he's an insurance if Rashad Mccants doesn't pan out, Frye is getting better every game he can be a better player than Jamaal Magloire, great talent to have when in rebuilding mode, Ariza is also a talented young player, an improving defender, has the potential to have a solid 12 ppg tough defense type of player.

If T-Wolves do this, they're going to suck this season, but they're going to be in the lottery (right?). They will have the chance to draft Gay or Splitter. Splitter alongside Frye upfront sounds good. With Griffin backing them up, they're going to have a solid frontcourt for years to come.

Why Knicks does this: the Knicks needs Garnett type player to return to respectable position in the league. Isiah is already not in the position to rebuild, he would want to just go all out take Garnett's big contract if that means championship. Garnett + Larry Brown, that's a good foundation. Garnett can also take some pressure off Marbury, this way Marbury can take a back seat to Garnett and just do his damage. Marbury is not a leader. Hassell is the type of player that Larry Brown likes. He's going to start from day one at SG along side Marbury. Hudson is a filler.

So, that's what I got from my observation.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> C'mon Michael ..
> 
> Deep down you know it can never happen


You're mean!

Mean mean mean mean mean!

MEAN!!!!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> No.... perhaps we need to realise that the Chicago Bulls organisation is in the Social Engineering and Risk Management Business....basketball is ancillary around this


Happy freaking Saturday.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

why are we even talking about this?KG is getting old(he will be 30 in may)so we might get what 5years out of him and if anyone isnt a winner its him.he hasnt done a single thing to lead his team and has only made the playoffs what 1 time..with SAR,Grob,TT and many others,i have seen posted about how getting these players would be bad because they arnt winners,how they havent help their teams but just because a players name is KG all of that doesnt madder and isnt applyed to them because of all the hype.

ok now ill get blasted with "the twolves havent put players around him" i call BS.if he couldnt do it with the twolves then what makes you think he can with us?get over it KG might be moved but he wont be coming here..

i for one think it would be a HUGE mistake to give 1/2 the rosted for just one player,thats never a good ideal,and b4 anyone brings up the shaq to the heat deal plz remember that the heat had another superstar in Dwade only they didnt know it at the time.

TT and a piece or 2 like gordon,AN along with filler like pike and or song doesnt sound to bad,but Deng, Sweetney, Kirk, Tim Thomas or Deng, Gordon, Thomas, Harrington, Pike, Allen, two 2006 #1 picks thats crazy.if we trade deng who will play SF for us?AN?not a good ideal to fill one hole only to open up another doesnt help much.cap space,a up and comer or 2 along with a pick and filler should be more then enuff if not then see ya..


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Seriously dude, english, learn it.


> he hasnt done a single thing to lead his team and has only made the playoffs what 1 time.


False.


> SAR,Grob,TT and many others,i have seen posted about how getting these players would be bad because they arnt winners,how they havent help their teams but just because a players name is KG all of that doesnt madder and isnt applyed to them because of all the hype.


None of those players are in the same league in terms of skills and not a single one you've listed have won the MVP. So putting KG in the same category as notorious underperformers as those is down right idiotic.


> ok now ill get blasted with "the twolves havent put players around him" i call BS.if he couldnt do it with the twolves then what makes you think he can with us?get over it KG might be moved but he wont be coming here..


If we do manage to get him, he won't have to bear the sole responsibility to do everything on a team. Anyways with the amount of young talent we have on a roster, its simple reasoning to think we'd be in contention to get him. If a team is ever going to trade its superstar player it would be for rebuilding purposes, which means young talent and draft picks usually.


> the heat had another superstar in Dwade only they didnt know it at the time.


Please, everybody knew about Wade, or did you just miss the playoffs in his rookie season?


> TT and a piece or 2 like gordon,AN along with filler like pike and or song doesnt sound to bad,but Deng, Sweetney, Kirk, Tim Thomas or Deng, Gordon, Thomas, Harrington, Pike, Allen, two 2006 #1 picks thats crazy.if we trade deng who will play SF for us?AN?not a good ideal to fill one hole only to open up another doesnt help much.cap space,a up and comer or 2 along with a pick and filler should be more then enuff if not then see ya..


If you're referring to Mikedc's post, he's listing the teams assets.
As for Deng, he's gotta prove worthy enough to start, let alone be the sole player on the wing. Trading him isn't the issue really either, as wingmen and guards are a dime and dozen, MVP calibre big men aren't.

And lastly, if you're not going to bother making a decent attempt at a post, please don't then. I seriously feel i've lost some brain cells trying to decipher your post.


----------



## MightyMouse1984 (Nov 21, 2005)

We all have been hearing about garnett to the bulls for year. I honestly dont think it would ever happen. Pierce maybe but not KG. KG wants a ring more then anyone. I just think after all the years of KG talk if it hasnt happend by now it will never. The bulls would have to give up a TON of future talent to get him. If gordon, loul, and kirk are all going to be 20ppg players in the next 4 years (whick i may be off my rocker but i think they will be) then whats the point of giving them up for KG who's knees are getting old anyways. Not to take anything awawy from KG but i just cant see it happening. But if/when it does...I will be the first to admitt I was wrong.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

A Bulls offer of both 1st round picks and Deng along with Thomas would make the Wolves at least pause before laughing at the proposal.


----------



## MightyMouse1984 (Nov 21, 2005)

L.O.B said:


> A Bulls offer of both 1st round picks and Deng along with Thomas would make the Wolves at least pause before laughing at the proposal.



LOL


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> C'mon Michael ..
> 
> Deep down you know it can never happen
> 
> ...


What a bunch of **** you're spewing.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

RSP83 said:


> About Isiah paying the penalty, what do u mean by that?


