# Kevin Garnett Rumors (ALL Rumors/Info Here)



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

Lamar and some players and picks, of course. Can it be done? I'd obviously like to hang onto Bynum because he's young, cheap, and enormous. Brown, I'd like to dump but nobody wants his contract or his hands. Therefore, we've got to dump alot of cheap parts and some draft picks to even have a chance at KG. Can a package of Lamar, Walton, George, Mihm, and a couple of 1s give us a chance at Garnett? Probably not because the Bulls have a better package to offer (Deng, Gordon or Hinrich, and a high pick) but I can dream can't I. 

PG-best vet on the market
SG-Kobe
SF-whoever is left on the team?
PG-KG
C-Brown

With Mihm gone, we can give Bynum his minutes. Sasha and Smush would back up at PG. Maybe Vafer is ready to get 5 minutes or so at SG. Hopefully, we can keep either George or Walton so we wouldn't break in a newbie at SF.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

It's possible, but I highly doubt KG is going to leave the Twolves.

I find it more probable that KG stays in Minnesota and the Twolves pick up Marbury.

I think Lakers though have a shot to get Boozer, and hopefully we can pick up Jason Terry. (Not sure what his contract is gonna look like).


----------



## Silk D (Feb 6, 2006)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

I would say no. There will be bette offers out there, and nobody is really inclined to make a deal with the lakers.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

no.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

I still dont think we have enough for KG. Like everyone else said, there are better packages and besides, McHale is the GM. A life long Celtic helping out the Lakers get back to championship status? I jut dont see it.


----------



## Tyrellaphonte (Feb 21, 2004)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

I'd rather have odom than boozer.


----------



## Silk D (Feb 6, 2006)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*



Teezy said:


> I'd rather have odom than boozer.


me too, but what does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Dr Scoop (May 7, 2006)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

Lol you guys have the worst KG obsession by any fans out there combined.


----------



## Silk D (Feb 6, 2006)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*



Dr Scoop said:


> Lol you guys have the worst KG obsession by any fans out there combined.


hmmmm...another "new member"


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*



Teezy said:


> I'd rather have odom than boozer.


If you were referring to my post, I never said give up Odom for Boozer. I would be referring to a package deal with guys like George, Mihm, Walton etc. (can't remember the post where said Lakers were real close on getting Boozer for a couple of these guys).


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

McHale would light himself on fire before he ever traded someone good to the Lakers...


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

you guys dont have what it takes to get KG.....

Not putting Odom down,but if Minny deals KG,its gonna be for cap,young studs and draft picks...


----------



## GPS (Mar 28, 2003)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

The only way for us to land KG is if he specifically asks to be traded to the Lakers. Not only wouldn’t McHale trade him to a west coast rival but other teams can offer them a better deal. Forget about KG.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

LO is still not a proven good '2nd man' yet. he hasn't shocked us, he's jsut been playing the way we know he can. so no, definitely not.


----------



## Drk Element (Nov 10, 2004)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

I doubt that there will be a major trade this offseason.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*

Hopefully, but likely....NO.


----------



## luckylakers (Aug 10, 2005)

i had heard that the lakers were going to try to get him over the off season he happen who do u think they get rid of??


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: k. garrnet*

The Lakers are not going to get Garnett so its irrelevant who they're going to get rid of.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

*Re: k. garrnet*

this is talked about every offseason... its not happening, let it go


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

*Re: k. garrnet*

post pad


----------



## sohail (May 13, 2006)

*would you really give up odom for KG?*

After seeing what odomwas capable in the playoffs
19.1ppg 11.0rebs 4.9asts
kg is better than odom but not alot better
kg's numbers are 21-12-4 not much different than odom's and i won't even mention the age's
we would also have to give up kwame which iam not on favor of even though he was not consistent in the playoffs he gave us 13ppg 7rebs at 52% which is better than most centers out there!

The lakers are a young team all we need is a good point gaurd (mike james)
and we are set.

Mike James
Kobe Bryant
Luke Walton
Lamar Odom
Kwame Brown and most importantly Phil Jackson

In my opinion we could have gone to the western confrence finals, we are just missing one or two peices to be contenders!!!!


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

yes i would. if the contracts werent so big, i'd throw kwame in there too. sorry, but i think he's the next elden campbell. only problem is that we'd be so strapped for cap monies...

btw, people look at numbers too much.. there are tons of things that dont show up on the sheet. kg is way better than odom.


