# I'm taking the plunge...



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Garnett just bashed Taylor and Mchale as straightforwardly as I've ever seen. This is very significant, because KG has made it a point in the past to always handle things privately. I really can't argue with anything he said, but the time to trade KG has come. With all the long-term salaries, we aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and at the moment, Garnett has enough value to jumpstart the rebuilding process. We don't want another Vince Carter situation on our hands here. My proposal: 

Garnett for Eddy Curry, Trevor Ariza, Channing Frye, and the Knicks' first round pick (Maurice Taylor salary filler). 

The absolute worst thing we can do is play out the next two losing seasons, see Garnett's effort and overall play tail off, and end up getting half of what we could right now. Sadly, that is probably what is going to happen...

Any thoughts?


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

I'd rather not become the worst team in the NBA. This one is worse than most I've seen because it makes us bad, and doesn't even help us much finanically.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

I think KG should be traded, not because it would help the team greatly but because KG needs to get out of there and to a team that can atttend for a Championship. But the need to get a better deal than that Knicks deal.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Yeah KG snapped. He let nothing out. Its unfortunate.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Maybe to Boston for Pierce, Al Jefferson and a one or more 1st rd picks.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

I like a trade to CHI or the nets.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

well if our management is dumb enough not give the best player in the nba any help worthy for 11 years then y shouldnt he be mad? HE NEEDS 1 MORE BIG MAN...kandi is trash...we need to trade hassell and kandi for a good center and start carter or hudson or mccants even if we start hudson or carter have jaric play the 2 guard and the point if its mccants


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

socco said:


> I'd rather not become the worst team in the NBA. This one is worse than most I've seen because it makes us bad, and doesn't even help us much finanically.


Makes us bad? You honestly think we can trade Garnett and become good? Come on. I have absolutely no desire to watch boring, mediocre basketball. That is what you are going to get for the next 10 years if we don't break this thing up now. 

We are screwed financially no matter what we do. Wally, Troy and Hassell's contracts do that. We do move KG's monster contract for ones that are shorter in length, and more moveable. Furthermore, we add a player who still has the potential to become the best center in the NBA once Shaq retires. Ariza is a lockdown small forward, while Frye would be a nice complement for Curry. Also, there's that likely high lottery pick.

There is little doubt in my mind that Garnett could command this type of package. We certainly aren't getting more talented in the next two years, so if we trade Garnett for half as much down the road, where do we rank in the NBA?


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

No, I don't think we could be good. This trade has us getting REALLY bad as opposed to others which would just make us pretty bad. There are many different degrees of bad.

And no we're not screwed financially no matter what. We're trading the best player in the NBA, you don't think we could get a team to take on a couple of our other bad contracts? Throw Antoino Davis and Penny Hardaway into that deal and we can be free of those contracts, and actually would be able to rebuild. It would be a horrible idea, but it would make alot more sense. Something along the lines of KG, Wally, Hudson, Jaric, and Hassell for Hardaway, Davis, Frye, Robinson, Lee, and Ariza. That's still a horrible deal, but at least it accomplishes something.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

socco said:


> No, I don't think we could be good. This trade has us getting REALLY bad as opposed to others which would just make us pretty bad. There are many different degrees of bad.


This team needs to get really bad. Mid-late lottery picks aren't going to help us rebuild. Just ask the Warriors, Clippers, and Cavaliers how much luck they've had in that range. That is what this franchise is headed for. 



> And no we're not screwed financially no matter what. We're trading the best player in the NBA, you don't think we could get a team to take on a couple of our other bad contracts? Throw Antoino Davis and Penny Hardaway into that deal and we can be free of those contracts, and actually would be able to rebuild. It would be a horrible idea, but it would make alot more sense. Something along the lines of KG, Wally, Hudson, Jaric, and Hassell for Hardaway, Davis, Frye, Robinson, Lee, and Ariza. That's still a horrible deal, but at least it accomplishes something.