I mean that there are plenty of teams who would be able to outbid the Knicks for Garnett. The Knicks just don't have many attractive assets for trade. They're loaded with massive long-term contracts, which the T-Wolves would never want. The Knicks don't have any draft picks to give up, since they traded all of them away already. Their only valuable pieces for a trade are Channing Frye, and to a lesser extent, David Lee and Trevor Ariza. Compare that to what the Bulls could offer...Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Duhon, Nocioni, Sweetney (all 6 of these guys are making $3M or less), 2 first-rounders, and maybe even Chandler (yes he's on a big contract now, but he's also a young, super athletic big).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Chris Sheridan's latest post to his Insider blog says that the Knicks are apparently very much involved in the bidding for KG, with one source going so far as to say he'd "bet money KG will be wearing a Knicks uniform by the trading deadline."

-- The Knicks have reportedly offered the expiring contracts of AD and Penny for Wally and KG, which would relieve the Wolves of >$100 million in salary and leave them with more than $25 million in Cap Space this summer. Furthermore, inside sources claim that KG is lobbying to become a Knick.

-- The Pistons have offered Darko and Rasheed

-- The Nets are also involved, but Minnesota wants RJ, and his base-year status makes him tough to deal. 

Of course McHale and Dumars have vehemently denied all this as the sources swear its all true. If you're an Insider subscriber, read more here: http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=sheridan_chris

All very interesting stuff. I think the Bulls could put together a package that trumps all of these (unless the Nets give up VC + RJ and a bunch of picks), and I'm disappointed they aren't mentioned here.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Chris Sheridan's latest post to his Insider blog says that the Knicks are apparently very much involved in the bidding for KG, with one source going so far as to say he'd "bet money KG will be wearing a Knicks uniform by the trading deadline."
> 
> -- The Knicks have reportedly offered the expiring contracts of AD and Penny for Wally and KG, which would relieve the Wolves of >$100 million in salary and leave them with more than $25 million in Cap Space this summer. Furthermore, inside sources claim that KG is lobbying to become a Knick.
> 
> ...



I agree, it'd be nice to see the Bulls' name mentioned. We have plenty to offer Minnesota in a trade.

I'm sure Minnesota is seeking salary relief in the midst of a KG trade, but to come out of that trade with zero draft picks (which is what they'd get if they deal with the Knicks) is pretty bad management. Or at least snag some of the young talents like Frye, Lee, or Ariza. This is Garnett we're talking about here, he should net more than just expiring contracts.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If Paxson makes this trade the Bulls are no longer Paxson and Skiles' team but Kevin Garnett's team.


Something to consider. Control will be lost, IMO. The Star System will be back in effect.

I would really, really like to see the Bulls getting in the action on this. I hope they do.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

lorgg said:


> What a bunch of **** you're spewing.


Fair enough 

But colourful verbage aside ...do you really think ours is an organisation for KG ?

Or for that matter is KG for this organisation ?

I honestly do believe that we will only select/target players that fit a certain profile of compliance , which , is very necessary to a structure of authoritarian control that dominates Chicago Bulls basketball

Moreso than what anybody realises ...I'm fairly convinced The good Chairman and his team of merrymen are never going to allow loss of control to "the talent" ever again

Of course the more talented you are ..the bigger your negotiating chip ..the bigger amount of damage you can cause if you don't get your way when you try and take a seat at master's table and input into the running of the show

Nah...nice kids ...tough smiling SOB's that spit their teeth out and smile when they get smacked in the chops to reflect the blue collar man way ..who respect their boss, never break ranks , and who at the end of the day have no real leverage to upset the apple cart. A nice diffusion of risk in who your invested in and a hardworking team for the people 

And they will love them for what they represent. and reflect..not what they actually do as basketball players in the winning and losing of basketball games 

Very pleasant.

Very orderly.

There is a battle of cultures and control in the NBA 

Dress codes .. The New "Old" School Coaches like Skiles and McMillan who get their ups and support from the guys like Pop, Jeff Van Gundy and Jerry Sloan ..who are all about hard core discipline and kind of milatary like in aspects of their style and who have low tolerance to the superstar system and the necessity to manage egos

The problem with the superstar system is loss of control in how you want to run your franchise because the superstar actually believes they are "the franchise" in how the marketing machine of the NBA developed in the 80's and carried over into the 90's

Teams stopped being promoted as much as what the individuals were. And the problem with that is that you had a lot of inferior talent that were undeserving franchise players/superstars..false prophets if you like ..but they were already "annointed" as such . They and everyone else bought into it and believed the shyte

And this cascaded all the way down to young players coming in ..like Kendall Gill for example who went bananas in Seattle because he wasn't getting his touches and honestly believed he should have had similar priveleges conferred on him as MJ did.......Lamond Murray throwing tantrums in Cleveland because no one could buy his jersey at the stadium ..... Eddie Robinson ( and now to a lesser extent Tim Thomas ) who don't feel they need to train because , in Robinson's case at least , he felt that like other high profiled star players he needed the extra time to recover ..privelleges that "player's coaches" afforded their star players. And he couldn't deal with the fact that :

A) He actually wasn't one 

B) No one saw him as one 

C) He was expected to train , improve and contribute like everyone else 

And all this attitude down the line in learned behaviours from inferior talents came from circumstances best exemplified from Allen Iverson in his now immortal ;

_Practice man ? We're talking about practice ? _

As in "Hey baby I don't have to..I'm the Answer"

Then there are "the players coaches " who believe that its a "players league" and generally these guys are set up from weak front office management in the first place and don't have the balls to control their personnel and/or cede control to them and try and ride on a dictate of play and style that the players themselves almost seem to determine 

What happens is is that when you do have to crack the whip and get control back..its too late ..the franchise has a zillion dollars tied up in its players ..only a few million in you..and whooshka ..your rooted..Coaches like Paul Silas and Flip Saunders are good examples here..possibly Eddy Jordan eventually..Brian Hill definately. Rudy Tomjanovich may have been a bit this way

Which is not meaning to say that Coaches in the more hardlined model have any greater degree of security. The Mania of George Karl and Doug Collins are crash or crash through types and typically will end up crashing a lot earlier than a more ordered guy like Pop, JVG or Sloan..( although I do think that maybe Sloan needs a break and recharge ) 

Question is .... we are undisputedly of the New "Old School" model where Skiles does not have the legitimacy of a Popovich or a Jeff Van Gundy....and given that this is the case - how long and how hard can we hang on this dogma , in being who we have determined to be , at the expense of legitimate talent ?