----------



## spiraling (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

Straight up with us giving up a few useless expiring contracts then yes. But if we have to add more than hell no. I believe brown and Odom will excel, especially brown. Brown is a great man on man defender and can provide 10/6/1 almost every game.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

I come to think of it.. and I have to agree with you offensively and rebounding wise the Lakers wouldnt lose much ground. However, I think defense is what separates KG as an all-star and Odom as umm... Odom.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

their offensive game is different. lamar is pretty good on defense too, didnt you see him covering nash? he did a pretty good job.. and marion too.

kevin is a better player because he posts up and draws more double teams. lamar doesn't draw many double teams.

brown is a lost cause. he may do decent in the regular season, but i dont think he'll play well when it counts (as great players do). i dont know what it is. i think to be successful in the nba you need to have a certain mentality and threshold for pain, and kwame doesn't have it.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

I Love Lamar...but C'Mon guys, we're talking KG here.


----------



## Tyrellaphonte (Feb 21, 2004)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

if lamar has a little 3 game slump down the stretch next year, think of this thread when everyone says to get him outta here. It's Kevin Garnett. I like LO too... but its KG..


----------



## GuYoM (Jun 2, 2005)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

thats what i think too ....


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

Is there a poll option for "Hell YES!!"


If the Lakers traded Odom for KG they would be immediate championship contenders for the next 5 years at least.


----------



## Blink4 (Jan 17, 2005)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

Of course. Kobe + KG + LUKE WALTON = championship


----------



## West44 (Jun 29, 2005)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*



afobisme said:


> brown is a lost cause. he may do decent in the regular season, but i dont think he'll play well when it counts (as great players do). i dont know what it is. i think to be successful in the nba you need to have a certain mentality and threshold for pain, and kwame doesn't have it.


I agree Kwame doesn't have "it" mentally and to some extent physically and whatever he's missing will show itself worse in the post season.



compsciguy78 said:


> If the Lakers traded Odom for KG they would be immediate championship contenders for the next 5 years at least.


Yep...Can you imagine the intensity of having Kobe and KG on the floor at the same time?


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

i remember brian shaw saying that kwame kept on complaining about feeling pain and how he couldn't make plays because of it, and brian got really fustrated about it.

i think it's not only tex winter that is fustrated with kwame, it's the whole coaching staff. i bet phil is sort of irked too, but he has to help the team develop so he only gives encouraging words.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

Yes, I would. The real question could be, "Should we give up Odom and Kwame for KG?"

If Odom is getting 17ppg and 10rpg, and Kwame is getting 13ppg and 7rpg...is it worth dealing those two for Garnett? One could argue either way. After watching the last 25 games, I am now completely undecided. 

I want us to hang onto both of them and see how we do in the first 20+ games before we make a decision on whether to trade them or not.


----------



## sohail (May 13, 2006)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*



Damian Necronamous said:


> Yes, I would. The real question could be, "Should we give up Odom and Kwame for KG?"
> 
> If Odom is getting 17ppg and 10rpg, and Kwame is getting 13ppg and 7rpg...is it worth dealing those two for Garnett? One could argue either way. After watching the last 25 games, I am now completely undecided.
> 
> I want us to hang onto both of them and see how we do in the first 20+ games before we make a decision on whether to trade them or not.


i think we should do kwame,george,mikie,mihm???? 1st pick for KG
new roster
mihm????
kg
odom
kobe
smush????

if we do trade mihm
new roster
kg
odom/walton
odom/walton
kobe
smush???


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*



KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> I Love Lamar...but C'Mon guys, we're talking KG here.


:yes:


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

*No More Kevin Garnett Threads...*

Please stop with theses worthless threads suggesting awful trade ideas that would somehow would get us kevin garnett. its not going to happen, so stop making 100 threads about it.l


----------



## Jaj (Jun 15, 2005)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

If it doesn't include Bynum offcourse I'd do it.

Use part of the MLE on a guy like Bobby Jackson, re-sign Devean George for cheap, and re-sign Laron Profit. Draft Shawne Williams and sign a cheap big-man like Othella Harrington for the minimum.

PG- Jackson, Smush, Vujajic
SG- Kobe, Profit, Rush
SF- Walton, George, Williams
PF- Garnett, Cook, Turiaf
C- Mihm, Bynum, Harrington

There you have it, a damn good roster PRIMARILY because Garnett+Kobe offcourse. Jackson+Smush combo is not bad. Walton/George/Williams will be weak for a little while but they'll produce eventually. Mihm and Bynum will also do alright.

As for the T'Wolves, they can easily swing a deal for Stephon Marbury using maybe Jaric+fillers.

