PDA

View Full Version : si.com on 4 frontrunners for KG: Bulls, Lakers, Pacers, Nets



Slick Pinkham
12-07-2006, 10:50 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/chris_mannix/12/06/garnett/index.html

Get a move on, KG
Possible deals for a superstar who needs to be traded
Posted: Wednesday December 6, 2006 11:26AM; Updated: Thursday December 7, 2006 2:06AM


Dealing Kevin Garnett could accelerate the Timberwolves' rebuilding process.
Greg Nelson/SI

"I've never said I [was] unhappy. I don't know where y'all get that [expletive] from. None of y'all have asked me that."
-- Kevin Garnett

Over the years, Kevin Garnett has proved to be a man of his word. He has never shied away from the difficult questions. He has never exhibited any form of selfishness either on (where he may be too unselfish) or off (hey, if you were offered $20 million per year, you would take it, too) the court.

He has proved to be the ultimate teammate. Unlike so many of his elite counterparts (hello, Stephon Marbury), Garnett has not had his name slandered by angry ex-teammates. Rather, Garnett has been embraced by those who have played with him -- and for good reason. A couple of years ago, when asked to pose for a Sports Illustrated cover photo, Garnett initially balked when he found out the picture wouldn't include teammates Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell (it eventually did).

He says he is not unhappy and we should believe him. But facts are facts. It's time for Kevin Garnett to move on.

Minnesota hasn't made the postseason since blowing up the successful unit that advanced to the 2004 Western Conference finals. His scoring average (21.1 entering Wednesday's game against Houston) is his lowest since 1999. He is still one of the league's most durable players (he has never missed more than six games in a season), but doesn't have the right mix of talent around him. With a few exceptions, the Timberwolves are a team of malcontents. You don't win with a team like that.

And they are not going to. As one league personnel type says, "Minnesota is one of just a few teams in this league that needs to be blown up." Over the last few years, Minnesota has managed to hemorrhage draft picks while decreasing the caliber of veteran talent. And it's visibly starting to wear on KG.

"He still has the same energy, the same fire to start the game he always has," says an Eastern Conference scout. "But by the third and fourth quarter, it's gone. You can see it in his eyes. I don't want to say he has resigned himself to losing, but you can see he knows that if that team is going to win, he is going to have to do it by himself."

Minnesota desperately needs a youth infusion, and the only way that happens is if it trades the 30-year-old Garnett. There will not be a more opportune time. Garnett may still be young by NBA standards, but there a lot of miles on those tires, the result of playing 33,153 minutes over the last 12-plus seasons.

There will be no shortage of suitors. Here's a look at a few of the front-runners:

Chicago Bulls
Every New York loss moves Garnett one step closer to Chicago. Why? Because the Bulls can switch 2007 first-round picks with the Knicks, and with New York struggling, that pick very well could turn out to be Greg Oden.

Any deal with Chicago would begin with Ben Gordon, Tyrus Thomas and the pick (giving Minnesota two potential lottery picks in the talent-rich '07 draft). It likely also would include either Andres Nocioni or Luol Deng, plus P.J. Brown's expiring contract to make the salaries match and potentially keep the Timberwolves away from the dreaded luxury-tax threshold next season.

SI.com's trade: Garnett ($21 million), Mark Madsen ($2.1 million), Bracey Wright ($664,000) and a 2008 first-round pick for Gordon ($3.9 million), Thomas ($3.3 million), Deng ($2.6 million), Brown ($8.6 million), Malik Allen ($1.8 million) and the Bulls' 2007 first-round pick.



Los Angeles Lakers
For all his marvelous talents, Garnett is not the player coaches have on their lists of guys they want taking the last shot. He wouldn't have to with the Lakers; there's a certain No. 24 already taking care of that. Garnett would have no trouble finding room in the Lakers' locker room for his ego because he will let Kobe have the attention; he only wants the ring. He very well could get it there, too.

Despite recent setbacks, the progress of Andrew Bynum has made him a valuable commodity and a potential centerpiece to any Garnett package. The Lakers could also throw in a few expiring contracts. Any hesitation on the part of Minnesota GM Kevin McHale might be trading his star to a team within his own conference.

si.com's trade: Garnett ($21 million), Madsen ($2.1 million) and Wright ($664,000) for Bynum ($2 million), Lamar Odom ($12.3 million), Chris Mihm ($4.2 million), Aaron McKie ($2.5 million) and a future first-round pick.

Indiana Pacers
Larry Bird was arguably the most competitive player of his era, which makes it easy to assume that he would love to acquire the most competitive player in the game today. Indiana has one thing others teams can't offer: a superstar to give up in return.

Jermaine O'Neal era seems to have run its course in Indiana and the Pacers were entertaining offers for him last summer.O'Neal is two years younger than Garnett and would have to be packaged with one of Indiana's young talents to make the deal enticing enough for Minnesota. The question is, How sweet can the Pacers make it without sacrificing so much that with Garnett they turn into the East's version of the Timberwolves?

si.com's trade: Garnett ($21 million) and two future second-round picks for O'Neal ($18.1 million) and Danny Granger ($1.4 million).