I mean if we tread water and keept stacking the decks with good guy 4 year college players and kiss arse mediocre free agents...is this level of mediocrity going to be enough ..forget about the fan base ..but for the players themselves ? 

And if not , is the very thing that you set out to be , going to ultimately be the thing that does it all in ?

We need more legitimate talent and we need to sacrifice some in our personnel and lighten up in the culture / model we're trying to build if we're ever going to be legitimate and contend 

And these changes need first to happen in the mind of management if there is a preparedness to step aside the hard core dogma that drives this place in its ideals right now ..which to be honest ..I don't know are all about basketball per se . Maybe on the conscious level they believe it is...but I really wonder.....


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SausageKingofChicago again.
​<!-- / main error message -->


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

yodurk said:


> I agree, it'd be nice to see the Bulls' name mentioned. We have plenty to offer Minnesota in a trade.
> 
> I'm sure Minnesota is seeking salary relief in the midst of a KG trade, but to come out of that trade with zero draft picks (which is what they'd get if they deal with the Knicks) is pretty bad management. Or at least snag some of the young talents like Frye, Lee, or Ariza. This is Garnett we're talking about here, he should net more than just expiring contracts.


*

Curry
Garnett
Sczcerbiak
Hassell
Marbury

 bench 

James
Taylor/Rose
Barnes
Richardson
Robinson

*

Which means that AD and Penny get shipped with .... Frye, Lee, Ariza and Crawford

Minnesota not only clears the decks with KG and Wally..but Hassell as well which still gives them around $15M and their own lottery pick to build in around :

*

Frye 
Lee
Griffin
Jaric
Crawford

bench

Olowokandi ( resigned )
Madsen
Ariza
McCants
Hudson

Lottery pick
2nd round pick

*

After their inevitable lottery pick and resigning Olowokandi they'd have around $17M in cap room..and all that young talent on a 12 person roster

They could overahul , clear the decks and have the rebuilding pieces in place inside 6 months..may take 2 to 3 seasons to mature before they're competitive again ..but I bet with those kind of assets they got greater chances to move past the first round at a greater rate than once in eight seasons

It would be an awesome trade for New York as well..I really do think they could contend with that team


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

If they so desired, the Knicks could take EVERY big long-term deal the Wolves had.

Knicks trade: Penny, AD, Taylor, Frye, Robinson, Butler

Wolves trade: Garnett, Wally, Hudson, Hassell, Madsen, Jaric

Taylor is a bad contract, but he's only got one year left, vs. the Wolves guys who all have three or four.

Wolves trade contracts valued at $231.49M

Knicks trade contracts valued at $55.63M

*Net Savings for the Wolves $175.86M!!!!!*

Of course, the Wolves would probably spend some of that salary on other players, but that's an absolutely staggering number nonetheless. They could probably field a decent team for the next several years and still save $70-100M.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Is the theory here that the Bulls wouldn't make a play for Garnett because he is too good, and therefore too powerful?


----------



## MightyMouse1984 (Nov 21, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Is the theory here that the Bulls wouldn't make a play for Garnett because he is too good, and therefore too powerful?



he's powerful but people talk about him like he's a terell owens or something. The guy is a class act. He wouldnt step on pax's toes


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Sam Smith says he doesn't want to come here, and Smith may be right about that (he has to be right about somethings sometimes).

He's going to go where he wants to go, if he goes anywhere. Maybe McHale will go instead.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Is the theory here that the Bulls wouldn't make a play for Garnett because he is too good, and therefore too powerful?


He'd be the first mega-contract player the Bulls have had since Rose who'd be expected to be THE STAR of the team and the one putting butts in the seats. Garnett is arguably the best player in the whole NBA.

So yeah, the theory is that when you get a guy like this, he's have a lot of power - the ability to pout until the coach was fired, for example (as happened to Doug Collins w/MJ).


----------



## VCFORTHREE15 (Jul 19, 2005)

I am sorry for the negativity, but Garnett will not be a bull or Knick, bu tthe buls do have a shot. Knicks are rebuilding, and Garnett wants a championship. As previously written in another post, The Nets want him for Rj. I would do an RJ, MArc Jackson, Jeff Mcinnis, Zoran plus picks for Garnett and filler. 

WHY WOLVES DO THIS: the wolves have made it no secret that they want to rid themselves of KG. They get a great Sf in RJ, a nice backup in Marc Jackson, a solid backup in Jeff mcinnis, a promising player in zoran, and picks. They have a nice team, but would not make the playoffs.

WHY THE NETS DO THIS: The nets want to win now. They get rid of the carter-clone (i love rj dont get me wrong) and bring in the player they have always wanted. Kg is now given a great PG and an amazing sg in carter. Krstic still plays center and Collins moves to the bench. 

This is a deal that can happen .


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> If they so desired, the Knicks could take EVERY big long-term deal the Wolves had.
> 
> Knicks trade: Penny, AD, Taylor, Frye, Robinson, Butler
> 
> ...


True ..its just that I think Jaric, Hudson and Madsen are well priced for what they offer and are nice young productive role playing vets to have around a rookie contract core of Frye, Lee and Ariza + another couple of lottery picks over the next couple seasons


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

VCFORTHREE15 said:


> I am sorry for the negativity, but Garnett will not be a bull or Knick, bu tthe buls do have a shot. Knicks are rebuilding, and Garnett wants a championship. As previously written in another post, The Nets want him for Rj. I would do an RJ, MArc Jackson, Jeff Mcinnis, Zoran plus picks for Garnett and filler.
> 
> WHY WOLVES DO THIS: the wolves have made it no secret that they want to rid themselves of KG. They get a great Sf in RJ, a nice backup in Marc Jackson, a solid backup in Jeff mcinnis, a promising player in zoran, and picks. They have a nice team, but would not make the playoffs.
> 
> ...