I was under the assumption that Taylor was an expiring contract. I must have been wrong. Substitute Davis or Hardaway, and I think it accomlishes a lot. I know I probably value Curry more than you do, but I believe he still has the potential to be a franchise player. We also could get that with the lottery pick. Staying mediocre and trading for a bunch of late first rounders is only going to prolong the pain.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Here we go again.... Another classic JW and socco arguement.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> This team needs to get really bad.


I guess I just like this team too much to be able to handle them being that bad. It was tough enough watching what happened last year, not sure if I could handle them winning once a month. And I consider myself a hardcore fan, what will the casual fan. I'm not going to really get into it, but Minnesota isn't that into the Wolves as it is, and there are other cities that would love a professional basketball team...


If Curry's that great, then why not throw him and Madsen into the deal I stated as well. Our biggest and longest contract other than Curry's would then be Eddie Griffin's measly $2.5Mil. That leaves us in a MUCH better situation than your original idea. The moves we've made over the past few years have made it very difficult for this team to rebuild. Even this summer, trading Sam Cassell and the 1 year left on his contract along with a 1st rounder (lottery protected this year, which is a big deal considering your idea is for us to be a very bad team and get better through the draft) for Marko Jaric and a newly signed 6 year contract. I just can't see a team that is even considering rebuilding (obviously not this past summer, but anytime in the near future) making a move like that. New York is in a very rare situation where they can actually take on all those big long contracts and give back big short ones, along with some young talent. You'd like to get picks too, I think they traded some to Chicago to get Curry though, and those picks aren't gonna be that great considering they'd be in the high 20s.


So if you wanted to do that, there's a better trade than your initial one. One that takes it further and helps alot more towards rebuilding. And then there's the whole thing about that being a horrible idea. If we haven't been able to build around KG for the past 10 years why would you think we could build up a team without him?




sheefo13 said:


> Here we go again.... Another classic JW and socco arguement.


We've only been in like one argument, no?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

socco said:


> If Curry's that great, then why not throw him and Madsen into the deal I stated as well. Our biggest and longest contract other than Curry's would then be Eddie Griffin's measly $2.5Mil. That leaves us in a MUCH better situation than your original idea. The moves we've made over the past few years have made it very difficult for this team to rebuild. Even this summer, trading Sam Cassell and the 1 year left on his contract along with a 1st rounder (lottery protected this year, which is a big deal considering your idea is for us to be a very bad team and get better through the draft) for Marko Jaric and a newly signed 6 year contract. I just can't see a team that is even considering rebuilding (obviously not this past summer, but anytime in the near future) making a move like that. New York is in a very rare situation where they can actually take on all those big long contracts and give back big short ones, along with some young talent. You'd like to get picks too, I think they traded some to Chicago to get Curry though, and those picks aren't gonna be that great considering they'd be in the high 20s.


Well, I really can't see New York willing to take on every bad contract that we have. Furthermore, the salaries don't even come close to matching up on a deal like that. I'm just trying to come up with a realistic deal that would benefit both teams. For all intents and purposes, we are stuck with Wally, Hudson, and Hassell for the next 3 years. If we could include one or two of those players in a deal with New York, I'd obviously be all for it. 

As for Jaric, this discussion isn't about whether the Wolves will cut the chord and rebuild, but whether they should. Personally, I think he's a nice piece to any puzzle. There are a lot of good teams that would love to have a versatile guy like Jaric that succeeds at doing the little things. My reason for including Curry is that KG is worth a hell of a lot more than just a cap space dump. He is a young player with star potential, and I don't think we are going to sign a player with that much upside in free agency. We have the ability to a couple of Curry-level young players, and a couple of draft picks.