PG- Marbury
SG- Davis
SF- Odom 
PF- Griffin
C- Brown


----------



## TwiBlueG35 (Jan 24, 2006)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

Keep switching players year after year is getting us nowhere. Stick with the current lineup, at least 90% of the current lineup, maintain Kobe, Lamar, Kwame, Chris, Luke, and put Smush as backup and find a new starter point guard and see what would happen next year.


----------



## Tyrellaphonte (Feb 21, 2004)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*



TwiBlueG35 said:


> Keep switching players year after year is getting us nowhere. Stick with the current lineup, at least 90% of the current lineup, maintain Kobe, Lamar, Kwame, Chris, Luke, and put Smush as backup and find a new starter point guard and see what would happen next year.


oh baby. 

Said best.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

sorry this core group isn't going to cut it... and i feel strongly about that.

but getting kg is such a stupid notion. he wont be coming here.


----------



## Dontizzay (Aug 17, 2005)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

Man its crazy how fickle Laker Fans are. I'll always love whoever is on this team. I neva hate anyone on my team. I thiink that should be a rule in bein a fan. BUT, KG is KEVIN GARNETT! IF someone offered you Kevin Garnett for Lamar Odom you gotta say ya. People was sayin earlier this season that he needed to be traded immediately and ****. Get your stories correct. Like tha playas on your team, but be consistent. 

Go Lakers


----------



## luckylakers (Aug 10, 2005)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*



Jaj said:


> If it doesn't include Bynum offcourse I'd do it.
> 
> Use part of the MLE on a guy like Bobby Jackson, re-sign Devean George for cheap, and re-sign Laron Profit. Draft Shawne Williams and sign a cheap big-man like Othella Harrington for the minimum.
> 
> ...




thats a good idea


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

Would I trade my current g/f for Jessica Alba?

That's what this question sounds like to me. And the answer for all of us better be YES.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

You have to think about it.. you guys are basing everything off player abilities. Odom is only going to get better most likely, now that he is learned the triangle offense better. Odom is our best rebounder and the initiator of the triangle offense. Garnett isn't going to pull down 15 RPG, and he's not going to become the ball-handler in the triangle offense. 

Odom also is going to last longer then Garnett. KG is already having problems with his lower part of body (knees), and was drafted in 1995.

We'll improve, and hopefully get into the 2nd round or even WCF this upcoming year. I highly doubt a KG and Kobe combo will make it to the Finals, unless we also somehow get good role players to go with them (which we'd lose alot if we did get KG).


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

KG: postseason averages of 23/13/5, 7 All D Team selections, 8 All NBA selections, and 9 All Star teams.

LO: postseason averages of 18/9/4, 0 All NBA selections, 0 All D selections, and 0 made All Star teams.

Choice is easy, for me. Only disadvantage would be if KG is injured and we don't know about it. But if he's healthy, he's the easy choice even if he's 3 years older than LO. Just look at the extremely low amount of games he has missed in his career, his general stamina as a first option player, and his incredible passion and work ethic for basketball.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: would you really give up odom for KG?*

I agree with you there 100%, but he is aging, and I would not want to give up majority of our roster for him.

Regardless, we'll most likely never see KG leave Minnesota.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

*SAS: Kevin Garnett to Lakers, Nets*

From LakersGround.net: 



> Stephen A. was on ESPN 710 with Collin Cowherd this morning and he said:
> 
> 1. Talks between the Lakers and Minnesota are far more serious than they’ve ever been regarding a Garnett trade.
> 
> ...


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: SAS: Kevin Garnett to Lakers, Nets*

so def. Odom and Bynum in it then
Bynum is a bust anywho


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

*Re: SAS: Kevin Garnett to Lakers, Nets*

you're calling someone who got like 2 minutes a game last year a bust? with some toughness bynum will become a post presence to be dealt with on anyteam


and i dont take anything SAS says for more then what you hear at the watercooler


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

*Re: SAS: Kevin Garnett to Lakers, Nets*

Damnit!!! Keep Bynum!! I have a good feeling about him! :curse:


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: SAS: Kevin Garnett to Lakers, Nets*

I just have a feeling Bynum is gonna be a scrub.. it's based on nothing but in order to get a player of KG's caliber your gonna have to give him up!


----------



## sohail (May 13, 2006)

*Re: Did Lamar increase his stock enough in the playoffs to net us KG?*



Drk Element said:


> I doubt that there will be a major trade this offseason.


i agree but i want the lakers to trade for KG
i dont know when kg's contract expires but if it expires in 08 we should go after lebron james


----------



## spiraling (Feb 16, 2003)

yea like Lebron is going to leave his team to be the second option for kobe. be realistic about it.


