Garnett Speaks To Wolves About New Contract
20th April, 2007 - 12:17 pm
Star Tribune -
According to Sid Hartman, longtime columnist in the Twin Cities area reports there are rumors that Kevin Garnett recently talked to owner Glen Taylor about a contract extension.

Garnett is signed through next season, then becomes a free agent.

Wiretap


New York Trade Breakdown
Outgoing

Stephon Marbury
6-2 PG from Georgia Tech
16.4 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 5.5 apg in 37.2 minutes

Incoming

Mark Blount
7-0 C from Pittsburgh
12.3 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 0.8 apg in 31.1 minutes

Troy Hudson
6-1 PG from Southern Illinois
5.9 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 2.1 apg in 16.4 minutes

Trenton Hassell
6-5 SG from Austin Peay
6.7 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 2.7 apg in 29.2 minutes

Their draft pick in this year's draft.

do you hate marbury that much?

1.we have no room on the squad to give up one and take back 4.

2.all three of those guys' contracts run longer than stephs.

3.steph is better than all three of those guys put together.

the only positive is the draft pick, and that's a crap shoot.

do you hate marbury that much?

No but I now more than ever feel that he is wasting his years here. We are not going to be competitive fr anything more than maybe a 2nd round birth for a while. If I can unload him and grab the 8-Then package that and the 23 to possibly move into the top 5 range(Have a chance at a guy like Jeff Green, Brewer, Hibbert or even Horford.) I'd do it.

1.we have no room on the squad to give up one and take back 4.

How is this a problem? Does Dolan not believe in buy-outs all of a sudden? Getting Blount means you can get rid of James. Buy out Hudson, and we have a use for Hassell and Francis is gone anyway. Cato is probably expendable too, with Blount here. There is the extra spot for the draft pick.o

2.all three of those guys' contracts run longer than stephs.

By one year. And we already see that with Isiah here the salary cap doesn't mean squat. You'll have a couple expiring MANAGEABLE deals-you know like contracts you need as filler in a trade that could make a team deal-as opposed to $20 mil expiring deals that alot of teams can't match dollar for dollar. Makes for much more flexibility.

3.steph is better than all three of those guys put together.

Steph was better than all the guys we gave up for him. Who made out better-us for PHX? Talent for talent is only PART of a trade. Would I take a marginal talent for maybe a little more deal making flexibility and the chance to maybe move up to take a top player in one of the deepest drafts in years? Yes.

the only positive is the draft pick, and that's a crap shoot.

Steph was supposed to be a known quantity when we got him and we are no farther along-record wise-than the year before we got him. We are a rebuilding team. Steph is constantly hurt. I can almost see this coming. I would rather trade him off before he has 2 years left on a deal and we won't be able to move him for anything because he is hurting.


There are certain players you do not take less than Value for. I believe on of those guys is Channing Frye. Another is Lee. Curry another. Channing is a young 7 footer with skills. He is at a premium. Lee is averaging a double double in 30 minutes off the bench. These are premium value guys. Guys like Steph, Francis, Q, are guys that you. Steph and Francis are are winding down. Steph is constantly hurting. He's playing well, but how long will it be for? How long do you want to tempt fate and hope his ankles don't require surgery?

I'm a fish or cut bait type of guy. Identify where we are and use that knowledge to plan the future. Don't try to salvage a present that may not be worth it.

Marbury takes up superstar space and producs at an 6th man level.......... I would trade him for a bag of bricks. Then hit the JJ's over the head with the bricks.

Where do I sign? While not a great trade, it's probably the best we could come up with for Marbury at this stage in his career. I think unless a superstar lands in NY, it's going to be a few years before we are close enough where we need a Starbury. For him, NY and our glut of point guards (that are all flawed in some way) - I think getting the pick makes it worthwhile. I would keep Hassell and Blount, release Hudson (unless we trade Nate - scorer off the bench). Blount can take Cato/James place. We would have some redundancy between Jeffries and Hassel, but I kinda like Hassel's game better than Jeffries. Francis would be released (or traded in a miracle) so that opens up our roster spots enough to do it. Here's what it could look like


Before
Curry (James/Cato)
Frye (Lee/Rose/Morris)
Balkman (Jeffries)
Q.Rich (Crawford/Nate)
Marbury (Collins/Francis)

After
Curry (Blount/James/Morris)
Frye? (Lee/Rose)
Balkman (Hassel/Jeffries)
Q.Rich (Crawford)
Collins (Hudson or Nate)