 That's a terrible trade for T'Wolves. Jackson and Mcinnis is crap. Jeff is a cancer. You turn KG into two three building blocks. These aren't even expiring contracts. Include Krstic then maybe...

RJeff is a full BYC so a ton more would have to be added anyways than marc and mcinnis

Bulls and Knicks have more tradeable commodities.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

VCFORTHREE15 said:


> I am sorry for the negativity, but Garnett will not be a bull or Knick, bu tthe buls do have a shot. Knicks are rebuilding, and Garnett wants a championship. As previously written in another post, The Nets want him for Rj. I would do an RJ, MArc Jackson, Jeff Mcinnis, Zoran plus picks for Garnett and filler.
> 
> WHY WOLVES DO THIS: the wolves have made it no secret that they want to rid themselves of KG. They get a great Sf in RJ, a nice backup in Marc Jackson, a solid backup in Jeff mcinnis, a promising player in zoran, and picks. They have a nice team, but would not make the playoffs.
> 
> ...


Can I smell what the Nets are cooking ?

Smells like **** burgers from here 

If the Wolves do a deal it won't be with Jersey because the Wolves will take the opportunity to clear the decks and saddle Wally and maybe Trent Hassell

They don't want dead wood back in McInnis and Jackson

Planinic is unproven still

Which leaves RJ that in isolation isn't enough for KG let alone the substandard ballast of marginal role players with long term crap contracts that don't really fit into a long term rebuilding plan

And KG can ***** and moan all he likes about where he will go and where he won't go ..and guess what he absolutely has no say in the matter ..its what I was talking about before in disproportionate control in the "superstar" system

I still think that New York is a perfect trading partner for the Wolves and where ancillary to the benefits to be extracted for the Wolves organisation , it would be a very good situation for KG as well and where he reeally could have an opportunity to contend with Brown + Marbury, Sczcerbiak , Richardson and Curry..and where they would have the pick of the MLE market for who wants to bandwagon on 

Its a team that could be very good and contend with the Pacers , Pistons and Heat in the East as the top 4 teams


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Insider suggested KG for Vince with Krstic or ilic.
since Rjeff is BYC


----------



## VCFORTHREE15 (Jul 19, 2005)

I just dont think KG will be a Knick unless marbury is included in the deal. Why would Minnesota take back garbage? Just to relieve cap? Come on, unless they have a shot at Peja and Ben, that is ridiuclous. The Nets may do a deal where Kidd is involved, or Carter is involved, or Rj is involved. Whatever. HEre are some choices. Pick ur favorite. 

1) Kidd, Krstic, 2 first round picks for Kg and Second ROunder

2) Carter, Marc Jackson, Collins, 1st rounder for KG and filler
3) carter and jackson for Kg

4) RJ and Jackson and Krstic plus Collins for KG

5) RJ, Mcinnis, Carter for KG, Hudson, Hassell

The Knicks i just dont believe have the attraction as the nets do. I would love a KG to NJ deal, and frankly i expect one. I think the second deal will happen most likely. 

Kidd
Mcinnis
Jefferson
Garnett
Krstic

Not bad...


----------



## VCFORTHREE15 (Jul 19, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> Insider suggested KG for Vince with Krstic or ilic.
> since Rjeff is BYC



Did they? How reliable is this source?


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

VCFORTHREE15 said:


> I just dont think KG will be a Knick unless marbury is included in the deal. Why would Minnesota take back garbage? Just to relieve cap? Come on, unless they have a shot at Peja and Ben, that is ridiuclous. The Nets may do a deal where Kidd is involved, or Carter is involved, or Rj is involved. Whatever. HEre are some choices. Pick ur favorite.
> 
> 1) Kidd, Krstic, 2 first round picks for Kg and Second ROunder
> 
> ...


quit dreaming.
insider is hardly ever right.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

VCFORTHREE15 said:


> Did they? How reliable is this source?


 It's just a suggestion by the writer, Chris Sheridan. not really inside info.


----------



## VCFORTHREE15 (Jul 19, 2005)

inuyasha232 said:


> quit dreaming.
> insider is hardly ever right.


SO u believe KG will not be traded?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I would not call Frye , Lee , and Ariza garbage + I would much rather Crawford than McInnis

Plus the Wolves have all that young talent and the capacity to facilitate trades down the track even though they won't get Peja or Wallace

Plus they save tens of millions more in the meantime rather than do the Jersey deal

Better talent , more money , greater flexibility rebuild 

Pretty compelling reasons at the end of the day


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

VCFORTHREE15 said:


> SO u believe KG will not be traded?


he will i believe, but if he goes to the nets, it wont be a dumass trade like this:
vc,1st rounder,illic, and marc jackson for KG


----------



## VCFORTHREE15 (Jul 19, 2005)

inuyasha232 said:


> he will i believe, but if he goes to the nets, it wont be a dumass trade like this:
> vc,1st rounder,illic, and marc jackson for KG


What is wrong with that deal? What can the nets do? Carter and Jefferson? It wont happen. I guess we wont find out anytime soon. I do wonder, if Kg goes to the Knicks, are they ar etop four team then?

KIdd 
Carter
Jefferson
Collins
Krstic

Marbury
Crawford
Richardson
Garnett
Curry

Pretty stacked teams both ways. Nets have a better 1-3, but KG destroys COllins, but Curry and Krstic are similar. Give the slight edge to Curry. Anyway i still dont think KG would make them that much better as their is only one ball in the game


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

VCFORTHREE15 said:


> What is wrong with that deal? What can the nets do? Carter and Jefferson? It wont happen. I guess we wont find out anytime soon. I do wonder, if Kg goes to the Knicks, are they ar etop four team then?
> 
> KIdd
> Carter
> ...


um, if the knicks traded for kg, i bet u there starting 5 wouldnt look like that.


----------



## VCFORTHREE15 (Jul 19, 2005)

inuyasha232 said:


> um, if the knicks traded for kg, i bet u there starting 5 wouldnt look like that.


they would keep Marbury. Their trade is supposed to be KG and Wally for Penny and Davis. This deal would not happen, but it is possible.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

VCFORTHREE15 said:


> they would keep Marbury. Their trade is supposed to be KG and Wally for Penny and Davis. This deal would not happen, but it is possible.


should be rose,curry,crawford, and 2 1st rounders for KG if ever possible.idk.unreasonable


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

KG in NY, *****es!