----------



## sohail (May 13, 2006)

spiraling said:


> yea like Lebron is going to leave his team to be the second option for kobe. be realistic about it.


dude money counts


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

*Re: SAS: Kevin Garnett to Lakers, Nets*



pmac34 said:


> so def. Odom and Bynum in it then
> Bynum is a bust anywho


umm no hes isnt...he is only like 15 and hes competing with NBA players and is very raw...hell become dominant one day....i dont think hell be with the lakers tho


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Bynum sucks? Bring in KG? bruhahahahharharhar...


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

I'll trade Bynum and Odom any day of the weak for KG. It's good that he dunked on Shaq, because the hype train is ridiculous. His size, coordination, and hands already make him good in today's NBA. That's why I would rather trade Kwame. I love how he picked up his play, but I can't stand watching his horrible help defense and bobbled passes. Bynum seems to have a better attitude though. However, with KG, Kwame can focus on his strength which is bodying up the heaviest defender and allowing KG to act as weakside help.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

i definitely dont want kwame on the team.


----------



## Kyle (Jul 1, 2003)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> I'll trade Bynum and Odom any day of the weak for KG. It's good that he dunked on Shaq, because the hype train is ridiculous. His size, coordination, and hands already make him good in today's NBA. That's why I would rather trade Kwame. I love how he picked up his play, but I can't stand watching his horrible help defense and bobbled passes. Bynum seems to have a better attitude though. However, with KG, Kwame can focus on his strength which is bodying up the heaviest defender and allowing KG to act as weakside help.


No. 

Kevin Garnett on the Lakers isn't going to get us another championship. Watch the playoffs, it's all about who has the best overall team. If we give up Odom and Bynum that's going to hurt us more then it would help by adding KG. Besides that, adding KG would strap us in the salary I'm sure, so we'd have a problem bringing in a decent PG who could help us in that department. Not to mention Garnett is aging and probably only has about 4 or 5 good seasons left. I'd rather keep Odom, a preimere match up problem, and keep Bynum. Although Bynum is unproven, he has the size and ability to be special. 

With adding KG and trading Odom and Bynum it would be like the Lakers saying "We're done with playing for the future, we want to win now" -- and I don't think the Lakers are going to do that.

I'd rather trade Mihm/Kwame and our 1st round pick for a good PG.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

Kyle said:


> No.
> 
> Kevin Garnett on the Lakers isn't going to get us another championship. Watch the playoffs, it's all about who has the best overall team. If we give up Odom and Bynum that's going to hurt us more then it would help by adding KG. Besides that, adding KG would strap us in the salary I'm sure, so we'd have a problem bringing in a decent PG who could help us in that department. Not to mention Garnett is aging and probably only has about 4 or 5 good seasons left. I'd rather keep Odom, a preimere match up problem, and keep Bynum. Although Bynum is unproven, he has the size and ability to be special.
> 
> ...


So you'd rather wait a couple years and waste Kobe's prime level of basketball so they can do damage in the future? I'm sorry, but i totally disagree with this concept. Just look at the Heat, they traded most of their young core for Shaq and a shot at the championship IMMEDIATELY. Had they not done the trade, they probably would be stuck in the middle of the Eastern Conference. When you have a chance to actually get a championship, I think you have to get it at all costs.

Also, what is the point of saving cap space? So this 2008 plan could land us a superstar to go a long Kobe? Why wait that long if that superstar is already available???? Honestly, if KG and Kobe are on the Lakers, the talent is there. It's all about putting the right pieces around them. Hell, Shaq and Kobe took a bunch of role players to 3 championships. If we do give up Odom, Bynum, filler, + picks, all you would need to add is a PG with the MLE because Luke and Kwame while still learning, have shown progress and our capable of being starters on a squad with 2 superstars on it.

If this deal is availble, you must take it. I know a lot of you want to see this team progress, grow, and develop together. But IMO, you don't waste Kobe's prime being a average Western Conference team, you add as much firepower as you can and try to let him collect some more rings for LA.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Kyle said:


> No.
> 
> Kevin Garnett on the Lakers isn't going to get us another championship. Watch the playoffs, it's all about who has the best overall team. If we give up Odom and Bynum that's going to hurt us more then it would help by adding KG. Besides that, adding KG would strap us in the salary I'm sure, so we'd have a problem bringing in a decent PG who could help us in that department. Not to mention Garnett is aging and probably only has about* 4 or 5 good seasons left.* I'd rather keep Odom, a preimere match up problem, and keep Bynum. Although Bynum is unproven, he has the size and ability to be special.
> 
> ...