Pick #07 (package to move up?)
Pick #23 (shotblocker PF)

We have Frye, Nate and an extra pick to try to obtain a player (J.O'Neal) or move up and get a higher pick (#7 + Frye for # 4?) We could also keep the 2 picks and trade Frye for a future #1 to a team (like us that stinks) and hope it plays out in a year. This would allow us to continue building (slowly) and negate the next 1st round pick we have to give away in 2009.
Hassel and Morris can play multiple positions, so Hassel can slide to the 2 at times, and Morris can backup at PF if we keep James and Blount as backups. Gives us lots of options player wise
Gone - Marbury (traded), Cato (released), Francis (whatever)

Posted by nixluva:

PLEASE come back to reality!!! MInny is NOT going to take Marbury back. I REPEAT NO WAY THEY WANT STEPH!!! Steph has said repeatedly in public that he doesn't want to play in Minny and I think the fans would riot if they sent him back there.

Also I really don't understand the desire some have to want to get rid of Steph. The way he played this year before guys fell to injury is what we want from him. He played hard on D, only looked for his O when it was needed and was finally starting to get a feel for that. He's still capable of stepping up to All Star levels when needed and he's not yet over the hill. Just look at Nash and kidd, who are both older than Steph. Now we FINALLY have a backup PG in Mardy, so I think this is perfect. Steph doesn't have to log ridiculous minutes anymore and we can function well as a team when he's on the bench. We could have a rested Steph at the end of the season next year and that would be great.

I've stated it at least once in this thread and many other times. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PLAY. It has to do with fit and risk vs. reward.

He's still capable of stepping up to All Star levels when needed and he's not yet over the hill.

Would you rather trade him when he is over the hill when he has absolutely no value?



[Edited by - joec32033 on 21 April 2007 12:44]

Nixluva, his knees are breaking down more and more. His trade value is REALLY high right now, b/c his contract is expiring SOON. 2 years goes fast. I know you love the guy, but it's best to package him with Frye and grab a young stud.

There is only hope if you smoke some dope.

We don't have to run Steph into the ground anymore.

starbury has always' run 'himself' into the ground!

Posted by jskinny35:

Where do I sign? While not a great trade, it's probably the best we could come up with for Marbury at this stage in his career. I think unless a superstar lands in NY, it's going to be a few years before we are close enough where we need a Starbury. For him, NY and our glut of point guards (that are all flawed in some way) - I think getting the pick makes it worthwhile. I would keep Hassell and Blount, release Hudson (unless we trade Nate - scorer off the bench). Blount can take Cato/James place. We would have some redundancy between Jeffries and Hassel, but I kinda like Hassel's game better than Jeffries. Francis would be released (or traded in a miracle) so that opens up our roster spots enough to do it. Here's what it could look like


Before
Curry (James/Cato)
Frye (Lee/Rose/Morris)
Balkman (Jeffries)
Q.Rich (Crawford/Nate)
Marbury (Collins/Francis)

After
Curry (Blount/James/Morris)
Frye? (Lee/Rose)
Balkman (Hassel/Jeffries)
Q.Rich (Crawford)
Collins (Hudson or Nate)

Pick #07 (package to move up?)
Pick #23 (shotblocker PF)

We have Frye, Nate and an extra pick to try to obtain a player (J.O'Neal) or move up and get a higher pick (#7 + Frye for # 4?) We could also keep the 2 picks and trade Frye for a future #1 to a team (like us that stinks) and hope it plays out in a year. This would allow us to continue building (slowly) and negate the next 1st round pick we have to give away in 2009.
Hassel and Morris can play multiple positions, so Hassel can slide to the 2 at times, and Morris can backup at PF if we keep James and Blount as backups. Gives us lots of options player wise
Gone - Marbury (traded), Cato (released), Francis (whatever)

I watched the Houston- Utah game a little and there's yet one more example of how to put a team together. Granted, the Rockets probably won't take it all the way and granted, they got the top pick in Yao to build around (somethig we will probably never' get another chance at) and went out and got McGrady and Howard and few other solid players to not only play above .500, get into the playoffs, but also have a chance to move towards the finals. They did it by 'keeping the money real'. The Knick management doesn't do it that way. We keep it gagged and bound. Instead we're stuck talking about how to get rid of starbury, at this stage of his career. That's not foreward progress. That's taking a big step backwards. The stupid moves Thomas has made, has finally caught up to him!

We have only to wait until 2009 when Steph, Francis and Malik's contracts are up.

Oh God!