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Tell me if Im wrong, but there many many teams that could top any reasonable NY offer. Obviously there might be many teams that would rather not trade for KG, but New York isnt all of the sudden a deep talented team (with reasonable good contracts).


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> Tell me if Im wrong, but there many many teams that could top any reasonable NY offer. Obviously there might be many teams that would rather not trade for KG, but New York isnt all of the sudden a deep talented team (with reasonable good contracts).



But they are the only team I can think of that can parcel up $30M of expiring contracts to cleanse Minnesota's payroll and deliver them 2 x high quality rookies in Frye and Lee - a potential starting front court tandem for them going into the future , a promising 2nd year player in wing defender Trevor Ariza and a scoring combo guard ( in Crawford ) that matches up perfectly with Marko Jaric 

Minnesota clears the decks by punting Wally and Trent as well and has $15M in clear cap room together with 2 to 3 years of lottery additions to pair with Frye, Lee , Olowokandi, Griffin , Madsen Ariza , McCants, Jaric , Hudson and Crawford.

Instant rebuilder , save mega money and huge flexibility going into the future 

I actually think it would be an awesome move for them and one that could ultimately consistently get them past the 1st round ( at least more than once in 8 years..counting 9 this season ) 

If New York can pull this off ... I'd switch TT for AD with Minny and maybe a 2nd round pick

Get AD back for half a season to help us in a playoff push


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> But they are the only team I can think of that can parcel up $30M of expiring contracts to cleanse Minnesota's payroll and deliver them 2 x high quality rookies in Frye and Lee - a potential starting front court tandem for them going into the future , a promising 2nd year player in wing defender Trevor Ariza and a scoring combo guard ( in Crawford ) that matches up perfectly with Marko Jaric
> 
> Minnesota clears the decks by punting Wally and Trent as well and has $15M in clear cap room together with 2 to 3 years of lottery additions to pair with Frye, Lee , Olowokandi, Griffin , Madsen Ariza , McCants, Jaric , Hudson and Crawford.
> 
> ...


At first I thought there was NO reason for KG to go to the Knicks... but with Sausage's points... I would have to say the T'Wolves would almost be STUPID to not do this deal... while it allows the knicks to keep some talent and makes them a POSSIBLE top 4 team in the east... 

Twolves

Frye/Olowakandi
Lee/Masdem
Ariza/
Jaric/McCants
Crawford/Hudson

SO much talent to replace KG from this trade... I don't think the T'wolves could get such a rebuilding core so quickly from any other team

Knicks

Curry
KG
Wally
Marbury
Nate

if the Knicks can trade Marbury for a 2 guard like joe johnson they'd be set

Curry/James
KG/Rose
Wally/Somebody
Johnson/Somebody
Nate/Somebody

...with brown's coaching miracles they could contend... this was the front-court that we were drooling about KG and Curry... and if it does happen in NY... wow... KG never had even a DECENT center to play next to and even though curry lacks in some areas he is one of the better C's in the league... pack that with a super PG in nate and a great SG in johnson.. wow


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Sorry, I just don't buy that anyone would be stupid enough to deal KG for capspace...not gonna happen.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Sorry, I just don't buy that anyone would be stupid enough to deal KG for capspace...not gonna happen.


Garnett for Pike.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Sorry, I just don't buy that anyone would be stupid enough to deal KG for capspace...not gonna happen.



And Minnesota is no L.A. or Miami. 

I think they've gotta get draft picks, young talent, and expirings.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Garnett for Pike.



Might as well be, why wouldn't we offer TT/Pike and a draft pick? Maybe a filler salary to match, certainly beats Davis/Penny and no pick. This, IMO, is just people going off on a tangent and not something that is ever likely to happen in the real world.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Good God Almighty!

Garnett and Ron Ron playing side by side?

Slobberknocker!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

oh great...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Yeah that would definitley make Indy a strong team and seems a lot more likely than the NY cap relief thing.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> Yeah that would definitley make Indy a strong team and seems a lot more likely than the NY cap relief thing.


Minnesota draws very poorly - just trading for capspace would kill them at the box office. 

And while I hate the idea of him going to any team in the eastern conference outside of the Bulls, I'd hate it even more if he'd go to New York.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

narek said:


> Minnesota draws very poorly - just trading for capspace would kill them at the box office.
> 
> And while I hate the idea of him going to any team in the eastern conference outside of the Bulls, I'd hate it even more if he'd go to New York.


Yes, but cap relief coupled with two or three young players on rookie deals like Frye, Lee, Ariza, Robinson could make them exciting quicker than you'd think.

Of course, getting Jermaine O'Neal is a no-brainer. His stock is taking a bit of a hit, but he's a very good player and very young.

I wonder whether we could horn in on the deal and offer something for him.

*Suppose we offered Gordon, Noc, Thomas and our picks for O'Neil and Hudson?*

That would given them an even bigger leg up rebuilding and more cap relief. To the casual fan, a recent college star like Gordon may have more cachet than O'Neil, and I can imagine O'Neil complaining about going to Minnesota.

It'd be worth calling up McHale, because if this deal goes through it's gonna kick us right in the ***.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

nanokooshball said:


> At first I thought there was NO reason for KG to go to the Knicks... but with Sausage's points... I would have to say the T'Wolves would almost be STUPID to not do this deal... while it allows the knicks to keep some talent and makes them a POSSIBLE top 4 team in the east...
> 
> Twolves
> 
> ...


As a knick fan,the only thing that made me ill was giving up Frye....Zeke will hold out as long as possible and probably offer a number 1 instead....


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2849732#post2849732&conly=



This trade works under trade checker: 

"Every trade made by fans is allocated a unique Trade ID which you can share with friends and fellow basketball fans to allow them to see your trade scenario. The Trade ID for this scenario is 2654743."