New Jersey Nets
Here's the truth about Richard Jefferson: He absolutely, positively does not want to leave New Jersey. Maybe he did at one point, but as he has continued to mature, Jefferson has embraced the idea of playing for one franchise for his whole career and wants that team to be the Nets (wherever they play).

That said, Jefferson is New Jersey's most valuable bargaining chip. Acquiring Garnett would give the Nets exactly what they have been missing: a rebounding/shot-blocking presence to play alongside Nenad Krstic. Garnett's arrival would spark a fire under Vince Carter and invigorate Jason Kidd.

Minnesota would get a rising star in Jefferson who is eager for a chance to play a more prominent role and who is locked into a long-term contract at reasonable money. The Timberwolves could also get the promising Mile Ilic, whom Nets coach Lawrence Frank says is a season or two away from contributing.

si.com's trade: Garnett ($21 million), Madsen ($2.1 million) and Wright ($664,000) for Jefferson ($11.2 million), Jason Collins ($5.8 million), Jeff McInnis ($3.6 million), Ilic ($800,000) and two future first-round picks.

Phildog
12-07-2006, 10:59 AM
Way too much speculation on this one. And the Pacers would be giving up JO, a similar type to KG, and a great prospect in Granger. Throw in Harrison, and it may make a little more sense.

NO WAY KG IS GOING ANYWHERE in my humble opinion.

Gyron
12-07-2006, 11:00 AM
No way do we give up on Danny. Talk about a very unpopular move that would end up killing off a bunch of the fan base.

Kegboy
12-07-2006, 11:07 AM
I've long railed against the notion of a JO-KG trade, but this team needs a major shakeup, and there are worse players to build around than KG. Hate to give up Danny, though.

However, if I were Minny, I'd take that Chicago deal in a heartbeat. It'd be even better with Noch, but as Grace can tell you, that ain't happening.

Skaut_Ech
12-07-2006, 11:12 AM
I saw this article and debated on whether to post it or not. I know folks get sick of the trade KG discussions, but for me, I never get tired of the speculation. For me, I see a situation analgous to what Barkey was in with the 76ers. :chin2:

Back then, I thought the signs were there that Barkley wouldn't even sniff a chance at a title with the 76ers, he saw that and he forced a trade. Management was making some odd decisions and although I'm not a fan pf players forcing a trade, I think it had to be done.

KG, conversely, wants to be Mr. Nice guy and not force his hand. To me, that could end up making him one of the all-time NBA miscalculators. :1oops::sadyes:

I think Minn is an extremely poorly run franchise and I'm amazed that KG is content to toil away pointlessly. He's paid his dues to the franchise, far as I'm concerned and he needs to get over this feeling that he owes them something. There's something to the statement that nice guys finish last.

Barkley went to the Suns and went to the finals. He gave himself a shot. That will not happen for KG with Minn. Period. I really, really wish he would leave. As a fan of the NBA, it kills me seeing him "waste" his talent in a no win situation.

This is the quote that sums it up for me:


"He still has the same energy, the same fire to start the game he always has," says an Eastern Conference scout. "But by the third and fourth quarter, it's gone. You can see it in his eyes. I don't want to say he has resigned himself to losing, but you can see he knows that if that team is going to win, he is going to have to do it by himself."

That's really sad to me.

Now we can all come up with endless trade scenarios, but I think at the core of any discussions is my belief that a lot of writers and fans feel the same way I do. He's wasting his career in Minn by staying. :sigh::pullhair:

Another thing to remember is that to get quality, you have to GIVE quality. I notice the statement made of how we can't "give up" on Granger. I refer you back to what I just said. You have to give to get. For my money, I think Golden State, us and the Bulls have the most to offer in terms of giving Minn a shot of youth/talent and making some type of equitable trade.

ALF68
12-07-2006, 11:12 AM
No to Granger, yes to JO and Jax.

J_2_Da_IzzO
12-07-2006, 11:16 AM
If he is up and he is going to move then Chicago can offer far better then anyone else could so there isnt really a point speculating.

Slick Pinkham
12-07-2006, 11:28 AM
No to Granger, yes to JO and Jax.

:signit:

Unfortunately we'd have to get McHale pretty drunk to ever agree to do that one

Destined4Greatness
12-07-2006, 11:52 AM
I was all for the trade until I saw Granger involved, **** that.

Hicks
12-07-2006, 12:26 PM
You have to give quality to get quality. KG is an upgrade over JO. JO and Danny for him is a good deal. Al's going to be our 3 for at least 3 years, and it would give Shawne Williams a place in the rotation.

ALF68
12-07-2006, 01:14 PM
You have to give quality to get quality. KG is an upgrade over JO. JO and Danny for him is a good deal. Al's going to be our 3 for at least 3 years, and it would give Shawne Williams a place in the rotation.
On further thought, I agree, JO and Danny for KG.