That is more than enough


----------



## WhoDaBest23 (Apr 16, 2003)

I'd be scared if KG ever went to the Lakers. Dead serious...


----------



## TwiBlueG35 (Jan 24, 2006)

I don't want Kevin Garnett to replace Lamar Odom.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Kyle said:


> No.
> 
> Kevin Garnett on the Lakers isn't going to get us another championship. Watch the playoffs, it's all about who has the best overall team. If we give up Odom and Bynum that's going to hurt us more then it would help by adding KG. Besides that, adding KG would strap us in the salary I'm sure, so we'd have a problem bringing in a decent PG who could help us in that department. Not to mention Garnett is aging and probably only has about 4 or 5 good seasons left. I'd rather keep Odom, a preimere match up problem, and keep Bynum. Although Bynum is unproven, he has the size and ability to be special.
> 
> ...


The statement "Giving up Odom/Bynum for KG would hurt more than help" doesn't really make much sense to me. For one, KG is a 7-time All D team member, 8-time All NBA team member, and 9-time All Star. Odom is a 0-time All D team member, 0-time All NBA team member, and 0-time All Star. His HOF probability is nearly 100% at this point in his career. Odom would be lucky to even get consideration with what he has accomplished in his career. Knowing that, it's pretty likely that not only would KG going to the Lakers improve them, it would *transform* them completely. As in an annual 60+ win team barring injuries to KG/KB. 

In terms of the age argument. Even *if* KG starts declining at the age that big men historically start declining at (which is age 34, like how Cap, Shaq, Malone, Moses, etc. declined), that still gives KG prime seasons at ages 30, 31, 32, and 33, and possibly 34 and 35 if KG's iron man physique over his career is any indication. That's 4 years _minimum_, probably more like 5. That's not planning for the "now" or mortgaging the future for the present, because who is really able to plan 5 years down the road? Answer is no one. Five years ago when Phil Jackson came to town, did anyone here predict how the Lakers would turn out, which is to say 3 straight titles, 4 Finals, Shaq traded, Kobe's rape accussation, etc.? Naw, it's basically impossible to plan _that_ far in advance and be sure about anything. 

I'll tell you one thing, though; I definitely don't want to have anything to do with Odom if I can have Kevin Garnett. It's not even close. And don't give me the "potential" argument with Bynum. Duncan, Shaq, JO, KG, etc. were ALL elitely athletic and skilled at 18/19 years of age. Bynum is no where near that level of progression, so I would have no qualms about trading him in a package with Odom for KG. That is immediate contender status. Kupchak would basically have to make just one great MLE signing and one other solid FA pickup and the Lakers would be set for contender status (depending on who those two supporting players are). They'd still be damn fine with Bryant/Garnett/trash.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

sorry if they get garnet they'll be strapped with the salary cap. they'll be able to sign MLEs, but that's just it .


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

From ESPN's Sportsradio/Stephen A Smith.

1. Talks between the Lakers and Minnesota are far more serious than they’ve ever been regarding a Garnett trade. 

2. Talks between the Nets and Minnesota are very serious regarding a Garnett trade. 

3. These are the only 2 teams getting serious consideration by the Wolves. 

4. The Nets are desperate to beat the Lakers out of any KG trade race, and are offering 2 of their three guns plus Nenad Krstc. Their deal would be Kidd/Jefferson + Krstic, or Carter/Jefferson + Krstic. Stephen A. thinks it’s a horrible trade for the Nets because the only post presence they have is Krstic, and since Garnett is not a post-presence, it puts him in almost the same situation he was in as a Wolf. The Nets also have no depth at all and can’t win with just Garnett and whomever remains. He thinks KG is not worth all that specifically because he’s a face the basket player that doesn’t play in the post. 

5. When asked between the Nets and Lakers, who he’d see Garnett end up with, he chose the Lakers. He also believes it’s the ideal fit for him because (a) we have a player who does play in the post in Kwame, (b) KG and Kobe are tight and would have great chemistry, and (c) the system would fit KG perfectly. 

6. He didn't say who the Lakers were offering, but did indicate Bynum is likely involved. 

7. This doesn’t mean a trade is happening with any degree of likelihood, only that if one does, the Lakers are in the top 2 of teams likely to get him at this point. Doesn’t mean things can’t change tomorrow or that more teams won’t jump in the fray.



...I dont know about the Nets, but it seems like their giving way too much for an aging star. 2 of their big guns (VC,Kidd,RJ) + Kristic.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

EHL Posted that on the page before. :biggrin:


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Eternal said:


> EHL Posted that on the page before. :biggrin:


Oh snap..missed it. Hahaha


Doh!