The new Indy?

Tinsley, Saras
Jackson, Wally, Jones
Artest, Hassell
Garnett, Croshere
Foster, Harrison

The new Minny?

Jaric, Hudson
McCants, Frahm
Granger, Skita
O'Neal, Madsen
Kandi, Pollard

Man, that Minny team still isn't very good. Do they need a draft pick, or is O'Neal plus Granger plus a boatload of long term cap flexibility worht it? And do the Bulls have anything to offer that is comperable? We don't have anyone as productive as O'Neal right now.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> This trade works under trade checker:
> 
> "Every trade made by fans is allocated a unique Trade ID which you can share with friends and fellow basketball fans to allow them to see your trade scenario. The Trade ID for this scenario is 2654743."
> 
> ...


i wouldnt trade oneal and granger for KG if i were the pacers. Oneal is just like KG except KG is a better passer and rebounder, but oneal has more polished offense game. and hes like 2-3 years younger. plus granger is an excellent rookie.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> This trade works under trade checker:
> 
> "Every trade made by fans is allocated a unique Trade ID which you can share with friends and fellow basketball fans to allow them to see your trade scenario. The Trade ID for this scenario is 2654743."
> 
> ...


I'd think we could be competitive with that. We don't have anyone competitive with O'Neal, but it seems to me that Minny would be better off with picks / good players on rookie deals than they are with Jermaine.

I actually think trying to make it a 3 way trade makes a lot of sense for both the Bulls and TWolves. Minny for reasons stated above, and us because if we could get O'Neal for it and keep our draft picks, we'd 

From the Bulls perspective, Thomas Gordon, Noc, and a pick for O'Neal solve our frontcourt problems in a hurry.

I don't know how good we could be but 
1- Duhon, Hudson
2- Hinrich
3- Deng
4- Chandler, Sweetney
5- O'Neal, _Chandler_

Looks like the outline of a pretty good team. If we could add the right guy with the MLE (Harrington?) and make the right picks next year, we'd be in pretty nice shape.

Or if we could pull off that Duhon + Pike trade for Al Harrington, we try out Deng full time at SG:
1- Hinrich, Hudson
2- Deng
3- Harrington, _Deng_
4- Chandler, Sweetney
5- O'Neal, _Chandler_

and still have a pick and an MLE guy to add. That could be the best we're gonna get.

Of course, there are a huge number of ifs in that, but I like the idea of that lineup. Everyone in it is a solid defender, and everyone but Chandler is a solid offensive player. With Sweetney, the pick, and the MLE, we'll have the opportunity to add depth as well. If we can't stop the Pacers from getting KG, getting O'Neal as part of the deal would be a steal.

Why can't I stop rhyming


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Listen up everyone. We do not know if this guy is who he claims he is. We are going to try and find out. This may be bogus.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Listen up everyone. We do not know if this guy is who he claims he is. We are going to try and find out. This may be bogus.


In any case, his trade works on trade checker, and it's a reasonable suggestion. I don't expect this trade to happen until I hear from a more known source anyway.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I don't expect this trade to happen until I hear from a more known source anyway.


Well rumour has it Bird and Carlisle are having a few heated words over it(read it elsewhere than hoopshype). Its one of the more reasonable trades suggested here and elsewhere and i think it could be a decent trade for both teams.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

step said:


> Well rumour has it Bird and Carlisle are having a few heated words over it(read it elsewhere than hoopshype). Its one of the more reasonable trades suggested here and elsewhere and i think it could be a decent trade for both teams.



Carlisle doesn't want Garnett? Or doesn't want to give up someone else?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Carlisle doesn't want Garnett? Or doesn't want to give up someone else?


I wouldn't say he wouldn't want Garnett, just probably felt they're giving up too much for this deal. Who knows what was proposed initially.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

bone crusher is not who he says he is. Thanks to Petey, we found out that hoopshype does not have a writer for Indiana. 

So discuss this is you wish but as far as concrete fact goes, it is best to not believe it for now.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*For the t'wolves it comes down to this*

do you (a) make a deal that puts you over the top ,(b) appease garnett and keep him or do you (c) cut bait on kevin and rebuild?

they tried option B 2 years ago made the conf. finals but it fell apart last season and they are back where they started.

i dont really think they have the assets to make a deal that puts them over the top , outside of KG what is there on that team you would really want, and trading garnett is not a way to get better unless you are getting duncan...would you really give much for jaric or mcants , wally Z's value is in the toilet because he isn't worth that kind of money that he is making, probably worth half that. is there anyone on the roster you could get a star for that gives KG a real boost like sprewell and cassell did a couple of years ago? only if Artest explodes again and even then it would have to be for jaric (salaries have to match) and i just cant see it, someone would have to be able to beat that.

i think they have fully rebuild or convince KG to be a timberwolf for life and i dont know if they can do that. i dont even think they can get the deal sausage king thinks they can , i think they get less , AD, Penny frye mo taylor the 1st rounder they got from the spurs and nate seems about right for KG , hassell, wally, hudson and jaric .

i dont think they get ariza because zeke doesn't have to give him away , they are the only team that can take KG plus the salary cap killer known as wally szczerbiak, plus a host of other overpaid guys teams sign just because they think they are close and that will be the move to keep things humming along, even though they clearly aren't worth it.(hassell and hudson)

i dont think the wolves would even want crawford , i think if they went in that direction they would want to completely wipe the slate clean and JC is on the hook for 6 more years

the wolves are a small market team that doesn't draw all that well with KG they will be in the toilet w/o him , so having everyone on their team earning less than the avg. lotto pick makes alot of sense for them right now , and there is no team that would take all that on ...or can for that matter except the knicks. dallas would have been a small posibility if the had kept abdul wahad who was an ending deal , but they cut him about a month ago. the blazers had the parts to make a deal like this last season no problem but they choose to let their deals expire.

in the end i think its unlikely i dont think the wolves and garnett are quite at their breaking point , it may take another season of mediocrity for that to happen, if minn. decides to reward garnett for service well done and send him to his choice of places i think new york would be the place, not just because of the rumblings saying it so , but because i think KG has enough of an ego to want to be "the guy" in the NBA again, in new york with him and marbury and others he would definitely have that chance, they had a chance to do serious damage if they had stayed in minny together they are both in their primes now , so if they ever could now is the time.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

FWIW I would not trade Jermaine O'Neal for Kevin Garnett straight up


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Grinch 

Do you not think that Jaric and Hudson are good value for money for the Wolves in a rebuilder 

And also ..do you not think Crawford is complementary match for Jaric?