Destined4Greatness
12-07-2006, 01:24 PM
I question KG's leadership ability just as I question JO's thats why I wouldn't give up Danny as well for him

Jumper
12-07-2006, 01:34 PM
No hesitation, where do I sign

CableKC
12-07-2006, 01:44 PM
I was watching NBA Fastbreak and I think that Ric Bucher brought up a valid point about any possible trade for Garnett. If it were to happen....it would be best for the TWolves wait the 2007 offseason....specifically before the 2007 Draft starts. If the whole point ot trading Garnett is to simply rebuild and accumulate Draft Picks......there is no point to trade Garnett anytime before then...since there would be no guarantee that who will end up with the 1st pick ( to get Oden ) or even if the team that he is traded to would end up with a top 5 pick. On top of that....the best thing to do is to get as many 1st round picks as possible.....something that the Pacers do not have an abundance of.

If the Bulls Management had the stones to take on whatever long term Salary implications would result in taking on 2 huge contracts in 2 seasons ( KG and BigBen )....I would think that they have the most resources......decent draft pick, young players with talent ( Deng, Nocioni, Duhon, Tyrus Thomas ) and Expiring Contract ( PJ Brown ) to make something happen.

FlavaDave
12-07-2006, 01:50 PM
Our problem is the backcourt. Replacing JO with KG doesn't solve that problem.

pizza guy
12-07-2006, 02:24 PM
Our problem is the backcourt. Replacing JO with KG doesn't solve that problem.

:ding:

BlueNGold
12-07-2006, 02:35 PM
Trading JO and Granger for KG will NOT happen.

Skaut_Ech
12-07-2006, 02:39 PM
:ding:

:boxer:


No, but it helps a whole lot.

<table class="playerInfoGridPlayerInfoBorders" border="0" cellspacing="0" height="696" width="448"><tbody><tr><td height="110" valign="top">http://www.nba.com/media/playerfile/kevin_garnett.jpg </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> Kevin Garnett
Minnesota Timberwolves
Position: F
Height: 6-11 Weight: 253
High School : Farragut Academy HS (IL)
Player file (http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kevin_garnett/) | Team stats (http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/stats/)
</td> </tr> <tr><td>
</td></tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="gSGSectionTitleStatsPlayerGrid" align="center" valign="top"> 2006-07 Statistics</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowEven">PPG</td><td class="gSGRowEven"> 21.3</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowOdd">RPG</td><td class="gSGRowOdd"> 11.9 </td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowEven">APG</td><td class="gSGRowEven"> 3.6</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowOdd">SPG</td><td class="gSGRowOdd"> 1.41</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowEven">BPG</td><td class="gSGRowEven"> 1.88</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowOdd">FG%</td><td class="gSGRowOdd"> .513</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowEven">FT%</td><td class="gSGRowEven"> .818</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowOdd">3P%</td><td class="gSGRowOdd"> .250

<table class="playerInfoGridPlayerInfoBorders" border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td height="110" valign="top">http://www.nba.com/media/playerfile/jermaine_oneal.jpg </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> Jermaine O'Neal
Indiana Pacers
Position: F-C
Height: 6-11 Weight: 260
High School : Eau Claire HS (SC)
Player file (http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jermaine_oneal/) | Team stats (http://www.nba.com/pacers/stats/)
</td> </tr> <tr><td>
</td></tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="gSGSectionTitleStatsPlayerGrid" align="center" valign="top"> 2006-07 Statistics</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowEven">PPG</td><td class="gSGRowEven"> 17.8</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowOdd">RPG</td><td class="gSGRowOdd"> 9.9 </td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowEven">APG</td><td class="gSGRowEven"> 2.9</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowOdd">SPG</td><td class="gSGRowOdd"> .79</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowEven">BPG</td><td class="gSGRowEven"> 3.05</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowOdd">FG%</td><td class="gSGRowOdd"> .458</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowEven">FT%</td><td class="gSGRowEven"> .714</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowOdd">3P%</td><td class="gSGRowOdd"> .000</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowEven">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr> <tr align="center"><td class="gSGRowEven">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

By the very fact that KG garners more assists and more rebounds translates to an improved backcourt becasue there are more offensive opportunities and with a better ball handler on the floor, the pressure is off the backcourt a bit when it comes to making plays, so we can make them play more to their respective strengths.

Hows that for a theory? :fight:

Slick Pinkham
12-07-2006, 02:50 PM
Trading JO and Granger for KG will NOT happen.

Hey, don't squash our dreams.
;)

KG is having a down year and squashes JO in every measurable category except blocked shots.

The JO experiment isn't working out, and KG's contract is one year shorter. If by some chance McHale would not hang up the phone, this should be pursued.

But it's just a dream and you are right, the odds are slim. Minnesota would rather pull the trigger on a Bulls deal instead of getting an far lesser-performing max contract guy and no draft picks along with it.

Moses
12-07-2006, 02:54 PM
2 years ago, I would have done JO + Young Gun for KG in a split second, but KG is getting older. It wont be long before he is on the decline. (See Shaq)

maragin
12-07-2006, 03:06 PM
Obviously we'd all like to keep Granger around, but when I looked at it this way:

KG is worth a little more than JO
Granger is worth a little more than two 2nd round picks

it sorta makes sense.

I don't know if it is what the Pacers need, but I think it is well worth considering. Personally, most of my trade scenarios involve finding a suitor that wants to try the Harrison experiment while he still has TUP.