If New York doesn't have their lottery pick this year, I wouldn't make any trade with the Knicks.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

At one point, there were like 3 at one time. But these are very good quality arguements... Until they get out of hand like they did at one point... Proceed. I love reading this stuff.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

I definately think that NY would be willing to take on the salaries. They're dishing out $116Mil this year for a horrible team, you don't think they'd be willing to pay for a great team? Especially considering they'd get KG there. Imagine the marketing potential of that. And actually, yes that deal does work financially. Take the first deal I said, add in Curry and Madsen because you think Curry can become a franchise player (eek), and it's KG, Wally, Hudson, Jaric, Hassell, and Madsen for Hardaway, Davis, Curry, Frye, Robinson, Lee, and Ariza. The Wolves give up about $44Mil and the Knicks give up about $42Mil, that easily works. Even without Curry and Madsen the deal would work, just barely though. From a Wolves perspective there's no way I'd do it. But if it's rebuilding that you want, then the Wolves would have to send out some of those other contracts with KG.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Realisticly, I don't see each team trading away half of their rosters. Why not a deal with the Nets? Garnett, Skita and Madsen for Jefferson, Kristic, Jackson, Collins and an 07 first rounder?

Or to the Bulls? Garnett for Tim Thomas, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng and 2 future 1st rounders?

I believe both deals cannot be done until December 4th. I do not see anything wrong with these trades. By 07, we will have a high draft pick in either to get a good young big. Honestly, these trades all apeal to me.

With the Curry talk, I don't see him being a "franchise" player. The heart issues scare me a lot too. Past injuries too. 

I will add more later, I got a test tomorrow.


----------



## Dodigago (Jan 13, 2005)

Sac would be a good destination

we have nice pieces

Brad Miller,Mike Bibby,Peja Stojakovic,Brian Skinner,KEnny Thomas, Kevin Martin, Fransico Garcia + picks

all movable in a package for KG

a good posibility would be

KG + Olowakani for Bibby,Peja,Skinner,Martin + 2 firsts


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

I just don't think you'd see a deal of size that you are talking about go down. The Wolves should essentially be looking for young players with bright futures, expiring contracts, and especially a high draft pick or two. Dumping every lousy contract we have in addition to Garnett's $20 mil just isn't realistic, it's the return of fantasyland. 

Think of what Dallas/Washington did a couple of years ago with the Jamison/Harris trade. We could grab a top 5 pick, in addition to at least one good young player. You just don't see trades with $90 million worth of salaries changing hands between two teams. We would be incredibly lucky to get decent value in return and dump even one of our bad contracts on top of the $20 mil that Garnett is making. $10 mil in salary savings, a potential star young player, and two high draft picks is the most we are going to get. And that would be WAY more than anybody could get for a player not named Duncan, Lebron, Wade, or Amare. 



> And then there's the whole thing about that being a horrible idea. If we haven't been able to build around KG for the past 10 years why would you think we could build up a team without him?


It absolutely isn't a horrible idea. KG has run his course in Minnesota. I don't find .500 ball with an unhappy superstar fun to watch. We've seen this situation with the unhappy, pouting star and declining chemistry time and time again with other teams, and I guess you will just have to figure it out the hard way. In two years, you are going to be calling for a KG trade just like I am now. The difference is that I am capable of seeing the writing on the wall. Just like this summer, when I told you this team was going to be mediocre, and you said they would be a contender. 

It isn't that KG isn't a perfect centerpiece, but it is the poor financial decisions that have been made in putting his supporting cast into place. By the time we get out of those contracts, KG will be well into the downside of his career. 

.500 ball might be good enough for you, but it certainly isn't good enough for me, or for the lukewarm Minnesota fanbase. The quickest way to get this franchise run out of town is to put an uninspired, mediocre team on the court every year, with no hope for winning or change. At least during the rebuilding process we would be giving the fans some hope for the future. There is no hope for the future with our current roster.

Personally, I think you are just looking for somebody to attack...


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I just don't think you'd see a deal of size that you are talking about go down. The Wolves should essentially be looking for young players with bright futures, expiring contracts, and especially a high draft pick or two. Dumping every lousy contract we have in addition to Garnett's $20 mil just isn't realistic, it's the return of fantasyland.


How is that fantasyland? The concept may be, but in reality why would the Knicks pass that up? I'm looking for a little more than "those big of trades never happen".