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

narek said:


> Carlisle doesn't want Garnett? Or doesn't want to give up someone else?


Indiana got O’Neal and Artest almost for free. Plus they successfully dumped Jalen’s contract during that “robbery”. I am not surprise why Carlisle (Indiana) doesn't want to give up someone else for the KG… it is not their style


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Trade KG? Forget about it, Taylor says*

OKLAHOMA CITY — The Timberwolves are not going to trade Kevin Garnett.

Not this week, not this month, not this season. 

Not now and, if it were entirely up to Wolves owner Glen Taylor, not ever. 

“I have no plans on trading him at least through this contact,’’ Taylor said in a phone interview Tuesday. “I’d like to say through life. But I’ll just say through this contract, because then there are things you can’t always control.’’ 

Garnett, the Wolves’ eight-time NBA All-Star, is signed through the 2008-09 season. 

At the risk of spoiling Internet fun nationwide, sapping content from sports talk radio shows and forcing NBA columnists to mix in a few facts, Taylor felt it was worthwhile to state definitively that Garnett — the primary reason to pay attention to the Wolves for the past decade — would continue to play in Minnesota.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

This may not be true anymore since it's been years since they played together but wasn't there a lot of bad blood between Stephon Marbury and KG after Steph left Minnesota?

Here's an article about KG rumors from a NY paper. My browser's screwed up so I don't have an exact link to the article from the NY Daily News. Here's some highlights (I didn't see this posted anywhere).


Knicks focus on
Garnett's future in Minny 



BY FRANK ISOLA
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER 

Kevin Garnett is slowly becoming this year's Vince Carter; an All-Star who is the subject of trade rumors, including one with the Knicks. 
An Internet rumor mentioned the Knicks and Pistons as possible destinations (what a shock) for Garnett, one of the league's elite players. Sources close to Garnett are convinced that he will not be traded this season, but the same sources won't rule out Minnesota making a deal this summer if the team fails to reach the playoffs.

Many league executives feel there are seven teams - in no particular order - with the resources to acquire Garnett, who can exercise an early termination clause in his contract in two years. The Knicks, Nets, Pistons, Lakers, Bulls, Pacers and Warriors figure to have the best chance of landing Garnett, if and when he becomes available.

The one advantage the Knicks would have is that they can absorb other big contracts from Minnesota, namely those of Wally Szczerbiak and Troy Hudson. Chicago, where Garnett played his high school ball, has its share of expiring contracts plus talented young players to entice Minnesota. For the past two years, the Nets have pursued Garnett, who is close to Nets point guard Jason Kidd.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

dkg1 said:


> This may not be true anymore since it's been years since they played together but wasn't there a lot of bad blood between Stephon Marbury and KG after Steph left Minnesota?
> 
> Here's an article about KG rumors from a NY paper. My browser's screwed up so I don't have an exact link to the article from the NY Daily News. Here's some highlights (I didn't see this posted anywhere).
> 
> ...


Excellent. It's good to hear from a source that we're pursuing KG. Big dreams, Pax, big dreams!

Can anyone think up of a reasonable scenario in which we obtain both Garnett and Peja?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

OK, I'll take a bit at trying to create a scenario to acquire them both. Warning: I have to gut the team to do it.

So I don't think Minny is trading Garnett unless they can ship off either Wally, Hudson, or Hassel. Most likely they'll want to part with Wally, because his contract is so large. I don't think they'll want Chandler back because I assume they'd be doing this to gain flexiblity and young players, and Chandler's deal would hamper their flexibility. So in order to do it, we have to trade them half a roster:

Minnesota trades: Garnett, Wally

Chicago trades: Thomas, Gordon, Deng, Songaila, Pike, Malik Allen, NY's future first round pick


At this point our roster looks something like this:

Duhon, Hinrich, Pargo
Hinrich, Wally, Basden
Noc, Wally
Garnett, Sweetney
Chandler, Harrington

There's no way we'd have enough cap room to acquire Peja in the offseason. The acquisition of a 20 million dollar deal like Garnett seals the deal. So we have to trade for him then this year so we'll have his Bird rights at the end of the year.

We first try Nocioni and Harrington and a second rounder for Peja. Maybe that's enough being that we'll have be giving them back a decent small forward with one more year on his deal for a low price. That might just be enough. If not, we consider giving them our other first and ask for a second rounder in return.

Then we have:

Duhon, Hinrich, Pargo
Hinrich, Wally, Basden
Peja, Wally
Garnett, Sweetney
Chandler

At this point, we've totally gutted our big man depth. We'd have to call up Gugs and Jabari Smith on the phone real quick! I didn't see any other way to do it. If anyone has another suggestion, I'd be all ears. This suggestion does leave us with seven really good players though, in Garnett, Peja, Chandler, Hinrich, Duhon, Wally, and Sweetney.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Excellent. It's good to hear from a source that we're pursuing KG. Big dreams, Pax, big dreams!
> 
> Can anyone think up of a reasonable scenario in which we obtain both Garnett and Peja?


Chandler, Hinrich , Deng , Gordon, 2 1RDP's for KG

sign Peja in the summer, I guess that's not too reasonable from our end, but it is possible to have those two. I think it's only a matter of time for us to get Peja. KG will probably be too costly.We would have to low-ball Minny other wise Garnett would cost us too many really good young players or all of depth.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Excellent. It's good to hear from a source that we're pursuing KG. Big dreams, Pax, big dreams!