Sidenote: Would the Pacers want Ben Gordon? I've seen several trade scenarios that involved him, a few with him coming our way. Obviously he is a great offensive talent. I just wanted to know from people who are more familiar with him if he would fit in with our scheme/ be a starter.

CableKC
12-07-2006, 03:18 PM
Sidenote: Would the Pacers want Ben Gordon? I've seen several trade scenarios that involved him, a few with him coming our way. Obviously he is a great offensive talent. I just wanted to know from people who are more familiar with him if he would fit in with our scheme/ be a starter.
We would have to move SJax, Granger or Marquis before making a run for Gordon.

In addition...I would love to get Gordon.....as long as Carlisle isn't coaching him....:zip:

FlavaDave
12-07-2006, 03:40 PM
Granger is worth a little more than two 2nd round picks

That might be a bit of an understatement.

I don't think you could find a team in the league that wouldn't trade 6 second round picks for Granger (if that was possible). If the Pacers offered that to someone, the P's wouldn't be able to hang up the phone before the papers were faxed over.

JO plus anyone else for KG deserves a look for sure. JO plus Granger equals no way.

Jon Theodore
12-07-2006, 03:43 PM
If minnesota includes a first round draft pick you do the deal...

actually you do the deal no matter what cuz jermaine is the most overpaid player in the league. I think were damned if we do, damned if we don't. So it's more or less a toss up.

FlavaDave
12-07-2006, 03:48 PM
If minnesota includes a first round draft pick you do the deal...

actually you do the deal no matter what cuz jermaine is the most overpaid player in the league.


Chris Webber? Grant Hill? Baron Davis? Steve Francis? Stephan Marbury?

maragin
12-07-2006, 03:53 PM
That might be a bit of an understatement.

I don't think you could find a team in the league that wouldn't trade 6 second round picks for Granger (if that was possible).

Although it might be an understatement that Granger is worth a little more than 2 second round picks, "little" is a relative term. Similar to saying KG is a little better than JO.

I do disagree on your second statement though. I would hope that we would offer to help pack Danny's bags for six future 2nd round picks.

Slick Pinkham
12-07-2006, 04:01 PM
Skaut's statistical comparison is telling, but if you had no numbers to look at...

if you just watched the GAME and asked yourself who plays with a higher basketball IQ

wouldn't you want KG much much more than JO?

Granted I watch Pacer games from the perspective of a Pacers fan and Minnesota games rarely, and not from the perspective of a T-Wolves fan. But many times in games I watch Jermaine play and I think "Why with your talent did you settle for THAT shot?" and that doesn't cross my mind with KG. I think that he makes more intelligent TEAM plays and uses his abilities to beak down opposing defenses with higher regularity.

I know, I know, he hasn't done much in the postseason. I'm not saying he's MJ. But I also don't expect Jermaine to ever lead this team to even a first round playoff victory anytime ion the future without a sidekick of the ability of a Ron Artest to do a substantial share of the dirty work.

FlavaDave
12-07-2006, 04:02 PM
Although it might be an understatement that Granger is worth a little more than 2 second round picks, "little" is a relative term. Similar to saying KG is a little better than JO.

I do disagree on your second statement though. I would hope that we would offer to help pack Danny's bags for six future 2nd round picks.


Okay, here's a question (and I say this without looking it up or remembering who they are): Look at the last 6 players chosen with the first pick of the second round. Would you trade Danny Granger for all of them? (Forgetting the fact that you would have to cut players).

JayRedd
12-07-2006, 04:11 PM
I do disagree on your second statement though. I would hope that we would offer to help pack Danny's bags for six future 2nd round picks.

The point is that Danny is already better than 97% of 2nd Round picks.


And I do probably think JO/Granger is too much to give up....but I wouldn't wake up crying if I found out we picked up KG, even though The Gift is my favorite guy to watch on this team. We'd be pretty darn good with a starting five of Tins/Jack/Al/KG/Foster. With the state the East is in right now, that could possibly get us to the Finals. It would bite us in the a$$ if we don't, and then in four years we're sitting here with a washed-up KG and watching Danny play in an All Star game for Minny....but if you get the chance to make a run at the 'Ship, sometimes you hafta take that shot.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-07-2006, 04:20 PM
Okay, here's a question (and I say this without looking it up or remembering who they are): Look at the last 6 players chosen with the first pick of the second round. Would you trade Danny Granger for all of them? (Forgetting the fact that you would have to cut players).


Just for arguements sake....James White, Salim Stoudamire, Anderson Varejao, Maciej Lampe, Steve Logan and Trenton Hassell are the last 6 first picks of the second round. I'd trade Danny for those six guys. I wouldn't trade him for 6 second round picks though. The first round is enough of a crap shoot let alone second rounders.

rexnom
12-07-2006, 04:20 PM
Keep in mind that this article is from the same guy who wrote that Jack has been incredibly disappointing this year when in most of our minds he has been more focused than ever.

JO and Danny is a little much IMO. Especially with how well JO's been playing lately and Danny has shown signs of improvement...We would just be Minnesota East. And no, that's not enough in the East.

p.s. I hope that the Bulls are on the phones with the T'Wolves about this trade. It makes too much sense for them here.

maragin
12-07-2006, 04:31 PM
Okay, here's a question (and I say this without looking it up or remembering who they are): Look at the last 6 players chosen with the first pick of the second round. Would you trade Danny Granger for all of them? (Forgetting the fact that you would have to cut players).