Jonathan Watters said:


> The difference is that I am capable of seeing the writing on the wall.


I can't help but laugh my *** off at that comment. You certainly aren't in love with yourself, are ya?



Jonathan Watters said:


> Just like this summer, when I told you this team was going to be mediocre, and you said they would be a contender.


No I did not.



Jonathan Watters said:


> It isn't that KG isn't a perfect centerpiece, but it is the poor financial decisions that have been made in putting his supporting cast into place. By the time we get out of those contracts, KG will be well into the downside of his career.


And we can start rebuilding then. What's the problem with that? You have the best player in the league, in his prime, along with a bunch of players with bad contracts, and NOW is when you want to rebuild? Ride it as long as you can, cus it ain't gettin any better. And again, in your proposal, we're still stuck with those bad contracts. So it's basically whether we want to be a below average team without a superstar or a mediocre team with a superstar.



Jonathan Watters said:


> .500 ball might be good enough for you, but it certainly isn't good enough for me, or for the lukewarm Minnesota fanbase. The quickest way to get this franchise run out of town is to put an uninspired, mediocre team on the court every year, with no hope for winning or change. At least during the rebuilding process we would be giving the fans some hope for the future. There is no hope for the future with our current roster.


You're honestly trying to say that fans would rather watch a .200 team with Eddy Curry being our best player than a .500 team with Kevin Garnett as our best player. How does that make sense at all. People would care more about the frickin St. Paul Saints if that were the case (well maybe not, but it would be close). 



Jonathan Watters said:


> Personally, I think you are just looking for somebody to attack...


What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

i'm not overly for or against the trade.. kg is my favourite player so ill follow him wherever he ends up, wouldnt surprise me if he is moved this season though.
from a wolves point of view they need to make sure they get some highflying exciting talent to keep the fans amused while they are rebuilding or they risk the city losing its team... kg has been at the core of this team for 10 years.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I can see the Wolves management going the Blazers current route soon....

KG is due for some new scenery and I think it would be beneficial to him.....With the Wolves paying him what they are, they are never going to be able to afford to get key piece to put around him, therefore I can see the Wolves stuck at their current just above mediocrity state for awhile...


----------



## njnets06 (Mar 11, 2005)

So what would you think of this trade: Kidd, Jefferson, Illic, Nets 06 and Clips 06 #1 picks for KG and Hassell? 

Kidd, Wally, Jefferson, EG would give you a fast break team, especially when Jaric subs for Wally. Jaric also can back up Kidd for long streches (and prolong Kidd's career and effectiveness). 

Illic is a 7'2" version of Krstic and the Nets turned down Portland and offered a #1 pick instead of Illic in the failed SAR sign and trade deal this summer. Illic will come over next year and you'll have 2 more #1 picks. You'll be able to rebuild and still be competitive.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> And we can start rebuilding then. What's the problem with that? You have the best player in the league, in his prime, along with a bunch of players with bad contracts, and NOW is when you want to rebuild? Ride it as long as you can, cus it ain't gettin any better. And again, in your proposal, we're still stuck with those bad contracts. So it's basically whether we want to be a below average team without a superstar or a mediocre team with a superstar.


You just aren't listening to a word I am saying, are you? Right now, KG has value. After two seasons of being unhappy, playing uninspired basketball, and losing, he isn't going to have half the value he has now. We can spend two years going nowhere, mired in mediocrity, or start the rebuilding process now, with a significant head start due to what KG would bring in trade. Now you can ignore this argument and keep simply insinuating that my arguments don't have any thought behind them, or you can actually debate me. Your choice. 



> You're honestly trying to say that fans would rather watch a .200 team with Eddy Curry being our best player than a .500 team with Kevin Garnett as our best player. How does that make sense at all. People would care more about the frickin St. Paul Saints if that were the case (well maybe not, but it would be close).