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

i think it would have to b e odom + kwame for KG if you were to base it on the contract limitations.. if KG were 2 years younger, then i wouldn't have a problem with them doing it... but he's 30. no lamar, just kobe and kg and a few other trash players. dont see how it's going to work with just 2 superstars. sure, with shaq it worked, because the guy was the most dominant player in the game. KG is a great player, but not that dominant.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Kyle, refer to HallofFamer, dannyM, and EHL's posts for my rebuttal. Well said guys.


----------



## Kyle (Jul 1, 2003)

I forget who, but someone made a refernce to our championship team with Shaq/Kobe + role players and said that the same could happen again if we added KG. While it sounds like a good idea in terms of star power, like others have said, our cap room would be terrible. Does anyone remember when we went for the four peat, before adding GP/Malone? We were simply outclassed. If we were to add Garnett it would be that season all over again. We would still be lacking the overall tools to compete with Dallas/San Antonio. KG is not comparable to Shaq either. Don't let the stary eyes fool you, we would be no better than an above average Western Conference team just because we have two star players. 

Look at the progress we made this year. We were capable of upsetting the Suns and we just let it slip away. Now the Suns are probably going to make it to the Western Conference Finals. I believe by adding a solid PG and maybe 1-2 more bench players for depth we could be capable of competeing for a championship. I'd be happy to keep Odom, Bynum, Kwame and Mihm. Those are huge bodies that we continously throw at other teams. Say we trade 2 of our big men just for KG, that gives us nothing at other positions and off the bench. 

KG & Kobe and trash players aren't going to beat Phoneix/Dallas/San Antonio.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

with 1 or 2 more pieces we can be a championship contender? it's gotta be some good pieces then.


----------



## Laker Superstar 34 (Aug 8, 2005)

I would rather keep Odom and get Rondo and Justin Williams/Taj Gray in the draft. Then sign a couple of semi-quality vets with great work-ethics to teach our rookies a thing or two or maybe three. That way we'd have more chemistry with the team. KG would be great to have, but I'd rather do what I just said and get more contender years out of our team. With KG it would be around 5, but with the team I'd get from what I said as well as trading Mihm and George for Eddie Griffin, then we'd have around the rest of Kobe's career and possibly a good ammount more years after that of being a contender.

Sorry for the last sentence being somewhat of a run-on.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Kyle said:


> I forget who, but someone made a refernce to our championship team with Shaq/Kobe + role players and said that the same could happen again if we added KG. While it sounds like a good idea in terms of star power, like others have said, our cap room would be terrible. Does anyone remember when we went for the four peat, before adding GP/Malone? We were simply outclassed. If we were to add Garnett it would be that season all over again. We would still be lacking the overall tools to compete with Dallas/San Antonio. KG is not comparable to Shaq either. Don't let the stary eyes fool you, we would be no better than an above average Western Conference team just because we have two star players.
> 
> Look at the progress we made this year. We were capable of upsetting the Suns and we just let it slip away. Now the Suns are probably going to make it to the Western Conference Finals. I believe by adding a solid PG and maybe 1-2 more bench players for depth we could be capable of competeing for a championship. I'd be happy to keep Odom, Bynum, Kwame and Mihm. Those are huge bodies that we continously throw at other teams. Say we trade 2 of our big men just for KG, that gives us nothing at other positions and off the bench.
> 
> KG & Kobe and trash players aren't going to beat Phoneix/Dallas/San Antonio.


 We went to the championship with Kobe, Shaq, and trash. IMO, a simple jumpshooter and an inside defense presence (sorry, Shaq was more of a liability) would have resulted in a championship. That's past news though. I accept your point that a team is what wins the championship, not two stars. Now here is my point. Subtract Odom, Bynum, and Mihm and what do you lose. Our starting SF and two backup C's. We all know about Odom's inconsistency. Yes, he did improve. But IMO, we cannot be a contender with him as the second option due to his weak mental state. As EHL pointed out, Bynum does not have superstar potential. He has very solid player potential. The aforementioned players coming out of high school were off the scales athletically. Bynum is not, compounded with the fact that he really isn't that skilled yet. Mihm is a soft player who is consistent and has a reliable jumphook. 

Out of Odom we are losing a playmaker, passer, low-post option (sporadically), and a rebounder. Out of Bynum we are losing borderline All-Star potential. Out of Mihm, you know what we are losing.

In KG we get a rebounder, defender, shotblocker, lowpost option, passer, leader, competitor, etc. He outweighs Odom in everything. We lose two guys who did not even play in the playoffs this year, and would be pretty much useless against the Suns. To me, this deal is a complete no-brainer. What I don't understand is why in the hell the T-Wolves would do it. :laugh:


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

I would do either deal. odom/kwame for kg or odom/bynum for kg

However, I would much rather trade Odom/Kwame because I think Bynum is going to be a special player, especially on offense.