James White
Salim Stoudamire
Anderson Varej&#227;o
Maciej Lampe
Steve Logan
Trenton Hassell

Without considering roster spot, yes. No one player here is more valuable to me than Granger, but their combined value outweighs Danny. Varejao (CLE), Hassell(MIN), Stoudamire(ATL) and White(SA) are the ones currently in the league. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't see Danny as a future all star. I see him as a very solid contributor on any team he plays for. These guys have a greater combined value than Danny Granger.

And I would certainly trade him for the second pick in the second round for the last 6 years (That Arenas guy is pretty good)

The real point is that future picks are a commodity that provide flexibility to owners to create trades, not just acquire players through the draft. Six of them would certainly put us in a position to either include them as trade bait, find a gem in the second round, or use them along with a first round pick to improve our draft position.

Sidenote: SI ran a bit about the best active second round picks today, worth a look (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0612/gallery.nba.top2ndroundpicks/content.1.html).

FlavaDave
12-07-2006, 04:39 PM
Just for arguements sake....James White, Salim Stoudamire, Anderson Varejao, Maciej Lampe, Steve Logan and Trenton Hassell are the last 6 first picks of the second round. I'd trade Danny for those six guys. I wouldn't trade him for 6 second round picks though. The first round is enough of a crap shoot let alone second rounders.


Thanks for doing the legwork.

For the record, no way do I trade Danny Granger for those six.

Doug
12-07-2006, 04:40 PM
The hard part of trading Granger is not so much his potential, but the emotional investment so much of the fan base already has in him.

He is one of our most popular players - if you ask people who their favorite Pacer is, Granger is going to be at or near the top of the list.

Trading yet another one of our popular players and "character guys" would be hard sell to the fan base, even if it does bring in KG.

JO's popular as well, so trading (in my opinion) two of the three most popular players (Foster would be my other guess) for KG might be hard for the Pacers to do.

On the other hand, it's KG!

Harrison + JO for KG would be very nice. Throw in another young player with upside - Williams, Marshall, Powell, whoever, to sweeten the pot.

gilpdawg
12-07-2006, 04:42 PM
No way do we give up on Danny. Talk about a very unpopular move that would end up killing off a bunch of the fan base.
Are you kidding me? I'm not sure about making that move, but the casual fan has NO idea who Danny Granger is. KG would increase interest in the team just because he's a superstar name.

Destined4Greatness
12-07-2006, 04:58 PM
Are you kidding me? I'm not sure about making that move, but the casual fan has NO idea who Danny Granger is. KG would increase interest in the team just because he's a superstar name.

Yes and the goal is to please the Casual fans, not the ones that know wtf they are talking about.

maragin
12-07-2006, 05:00 PM
Also, if we had Garnett, Indiana would have two of the players that emerge from a ball and drink Gatorade Rain.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-07-2006, 05:06 PM
I don't think the casual fan would care who we traded to get KG. Unless it was completely lopsided ....like our starting five for KG. There's no denying Garnett is one of the best in the league. He's only two years older than JO. Although they're both still pretty young at 28 & 30, they've also played damn near full careers in the NBA. Garnett is in his 12th season and JO in his 11th. I wonder if the wear and tear of the NBA will end some of these straight outta high school guys careers before you'd expect them to hang 'em up based on their ages. If you think about it Jo & Kobe came into the league the same year as Abdur-Rahim, Dampier, Kittles, Ray Allen, Iverson etc... KG came into the league with guys like Travis Best, Stackhouse,Joe Smith ,Mcdyess & Sheed. 10 years in the NBA is 10 years no matter how old you are. You've put the same amount of strain on your body as the next guy. I know Moses played 19 years but even he was a shell of the Malone we remember in his twilight years. He was also a 215lb center and times have changed.

CableKC
12-07-2006, 05:17 PM
The hard part of trading Granger is not so much his potential, but the emotional investment so much of the fan base already has in him.
For me....the level of investment that I have in Granger is about $40....the cost of the Granger Pacer Jersey that I got for my son ( as you can tell in my avatar )

If Granger had to go to be included in any JONeal trade to get KG....I would do it.

Also.......for the Simon's....if it comes down to selling tickets ( as in treating the Pacers...in the end...as a business first...and basketball team second )....next to Lebron....the "Big Ticket" could bring back the fans.

Skaut_Ech
12-07-2006, 05:20 PM
2 years ago, I would have done JO + Young Gun for KG in a split second, but KG is getting older. It wont be long before he is on the decline. (See Shaq)

You realize that KG is only 2 years older than Jermaine? :-o See Shaq? Shaq is 33 or 34 and just NOW starting to hit the downside of his career.

KG is the same age as Tim Duncan, Bonzi Wells, Ray Allen, Iverson, Illgaukas, Antwan Jamison....... My point being, I'd take any of those guys, too. I don't see any of them hetting their decline any time soon, and the same could be said of KG.


if you just watched the GAME and asked yourself who plays with a higher basketball IQ

wouldn't you want KG much much more than JO?