Have you been to the target center this year? It appears you have not, because it doesn't get much more barren in there than when the Wolves are playing. What are people most excited about around town this fall? McCants, the young guy that isn't helping us win at all right now. If we were to trade Garnett and build up a young core with a couple of high draft picks, the fans could be back within a couple of years. Under the current roster, the fans aren't coming back anytime soon. People actually like to follow and watch young players. I know this doesn't fit your "KG GOOD. TRADE KG BAD" argument, but it is the truth.


----------



## oblivion (Aug 6, 2003)

do you have a link to his comments, i have not seen them?


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> You just aren't listening to a word I am saying, are you? Right now, KG has value. After two seasons of being unhappy, playing uninspired basketball, and losing, he isn't going to have half the value he has now. We can spend two years going nowhere, mired in mediocrity, or start the rebuilding process now, with a significant head start due to what KG would bring in trade. Now you can ignore this argument and keep simply insinuating that my arguments don't have any thought behind them, or you can actually debate me. Your choice.


If that's your strategy, at least accomplish something with your trade. All yours does is get rid of KG, it doesn't help the team much in terms of rebuilding other than making it obvious that's what we're going to have to do. If you're gonna do it, go all out. I never insinuated your arguments don't have any thought behind them. There is a line of thought that you're using for this, the only thing I've said is that there's a much better trade that accomplishes alot more than your original one, and that I absolutely hate the idea. For some reason I just don't like the idea of become the worst team in the league and leaving it in the hands of Kevin McHale to build us up into something better than we have right now. btw, I don't count Eddy Curry and Channing Frye as a "significant head start" for rebuilding. 




Jonathan Watters said:


> Have you been to the target center this year? It appears you have not, because it doesn't get much more barren in there than when the Wolves are playing. What are people most excited about around town this fall? McCants, the young guy that isn't helping us win at all right now. If we were to trade Garnett and build up a young core with a couple of high draft picks, the fans could be back within a couple of years. Under the current roster, the fans aren't coming back anytime soon. People actually like to follow and watch young players. I know this doesn't fit your "KG GOOD. TRADE KG BAD" argument, but it is the truth.


People are more interested in McCants than Garnett? I'm not sure how you get that. And stop insulting my intelligence, stick the the topic for once.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

my 1.5 cents

Lorenzen Wright (expiring), Bobby Jackson (expiring), Mike Miller, Hakim Warrick, Dahntay Jones, $4.9 million trade exception, 2006 1st rounder, 2008 1st rounder, 2010 lottery protected 1st rounder

for

KG, Troy Hudson, Mark Madsen, Trenton Hassell


----------



## oblivion (Aug 6, 2003)

As long as we are throwing trade ideas out there, how about this (which is successful on realgm website):

Kg and T-hud to Phoenix for Shawn Marion, Kurt Thomas and Boris Diaw and 1st rounder (from Atlanta).

It doesn't really help us as far as expiring contracts. But we would get someone to start over Kandi. Diaw seems to be steadily improving, and Marion still gives us an all-star PF.

Phoenix would have a decent backup PG and when Amare comes back, the frontline of KG and Amare would be very impressive.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

JW's deal makes alot more sense. If you're gonna do it at least have it accomplish something. Marion's got a big contract, Thomas does too. That's not going to help us out any financially, isn't going to help much for the future, and it's going to make us a worse team.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

socco said:


> If that's your strategy, at least accomplish something with your trade. All yours does is get rid of KG, it doesn't help the team much in terms of rebuilding other than making it obvious that's what we're going to have to do. If you're gonna do it, go all out. I never insinuated your arguments don't have any thought behind them. There is a line of thought that you're using for this, the only thing I've said is that there's a much better trade that accomplishes alot more than your original one, and that I absolutely hate the idea. For some reason I just don't like the idea of become the worst team in the league and leaving it in the hands of Kevin McHale to build us up into something better than we have right now. btw, I don't count Eddy Curry and Channing Frye as a "significant head start" for rebuilding.


I agree about McHale. Maybe we need to fire the GM as well. Again, the point here is to clean house now, because we are going to be doing it within the next two years anyways. 

