kevin garnett going to the celtics had as much to do with finding the right value as it does with mchale helping his old franchise [the celtics] and spiting his old rival [the lakers]. i will review the kevin garnett trade saga as far as we know it to prove my point.
the following are actual proposed deals prior to the 2007 nba draft, which took place on june 28. i deliberately left out players who were included in the trade only for salary matching purposes [save for theo ratliff, who really isn't even a person anymore as he is a major bargaining chip].
june 23, 2007
wolves get al jefferson, the no. 5 pick, theo ratliff, wally szczerbiak and sebastian telfair
celtics get kevin garnett and troy hudson
analysis : this trade is quite similar to the trade that actually did get done, except the wolves didn't get the no. 5 pick. instead they received a different collection of garbage players and two 2009 draft picks [which will most likely be in the mid-20s]. if i were kevin mchale, i'd rather have the 2007 no. 5 pick.
june 23, 2007
wolves get shawn
suns get kevin garnett
analysis : this is your classic 60 cents on the dollar trade, although that hawks pick looks very tempting. i think steve kerr was trying to pull a fast one on mchale, which isn't really difficult.
june 23, 2007
wolves get al jefferson, the no. 5 pick and theo ratliff
suns get kevin garnett
celtics get shawn
analysis : the wolves would receive the same parts as an earlier trade proposal, only in this situation kg goes to the suns and the celtics receive
june 26, 2007
wolves get al jefferson, the no. 5 pick, theo ratliff and sebastian telfair
lakers get kevin garnett
celtics get jermaine o'neal
pacers get lamar odom and andrew bynum
analysis : this is the trade that should've happened. this deal was very close to completion, but the celtics balked at the last moment because they didn't want to give up al jefferson. the celtics offered a combination of other players instead [eg gerald green, ryan gomes, etc] but the wolves insisted on
noteworthy no. 5 draft picks
1. charles barkley [1984]
2. dwyane wade [2003]
3. kevin garnett [1995]
4. scottie pippen [1987]
5. vince carter [1998]
noteworthy mid-20s draft picks
1. tony parker [2001]
2. [hm...]
3. [um...]
4. [well...]
5. mark madsen [2000]
so, the only decision mchale had to weigh was whether or not
june 26, 2007
wolves get lamar odom, andrew bynum and the 19th pick
lakers get kevin garnett
analysis : the lakers were desperate at this point, and the wolves would be foolish to trade garnett without getting a high draft pick.
june 27, 2007
wolves get the no. 3 pick, the no. 11 pick
suns get kevin garnett
hawks get amare stoudamire and an undisclosed player
analysis : this trade is intriguing because each team would benefit. the wolves would've had 3 top-11 picks in deep 2007 draft. apparently this deal didn't go through because the hawks' various owners couldn't agree on this trade. and that's why the hawks are the hawks.
june 27, 2007
wolves get the no. 3 pick and the no. 11 pick
lakers get kevin garnett
hawks get jermaine o'neal
pacers get lamar odom and andrew bynum
analysis : this deal didn't go through for the same reason as the above trade proposal. and people wonder why the hawks don't win more games with the talent they have.
june 28, 2007
wolves get the no. 8 pick and an undisclosed player
suns get kevin garnett
bobcats get amare stoudemire and marcus banks
analysis : everyone does well in this proposal, except for the wolves. unless that undisclosed player is early to mid-90s michael
june 28, 2007
wolves get the no. 8 pick
warriors get kevin garnett
bobcats get jason
analysis : this is 30 cents on the dollar, if that. nobody is getting kevin garnett for a no. 8 pick or jason
anyway, the wolves would have got a better deal if they traded garnett to the lakers, and i can [kind of] understand that they didn't want to trade garnett to a team in their own conference. with that being said, i have never believed in the concept of not trading within the same conference or division. if a team believes that a trade was good for them [and i don't think a gm would think that a trade they agreed upon was unfair], why does it matter that they would play the team they traded with more than a team from another conference? it's basically an admission that the other team came out better than them. not only that, if that other team is better, then they would play against other teams in the conference and hinder the remaining teams. it's called balance.
in conclusion, i honestly think that mchale received a better offer from the lakers than the trade that ultimately sent garnett to
3 comments:
you forgot reynaldo balkmon on your list of notable mid-20's...jokes.
i had not considered this angle but it makes sense. a flaw in human nature i suppose. not being very familiar with the inner workings of the nba i can't really say for sure, so i ask myself "could something similar happen in baseball?" and the answer is definitely yes. so i could see it in the nba or nfl too. for example, if given another chance at wrecking a team...uh, i mean being a gm, i'm certain steve phillips would find a way to screw over the mets. again.
in other (not) news, the hawks are retarded.
ur whole article is a joke...
how come all your trades have the wolves gettin the least value but yet they r givin up kg, the most value
stop doin these articles go kill urself
in response to the previous comment, none of these trade proposals are actually mine. they were all offers presented by one or all of the parties involved. and the point that the wolves were not getting fair value in those proposed deals for garnett is irrelevant; i never argued that. i only argued that they had better offers than what they ultimately agreed upon. my main theory was that mchale wanted to help the celtics as much as he wanted to spite the lakers, which is why he passed on their offer. seriously though, the wolves wouldn't rather have lamar odom and andrew bynum than al jefferson and the pu pu platter they received from boston? with bynum and odom they are replacing the aggregate without having to wait for players to develop. throw in the 15th pick and that's a better deal than what they got, which was also my argument. obviously the point was missed; a more careful reading would remedy that.
ps i will not stop writing nor kill myself. but thanks for the suggestion!
Post a Comment