Granted I watch Pacer games from the perspective of a Pacers fan and Minnesota games rarely, and not from the perspective of a T-Wolves fan. But many times in games I watch Jermaine play and I think "Why with your talent did you settle for THAT shot?" and that doesn't cross my mind with KG. I think that he makes more intelligent TEAM plays and uses his abilities to beak down opposing defenses with higher regularity.

I know, I know, he hasn't done much in the postseason. I'm not saying he's MJ. But I also don't expect Jermaine to ever lead this team to even a first round playoff victory anytime in the future without a sidekick of the ability of a Ron Artest to do a substantial share of the dirty work.

Tom, we're of like mind as always.

I just can't fault KG for not getting his TEAM to the next level, because...well, it's a TEAM game. KG can only do so much, and other than for a heartbeat, he's always surrounded with mediocrity. I'm not gonna point the finger at him for that.

Thing is, right now, I think this team is tailor-made for KG. KG tends to make his teammates better and I think we have so many guys on the cusp of being better.

I could say the same about the before mentioned Warriors.


The hard part of trading Granger is not so much his potential, but the emotional investment so much of the fan base already has in him.

He is one of our most popular players - if you ask people who their favorite Pacer is, Granger is going to be at or near the top of the list.

I dunno, Doug. I think hardcore fans really love him, but the average fan probably thinks as highly of him as a Hakim Warrick or Gerald Green or Joey Graham. All are talented, and their hardcore fan base may love them, but that may be a small sacrafice to lure more lucrative marketing money to the franchise and talent to come here.

I think Granger is loved by the hardcore fans base, but they are always going to be there. Hell, look at us goofs, here rain or shine. I think the emotional investment would pass pretty quickly if we got someone as charismatic as KG and a GM who could surround him with like-mnded players, unlike McHale.

SoupIsGood
12-07-2006, 05:28 PM
KG will hit his downside a lot quicker and harder than Shaq or Timmy, though. He relies much more upon his athleticism. I agree with what Moses said about two years ago, and with whoever it was that said our problem is in the backcourt. We'd still have loads of problems with KG. Tins and Jack need to be off this team.

SoupIsGood
12-07-2006, 05:29 PM
To the guy complaining about JO's shot selection... KG takes a lot of jumpers/fades, too. Granted, he shoots a better %, but still...

Destined4Greatness
12-07-2006, 05:29 PM
Shaq just now hitting his decline, Umm who here watched the 04 playoffs.

Jermaniac
12-07-2006, 06:14 PM
Sure why not trade JO for KG? Most of you just cry about how JO is a bad leader. If JO is bad, KG is just as bad if not worse. He hasnt lead his team anywhere. They havent even made the playoffs since Sam left. Not to mention JO is younger and is having just as good of a season as him.

Ohh and adding Danny makes it twice as bad.

D-BONE
12-07-2006, 06:48 PM
I dunno about this proposed deal. True KG is better that JO, but to what extent and for how much longer? Granger's got tons of upside and is young. Can't predict, but you know what's been said about DG as far as had he not had the knee issue he could've been a lottery pick.

Substitute somebody else for DG (Who could feasibly draw interest I don't know?) or have them send us someting halfway decent with KG (if they have anything?) and get salaries to match and all that business and then maybe I'd do it.

Mamluk
12-07-2006, 07:22 PM
Why would Min would want a similar superstar in return?
If they are to rebuild, they are going to look for several trade peaces with steady value, while JO is hard to trade + his value will start to deminish if Min's results do not improve.
Even with Granger on the block, Chicago is much more attractive for Min.

Similarly, that deal is way to risky for Pacers too.. Because if Garnett does not considerably improve Pacers wins column, his value will start to decrease and he'll be hard to trade.

Will Galen
12-07-2006, 08:21 PM
I think most of you guys are looking at it wrong. Both Kevin and JO are all stars at the forward position. Both draw double and triple teams. So Kevin is a bit better, how does that help us? It doesn't if we have to throw in another player, let alone Granger.

If we are going to trade JO, I want something back that really makes a difference, someone that shores up a weakness, not someone that makes a strength better.

Al's no slouch at PF. If we traded JO to shore up a weakness then we could move Al to PF and put Danny back at SF.

How about JO for the #1 pick in the draft after we know who has the pick and know Oden is coming out? We need a point guard that can guard people. Are there any young Gary Paytons out there? These are the type of things I want to try if we are trading JO. It just doesn't make sense to me to trade him for Kevin.

PacerMan
12-07-2006, 08:55 PM
KG is the same age as Tim Duncan, Bonzi Wells, Ray Allen, Iverson, Illgaukas, Antwan Jamison....... My point being, I'd take any of those guys, too. I don't see any of them hetting their decline any time soon, and the same could be said of KG.






Ray Allen is a heck of a lot older than 30.

Shaq has been going downhill for 3 or 4 years and the ONLY reason he's still a factor is because he's bigger than anyone else.

I don't trade Jermaine and Danny for KG. Danny hasn't even begun to show what he can do yet. Look at AL and Jermaine in their second years of playing time. Not even CLOSE to what they are now. Same will be true of Danny.

Skaut_Ech
12-07-2006, 09:12 PM
Ray Allen is a heck of a lot older than 30.