As for Curry and Frye, that is your opinion. It was one proposed trade, not the end all solution to the Wolves' problems. 



> People are more interested in McCants than Garnett? I'm not sure how you get that. And stop insulting my intelligence, stick the the topic for once.


Personally, I find somebody telling me my ideas are horrible and then proposing a ridiculous trade that involves $90 mil in salaries and solves every financial problem the Timberwolves have as very insulting. You don't insult my intelligence, and you can be sure that I won't insult yours. However, I am getting to the point where I think anytime I say anything negative about the Wolves, you are going to disagree with it very strongly, just on principle. Thus far, I think my more negative view of the Wolves this preseason is being proven correct. I know we are on different ends of the spectrum with how we root for our teams, but I just don't have the need to talk up the Wolves as more than they actually are.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

How about a trade with Toronto with Chris Bosh and the Raptors' lottery pick as the centerpieces? I think the Raptors would consider something like that. We could take on one of their shorter contracts to make the salaries work. 

The Wolves don't need Shawn Marion or Peja Stoyakovic. If we trade for guys like that, we might as well keep KG. One young and extremely talented player, and at least one lottery pick thrown in. At least some near-term salary cap relief. That is the minimum that will land you KG.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Don't remember exactly what I was saying, but something to the affect that McHale sucks, a trade for Bosh would still leave us in big trouble with all those contracts, and KG wouldn't want to go to Toronto anyways.


----------



## jminges (Aug 25, 2005)

Something of interest, Garnett can no longer block a trade under the new collective barganing agreement.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Can I take the plunge too? Someone toss me a Brisk Ice Tea.


----------



## Cyberwolf (May 15, 2003)

Maybe I'm dense but I just don't see where this perceived negativity is coming from by what KG said. From memory, here is what I remember him saying:

McHale wanted to be able to do the basketball aspects of coaching, such as running plays, but didn't want to handle the personalities and egos.

Okay, that one might be perceived as negative towards McHale but anyone who SAW McHale last year could tell he was absolutely miserable coaching. McHale hates handling other people, it's why he hates trade talks and dealing with agents. I think Mac would probably be the first to agree with that.

Second: Business should have been taken care of before the season started.

Yeah, it should have, and part of that is managements fault, but part of it is Sam and Sprees fault as well, and that is exactly what KG said, that it was EVERYONES fault, including Sam's, including his own, including Mac's, EVERYONE.

Third: The general idea that last season was bad.

Everyone else has pronounced last season as a failure, why is it different when KG said it? Last season went badly, everyone knows it, it's a nonstory.

So like I said, I must be missing /something/ because certainly all this wouldn't be media hype... would it?

... crap.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

Cyberwolf said:


> McHale wanted to be able to do the basketball aspects of coaching, such as running plays, but didn't want to handle the personalities and egos.
> 
> Okay, that one might be perceived as negative towards McHale but anyone who SAW McHale last year could tell he was absolutely miserable coaching. McHale hates handling other people, it's why he hates trade talks and dealing with agents. I think Mac would probably be the first to agree with that.


It's kinda funny. Then why did he have this job when he hates dealing with those kinds of stuff?


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Agent K said:


> It's kinda funny. Then why did he have this job when he hates dealing with those kinds of stuff?


Because the team was sucking and he wanted to take responsibility for that, and see what he could do to fix it.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

socco said:


> Because the team was sucking and he wanted to take responsibility for that, and see what he could do to fix it.


And yet he did it terribly. :boohoo:


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

He was 19-12, compared to Flip's 25-26. Doesn't look that horrible to me.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

socco said:


> He was 19-12, compared to Flip's 25-26. Doesn't look that horrible to me.


Not Flip's fault. Cassell had a injury plagued season not to mention he wanted to do something with his contract and held out from the camp and Spree wasn't being himself.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

I didn't say it was Flip's fault. Just showing how the team actually did pretty good with McHale.


----------