Kwame won't develop much. He is what he is. A solid low post defender that can't catch a pass if his life depended on it.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

if it's odom and bynum, then they might have to throw mihm in there to match up with salaries.

btw, you can't compare shaq to KG. you put the shaq of 7 years (or evene when he was 30) ago on any team, even the blazers or knicks, and they will make the playoffs. the same can't be said for KG..


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

afobisme said:


> if it's odom and bynum, then they might have to throw mihm in there to match up with salaries.
> 
> *btw, you can't compare shaq to KG. you put the shaq of 7 years (or evene when he was 30) ago on any team, even the blazers or knicks, and they will make the playoffs. the same can't be said for KG..*


You can't say that... KG has never had a Penny, Kobe, or Wade type player like Shaq had.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> We went to the championship with Kobe, Shaq, and trash. IMO, a simple jumpshooter and an inside defense presence (sorry, Shaq was more of a liability) would have resulted in a championship. That's past news though. I accept your point that a team is what wins the championship, not two stars. Now here is my point. Subtract Odom, Bynum, and Mihm and what do you lose. Our starting SF and two backup C's. We all know about Odom's inconsistency. Yes, he did improve. But IMO, we cannot be a contender with him as the second option due to his weak mental state. As EHL pointed out, Bynum does not have superstar potential. He has very solid player potential. The aforementioned players coming out of high school were off the scales athletically. Bynum is not, compounded with the fact that he really isn't that skilled yet. Mihm is a soft player who is consistent and has a reliable jumphook.
> 
> Out of Odom we are losing a playmaker, passer, low-post option (sporadically), and a rebounder. Out of Bynum we are losing borderline All-Star potential. Out of Mihm, you know what we are losing.
> 
> In KG we get a rebounder, defender, shotblocker, lowpost option, passer, leader, competitor, etc. He outweighs Odom in everything. We lose two guys who did not even play in the playoffs this year, and would be pretty much useless against the Suns. To me, this deal is a complete no-brainer. What I don't understand is why in the hell the T-Wolves would do it. :laugh:


I agree the role players where trash in 03, hell Brian Shaw had to start because of Fox and George's injuries. Also Kobe as good as Kobe was in 2003 he is even better now and KG is probably better now than Shaq was that year. (very overweight and had the whole toe problem)


----------



## Kyle (Jul 1, 2003)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> We went to the championship with Kobe, Shaq, and trash. IMO, a simple jumpshooter and an inside defense presence (sorry, Shaq was more of a liability) would have resulted in a championship. That's past news though. I accept your point that a team is what wins the championship, not two stars. Now here is my point. Subtract Odom, Bynum, and Mihm and what do you lose. Our starting SF and two backup C's. We all know about Odom's inconsistency. Yes, he did improve. But IMO, we cannot be a contender with him as the second option due to his weak mental state. As EHL pointed out, Bynum does not have superstar potential. He has very solid player potential. The aforementioned players coming out of high school were off the scales athletically. Bynum is not, compounded with the fact that he really isn't that skilled yet. Mihm is a soft player who is consistent and has a reliable jumphook.
> 
> Out of Odom we are losing a playmaker, passer, low-post option (sporadically), and a rebounder. Out of Bynum we are losing borderline All-Star potential. Out of Mihm, you know what we are losing.
> 
> In KG we get a rebounder, defender, shotblocker, lowpost option, passer, leader, competitor, etc. He outweighs Odom in everything. We lose two guys who did not even play in the playoffs this year, and would be pretty much useless against the Suns. To me, this deal is a complete no-brainer. What I don't understand is why in the hell the T-Wolves would do it. :laugh:


First off, let me start out by asking with all respect mind you, who are you and EHL to rate someone's potential stardom? I don't know you guy's day jobs but I'm willing to bet you're not NBA scouts. You say Bynum doesn't have superstar potential; well I'm sure people thought the same thing when Chauncey Billups was performing fellatio in Boston, or when Steve Nash was back-up PG in Phoneix. Now they're a Finals MVP/2-time MVP.

Next let me state that I think Garnett is a very special talent, but he just doesn't fit our system. Someone needs to really do the math on how strapped our salary would be. I'm sure it would be terrible. We would get ate alive by Dallas/San Antonio/Detriot/Phoneix. I can visualize it now, all playoffs long our PG defense is ridiculously bad, the PGs on the other teams drive by our PG all day long and get KG into foul trouble. When KG's in foul trouble we throw in our next best post player... wait for it... Ronny Turiaf. That is terrible. 