Yes, 31 is far and away a LOT OLDER than 30. ;)

Bball
12-07-2006, 09:44 PM
You want to see our backcourt look better? Get rid of JO and starting letting the offense flow again.

I'm all for trading JO. I don't care who we get in return.... Just 'get him gone'. Take Tinsley with him altho I'd be fine with seeing Tinsley relegated to the bench while we negotiate another trade for him.

What? ...We're talking about trading JO for KG? Do it yesterday!

-Bball

Naptown_Seth
12-07-2006, 09:50 PM
Our problem is the backcourt. Replacing JO with KG doesn't solve that problem.
I have to agree, although I don't think any part of the team is a disaster like some do. Somehow I think there are Pacers fans that don't watch other games and see the exact same issues, even on pretty good teams.

For every person saying "man, Hill killed Jack" there was a Magic fan saying "why don't they put someone on Jackson, he's killing us, where's Grant at". TEAMS LOSE, and when they do someone is always to blame. Even the top teams face these questions 15-20 times a season.


And that's where you find KG...why is it that JO is in a better situation than KG? He was on a capped out team that had the rest of its money behind Bender and Croshere and was still winning. As much as KG is making, it's not so much as to prevent at least similar talent to be in Minny at this point.

Many of us had interest in Ricky Davis, most saw/see him as an upgrade over Jack. Before Davis it was Wally, the prime candidate for fans that claim to love clean-cut fundamental guys, players that won't be at Rio at 3 AM (yeah, right).

What parts of the Pacers over the last 2 years have been better than what the Wolves had...and don't you dare say Reggie after he dropped that awful 32% from 3 while taking more 3 balls than anyone on the team (more than Jack, and less than Jack's 36%), along with 2.4 reb and 2.2 apg. He was role player his final year.

Is Tinsley really better than Cassell? Especially 2 years ago? Jack was better than Spree? Reggie better than Wally? Was it the magic of 7 games of Artest?


Sorry, but to me KG's last few seasons look a lot like the complaints about JO. Big contract that keeps the team from adding other pieces, big numbers but can't lead his team anyplace.

So you INCREASE the contract of your "star big" who hasn't won anything and "pay" to do so with Danny?


KG = great player...but JO is great too. People here are just USED TO HIM.

Jermaniac
12-07-2006, 10:58 PM
You want to see our backcourt look better? Get rid of JO and starting letting the offense flow again.

I'm all for trading JO. I don't care who we get in return.... Just 'get him gone'. Take Tinsley with him altho I'd be fine with seeing Tinsley relegated to the bench while we negotiate another trade for him.

What? ...We're talking about trading JO for KG? Do it yesterday!

-BballHey BBall we played the Magic yesterday. The #1 team in the East, I'm surprised I didn't see you post in the thread. Ohh no I wasn't, we won that game. I forgot you are only happy when the Pacers lose games, cause like Krazitz thats when your stories get good.

pizza guy
12-07-2006, 11:03 PM
Also, if we had Garnett, Indiana would have two of the players that emerge from a ball and drink Gatorade Rain.

Forget what I said earlier, this does it for me! Pack 'em up and ship 'em out!

rexnom
12-07-2006, 11:06 PM
Hey BBall we played the Magic yesterday. The #1 team in the East, I'm surprised I didn't see you post in the thread. Ohh no I wasn't, we won that game. I forgot you are only happy when the Pacers lose games, cause like Krazitz thats when your stories get good.
I gotta agree here...can we wait for this team to fail before we blow it up, please? Of course, JO for Oden is a no-brainer but it's going to be hard to pull that kind of trade.

Bball
12-07-2006, 11:24 PM
Hey BBall we played the Magic yesterday. The #1 team in the East, I'm surprised I didn't see you post in the thread. Ohh no I wasn't, we won that game. I forgot you are only happy when the Pacers lose games, cause like Krazitz thats when your stories get good.

If that was the best team in the East, the East has troubles...

-Bball

Jermaniac
12-07-2006, 11:41 PM
They have the best record thats all I know. So yesterday they were the best team in the east.

BlueNGold
12-08-2006, 12:16 AM
Sorry, but to me KG's last few seasons look a lot like the complaints about JO. Big contract that keeps the team from adding other pieces, big numbers but can't lead his team anyplace.

So you INCREASE the contract of your "star big" who hasn't won anything and "pay" to do so with Danny?


KG = great player...but JO is great too. People here are just USED TO HIM.

KG may not lead a team to anywhere, but you have to give him more respect.

He has been A LOT better player than JO in almost ALL aspects of the game. Where do I start? He is a much better shooter from the floor or the line. He is better on the boards. Better assists and steal totals. Maybe not as good at blocking shots, but he fouls much less. All when you even consider the fact he plays more minutes...which is even more amazing that he has only missed 9 games in the last 7 years! No suspensions on this guy's record.

I think his resume' beats JO's to death. Might be concerned about his age, but just about nothing else.

MagicRat
12-08-2006, 12:41 AM
Mike Wells addressed this in his live blog tonight.........

http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2006/12/lets_chat_1.html#comments

Comment from Mitch on December 7, 2006 9:03 PM

There was an SI.com article about frontrunners for trading for KG and the Pacers were on the list. The idea was JO + Granger + two 2nd rounders for KG.