Small edit: It's good to hear that unnamed league executives feel we have the assets to make a push for KG. Neither Isola's article nor Sheridan's piece earlier this week said the Bulls have actually put out feelers.

I'm not sure what I make of Taylor's angry public denunciation of the KG rumors. It didn't leave anything up in the air, and Taylor is nothing if not a straight shooter, but guys always seem to be dealt after such public shows of affection. So I wonder.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

> Minnesota trades: Garnett, Wally
> 
> Chicago trades: Thomas, Gordon, Deng, Songaila, Pike, Malik Allen, NY's future first round pick


I would have a hard time trading Gordon, Deng, two above mid-level FA's, and a potentially high draft pick for Wally and KG. Stoyakovich could be one of those two above mid guys making the prospect of getting Wally lessoned (Peja is better and might also be cheaper). So Gordon, Deng, maybe Mohammed/Wilcox/Pryzbilla, and a lotto pick for KG. It sounds good from Minnesota's end, they would get 2-3 borderline-future allstars.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Grinch
> 
> Do you not think that Jaric and Hudson are good value for money for the Wolves in a rebuilder
> 
> And also ..do you not think Crawford is complementary match for Jaric?


combined jaric and hudson make 10.2 mil this season a number that increases for 4 straight years to a highpoint of 13+ ,mil., i am not sure a rebuilding team wants a pg tandem for 10-13 mil. when neither is a superstar or even a star or are expected to be.

so that is where i am coming from on that , better for them to save the money and allow for a team to be able to dump a star's salary in their lap later on , they literally have years to wait, if they wanted to.

i think jaric is a complimetary player for just about any star guard , he plays both guard spots on offense and defense and gets out of people's way, basically does what he can to make his team better , i like the guy, but he is no star , just a fringe starter to me with alot of versatility.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Excellent. It's good to hear from a source that we're pursuing KG. Big dreams, Pax, big dreams!
> 
> Can anyone think up of a reasonable scenario in which we obtain both Garnett and Peja?


Chicago trades :

#1

Luol Deng + our 1st round pick + Othella Harrington , Eric Piatowski and Malik Allen 

For Brad Miller and Peja Stojakovic 

#2 

Ben Gordon + Mike Sweetney + The Knicks first round pick + Tim Thomas 

For Kevin Garnett and Trent Hassell

*

Brad Miller
Kevin Garnett
Peja Stojakovic
Kirk Hinrich
Chris Duhon

bench

Tyson Chandler
Darius Songaila
Andres Nocioni
Trent Hassell
Jannero Pargo 

*

If we could pull off Miller and Peja and KG was available you would have to think that this is a pretty decent supporting cast that would have legitimate opportunity to compete for a ring 

And I don't believe Glen Taylor.. the more someone vehmently denies something such as this only infers an opposite possibility 

Past the first round once in 8 approaching 9 seasons and where for the 2nd straight season your struggling to make it to the playoffs?

Logic would dictate availability


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> And I don't believe Glen Taylor.. the more someone vehmently denies something such as this only infers an opposite possibility


Until he talks about nuts and drawers, you can't take him seriously!

:laugh:

Happy Thanksgiving


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I have a question or two about Garnett. Almost a month has gone by since it was rumored he is not happy and many bulls posters on most major messageboards talked about how we should get KG and what he would mean to the team. 

If the playoffs were to start today, Minny would make the playoffs at 8-6 and we would make the east at 8-7. 

Question:

If KG is not happy in minny, if we are to believe what we read as fact, what makes you think he will be happy here? I mean if he is unhappy being playing barely above .500, what would change if he came here that would make him happy?

Is it because we are younger? 

Also our need is center. I am pretty sure KG has played center but has voiced in the past he does not want to continue to do that. So if he came here, we have a glut in pfs and him being here does not solve our center problem! In other words I dont see him wanting to come here and play center when he could go elsewhere and continue to be pf. 

Thoughts?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I agree, there is no guarantee that Garnett would be happy here.

He's a warrior, but he may not get along with Skiles, and he may not want to join a young team. He's been in the league for a long time and I think he'd want the best shot at a ring possible.

He only went to HS in Chicago for 1 or 2 years if I remember. I don't think Chicago is his home. Perhaps he considers Chi his home, I don't know.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

That's the way I see it at this moment.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

truebluefan said:


> I have a question or two about Garnett. Almost a month has gone by since it was rumored he is not happy and many bulls posters on most major messageboards talked about how we should get KG and what he would mean to the team.
> 
> If the playoffs were to start today, Minny would make the playoffs at 8-6 and we would make the east at 8-7.
> 
> ...


 thats why he'll be traded to Detroit in the "offseason"


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> I have a question or two about Garnett. Almost a month has gone by since it was rumored he is not happy and many bulls posters on most major messageboards talked about how we should get KG and what he would mean to the team.
> 
> If the playoffs were to start today, Minny would make the playoffs at 8-6 and we would make the east at 8-7.
> 
> ...


For one...I think the change of scenery and the Chicago lovin' he'd get would raise his spirits quickly.

Number two...I really think he'd appreciate the organization that Paxson and Skiles run. We give Skiles a lot of grief, but the fact is that he's working with youth and scrubby veterans and not jibbed out top ten veterans. I think the three would get along famously (there I go slipping into my British speak again).

Three...I think he'd appreciate the blue collar, hard work, competitive ethic of this team. He'd slot right in and we'd go from a-ok to A-OK!

It's just a matter of not slicing the team so thin in the trade that you can't be competitive once it's done. I've actually got a somewhat good feeling about this happening. Just don't let Deng go...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

GB said:


> For one...I think the change of scenery and the Chicago lovin' he'd get would raise his spirits quickly.
> 
> Number two...I really think he'd appreciate the organization that Paxson and Skiles run. We give Skiles a lot of grief, but the fact is that he's working with youth and scrubby veterans and not jibbed out top ten veterans. I think the three would get along famously (there I go slipping into my British speak again).
> 
> ...


He's probably not in good enough playing shape, he'd be either benched for long periods in games or sent back to Minny to sit out the rest of his contract.


----------