I'd rather keep the 4 big men and wait for them to improve in the offense and add two or three pieces and keep the team we have now. 

What would our roster look like? I hear George might be out. So this roster will be without him.

PG: Parker/Sasha
SG: Kobe/Jackson
SF: Walton/Cook
PF: KG/Turiaf
C: Kwame

Our post is terrible. Espically if one player gets hurt or gets in foul trouble.

If we keep the roster we have now we have versatile fowards that can move into the PF/C. We can throw 5 big bodies at people in the post. Then if we can get a vet PG who can play defense and stretch the defense on offense we are looking at a good season. I'm not talking about Cassell either. I wouldn't mind Banks, but his shot is terrible.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ I understand where you're coming from but with Bynum he's not going to magically develop elite quickness or athleticism. And his "skills" are not refined at all, they're just damn poor. It's not that he couldn't become a great player, it's that he'll (in the most likely scenario) never be a KG-type impact player. That's not a bag on Bynum, that's just the extremely likely outcome of his career. And that's not even based on what Bynum has or hasn't done in the NBA so far, that's just based on simple mathematical probability, period.

So with all that said, I don't _want_ to just give up on Bynum if I had the choice. It's not like anyone here is advocating trading him for Kenyon Martin or something. It's Kevin Garnett we're talking about here.


----------



## Jaj (Jun 15, 2005)

Kyle said:


> First off, let me start out by asking with all respect mind you, who are you and EHL to rate someone's potential stardom? I don't know you guy's day jobs but I'm willing to bet you're not NBA scouts. You say Bynum doesn't have superstar potential; well I'm sure people thought the same thing when Chauncey Billups was performing fellatio in Boston, or when Steve Nash was back-up PG in Phoneix. Now they're a Finals MVP/2-time MVP.
> 
> Next let me state that I think Garnett is a very special talent, but he just doesn't fit our system. Someone needs to really do the math on how strapped our salary would be. I'm sure it would be terrible. We would get ate alive by Dallas/San Antonio/Detriot/Phoneix. I can visualize it now, all playoffs long our PG defense is ridiculously bad, the PGs on the other teams drive by our PG all day long and get KG into foul trouble. When KG's in foul trouble we throw in our next best post player... wait for it... Ronny Turiaf. That is terrible.
> 
> ...


Dude what are you talking about? We're over the cap quite a bit for another season and all we'll have next year is 8m available. That's not that much. It's like signing Al Harrington...

The Lakers would only have been able to get someone big in 08 and besides what would it be a superstar player? Not likely anymore...

The drop off from the 7-8m a year contracts to MLEs is not that large. Even with Garnett just sign Marcus Banks as we would have done before.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

with the lineup kobe made the playoffs this year with, ANYONE will be a big boost to this roster as it is....


----------



## GuYoM (Jun 2, 2005)

Odom and Mihm for KG
My 5 starters:
Banks(in a defensive point guard role like 12pts 3rbds 5pds 2stls)
Kobe (more all arround with KG presence, 28pts 6rbds 6pds 2int 0.75blks)
Walton(in an all arround rôle as usual, something like 8 pts 5rbds 4pds)
KG (Happy with kobe but stats in low with kwame developpement, 20 pts 12 rbds 4 pds 1int 1blk)
Kwame(Developping a real impact, 12pts 8rbds 1blks)

Starters = 80 pts and +/- 160/240 min played


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

_Daily Herald_ - An NBA source tells Barry Rozner that the Timberwolves have no intention of trading Kevin Garnett and that offers won't even be heard unless a player they would be receiving in return is either named Kobe Bryant of LeBron James. 

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/rozner.asp?id=192451


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Eternal said:


> _Daily Herald_ - An NBA source tells Barry Rozner that the Timberwolves have no intention of trading Kevin Garnett and that offers won't even be heard unless a player they would be receiving in return is either named Kobe Bryant of LeBron James.
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/rozner.asp?id=192451


Of course they dont want to trade him, but what if he demands one?? Thats the question.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

That's not likely to happen, but always a possibility.


----------



## sohail (May 13, 2006)

^ya i read that the wovles want kobe or bron for kg


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

sohail said:


> ^ya i read that the wovles want kobe or bron for kg


Taylor is a king of wishful thinking...


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

in reality if you say anything otherwise you arise suspesion that you are indead tryign to trade him. but demanded something so big it appears pretty obvious that they arent going to make a move. but none of that means they are actaully planing a move


----------