You've covered them both. Would you do a deal?

I've been outspoken in the past and said I like the way Garnett competes in practice and in games. You have to force Garnett to sit out practices and games. The concern I have with K.G. is the wear and tear he has put on his body. He's logged 33,185 minutes in his career. O'Neal spent his four years on the bench in Portland. He's played just 17,436 minutes in his career. Granger is a big part of the Pacers' future. So to answer your question, I would not pull off the trade.

Sollozzo
12-08-2006, 01:49 AM
KG will hit his downside a lot quicker and harder than Shaq or Timmy, though. He relies much more upon his athleticism. I agree with what Moses said about two years ago, and with whoever it was that said our problem is in the backcourt. We'd still have loads of problems with KG. Tins and Jack need to be off this team.

I disagree, KG is alot more fundamentally sound than Shaq is.

Shaq's game has always consisted of using power. Shaq is obviously extremely talent, but the power has always been what made him the best in the game. That formula worked for a dozen years, but it's started to come undone. He couldn't bully the Mavs defenders last year. He doesn't have core fundamentals like Jabbar, who played until like 42. Shaq certainly wouldn't have let the guys the Mavs threw at him stop him 5 years back.

KG should be top notch for atleast 5 more years.

Graham Mernatsi
12-08-2006, 02:35 AM
In general, a KG-for-JO swap sounds nice. But do you really want to see Kevin Garnett playing center?

EDIT: Oops! I mean, :arrgh:

Quis
12-08-2006, 05:26 AM
I have to agree, although I don't think any part of the team is a disaster like some do. Somehow I think there are Pacers fans that don't watch other games and see the exact same issues, even on pretty good teams.

For every person saying "man, Hill killed Jack" there was a Magic fan saying "why don't they put someone on Jackson, he's killing us, where's Grant at". TEAMS LOSE, and when they do someone is always to blame. Even the top teams face these questions 15-20 times a season.


And that's where you find KG...why is it that JO is in a better situation than KG? He was on a capped out team that had the rest of its money behind Bender and Croshere and was still winning. As much as KG is making, it's not so much as to prevent at least similar talent to be in Minny at this point.

Many of us had interest in Ricky Davis, most saw/see him as an upgrade over Jack. Before Davis it was Wally, the prime candidate for fans that claim to love clean-cut fundamental guys, players that won't be at Rio at 3 AM (yeah, right).

What parts of the Pacers over the last 2 years have been better than what the Wolves had...and don't you dare say Reggie after he dropped that awful 32% from 3 while taking more 3 balls than anyone on the team (more than Jack, and less than Jack's 36%), along with 2.4 reb and 2.2 apg. He was role player his final year.

Is Tinsley really better than Cassell? Especially 2 years ago? Jack was better than Spree? Reggie better than Wally? Was it the magic of 7 games of Artest?


Sorry, but to me KG's last few seasons look a lot like the complaints about JO. Big contract that keeps the team from adding other pieces, big numbers but can't lead his team anyplace.

So you INCREASE the contract of your "star big" who hasn't won anything and "pay" to do so with Danny?


KG = great player...but JO is great too. People here are just USED TO HIM.


Sorry, but the one time KG had sufficient talent around him he lead the Wolves to the Western Conference Finals, where they likely would've won the West if not the championship if it weren't for Sam Cassell's injury. Since then, and before then, the Wolves just plain haven't been that good. And thats not even mentioning how much tougher it is to make the playoffs in the deep West for the weak East.

Eindar
12-08-2006, 06:23 AM
Mike Wells addressed this in his live blog tonight.........

http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2006/12/lets_chat_1.html#comments

Comment from Mitch on December 7, 2006 9:03 PM

There was an SI.com article about frontrunners for trading for KG and the Pacers were on the list. The idea was JO + Granger + two 2nd rounders for KG.

You've covered them both. Would you do a deal?

I've been outspoken in the past and said I like the way Garnett competes in practice and in games. You have to force Garnett to sit out practices and games. The concern I have with K.G. is the wear and tear he has put on his body. He's logged 33,185 minutes in his career. O'Neal spent his four years on the bench in Portland. He's played just 17,436 minutes in his career. Granger is a big part of the Pacers' future. So to answer your question, I would not pull off the trade.

That's a great factoid by Wells, I had no idea that KG had logged nearly double the minutes of JO. I'd swap them straight up at this point, and probably pack JO's bags for him if neccessary, but giving up Danny is too much.

McKeyFan
12-08-2006, 09:33 AM
Wells has got a lot of credibility here.

He covered the Wolves for a couple of years and knows KG's game very well. We also know Wells is no JO homey. So if Wells says not to do the trade, my ears perk up.

Bball
12-08-2006, 03:07 PM
Wells has got a lot of credibility here.

He covered the Wolves for a couple of years and knows KG's game very well. We also know Wells is no JO homey. So if Wells says not to do the trade, my ears perk up.

I'm pretty sure Wells said just the opposite heading into the season as far as JO fo KG. But at that time Granger wasn't part of the equation he used IIRC.

-Bball