RealGM

but i want to ask a question about the Roy-Foye trade. i was having an argument on the raps board about the 2006 draft, and someone brought up the fact that you guys originally drafted Roy to go to Houston, not Portland. Is there any truth to this?

yes we had a deal in place with Houston. they wanted Roy while we wanted Foye plus a filler from Houston who IIRC Luther Head was supposed to be. turns out, Portland found out and took Foye forcing us to trade Roy for Foye.

it always makes me wonder if we would have traded KG if we had Roy.

basti wrote:yes we had a deal in place with Houston. they wanted Roy while we wanted Foye plus a filler from Houston who IIRC Luther Head was supposed to be. turns out, Portland found out and took Foye forcing us to trade Roy for Foye.

Thanks bud.

I still remember Stephen A. Smith after we took Roy. "THE WOLVES FINALLY HAVE THEIR PG."

cpfsf wrote:it always makes me wonder if we would have traded KG if we had Roy.

Not much to wonder about, he'd still be here.

I believe that if MN had ANY decent players the year we took Foye (basically getting roy or trading for Iverson), KG would still be with this team. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

How good this team could have been with Roy

it was a stupid trade that should of never been done,but thats the way it works sometimes

the moves the wolves made still hasnt changed though,so if we get the no 1 pick expect us to draft wall and than trade him for turner or favors

yea but if kg was still here then ryan hollins probably wouldn't be here, so either way you're gonna lose out

casey wrote:

cpfsf wrote:it always makes me wonder if we would have traded KG if we had Roy.

Not much to wonder about, he'd still be here.

I don't like people rewriting history with "what ifs?" but in this case .. no chance.

Six months before the draft, MIN had already made the Blount/Davis trade. We got the high pick because we were already bad with a 33-49 record. Our team consisted of:

Jaric, Hudson
Ricky Davis, McCants
Hassell,
Garnett
Blount, Madsen

Garnett was traded one year after the rookie careers of Brandon Roy and Foye

Roy 16.8 PPG 4 APG 4 RPG
Foye 10.1 PPG 3 APG 3 RPG

Our record was 32-50 .. how much would a rookie Roy have improved it?

We weren't getting help elsewhere to improve the record. A look at our team shows we didn't have useful assets to trade. Our finances were loaded with expensive contracts, many of them running for 3-4 years. Garnett's contract was for $21 mil in 06-07, $22 mil in 07-08, and a player option $23 mil in 08-09.

At best, perhaps you could say, "If we had Roy, we could have traded him for some expensive star veteran" With that supporting cast, perhaps he and KG could have gotten back to first round play-off exits, but we'd be in a worse position now if we had continued to try to add vets to the team to keep KG.

Would we have been better off if we kept Roy? Obviously. But MIN's problems ran far deeper than what one upgrade could have done to turn things around. MIN's supporting cast was deficient, it had no valuable youth to add talent, and its finances were in bad shape. It was time to rebuild.

shrink wrote:At best, perhaps you could say, "If we had Roy, we could have traded him for some expensive star veteran" With that supporting cast, perhaps he and KG could have gotten back to first round play-off exits, but we'd be in a worse position now if we had continued to try to add vets to the team to keep KG.

Why trade him for a expensive star veteran when Roy is a cheap star youngster with the composure of a veteran? He was rookie of the year in his first season and an all-star in his other three seasons. What type of player could you have traded him for that would've made the team better, even in the short term? The whole reason KG was traded is because the team was going nowhere. Roy would've absolutely turned that around. Now it wouldn't necessarily make us title contenders. And I'm not even saying keeping KG would've been the best move since he'll be done by the time Roy is in his prime. But there is little doubt in my mind that that's what would've happened. The guy was everything to this franchise and wasn't going to be moved unless the situation was terrible.

We lost Roy ands grandpa KG but that allowed us to gets Love and Rubio.

casey wrote:

shrink wrote:At best, perhaps you could say, "If we had Roy, we could have traded him for some expensive star veteran" With that supporting cast, perhaps he and KG could have gotten back to first round play-off exits, but we'd be in a worse position now if we had continued to try to add vets to the team to keep KG.

Why trade him for a expensive star veteran when Roy is a cheap star youngster with the composure of a veteran? He was rookie of the year in his first season and an all-star in his other three seasons. What type of player could you have traded him for that would've made the team better, even in the short term? The whole reason KG was traded is because the team was going nowhere. Roy would've absolutely turned that around.

I think that's too simplistic. So if the rookie looked better, who cares about KG's age, the bad attitudes, the horrible financial position, and the lack of talent in the other 13 positions -- just keep Garnett?

The seeds to KG's departure were laid before that draft, and the team laid an awful lot of seed, to create problems in an awful lot of areas. No way we could say that picking Roy would automatically mean KG wouldn't be traded.

shrink wrote:The seeds to KG's departure were laid before that draft, and the team laid an awful lot of seed, to create problems in an awful lot of areas. No way we could say that picking Roy would automatically mean KG wouldn't be traded.

I agree.....plus, who knows, Roy could have been worse than Foye was here.

Klomp wrote:I agree.....plus, who knows, Roy could have been worse than Foye was here.

Doubtful. KG made his teammates better than they were. Remember the time Ticket turned Wally into an all-star?

usually thats the case, but in Wally's case I think KG's constant needling crushed his will to live

shrink wrote:I think that's too simplistic. So if the rookie looked better, who cares about KG's age, the bad attitudes, the horrible financial position, and the lack of talent in the other 13 positions -- just keep Garnett?

The seeds to KG's departure were laid before that draft, and the team laid an awful lot of seed, to create problems in an awful lot of areas. No way we could say that picking Roy would automatically mean KG wouldn't be traded.

And it took everything going wrong for KG to finally get traded. That was the last thing they ever wanted to do. But everything was going downhill with the franchise at that point. Getting an impact player like Roy would've completely turned around the franchise. How pissed would fans be if they broke up that duo? If this team had any legitimate hope then KG was going to stick around. The franchise wouldn't necessarily be in a great position, but the only way he was getting traded is if they were in a terrible position.

Klomp wrote:I agree.....plus, who knows, Roy could have been worse than Foye was here.

Keeping it as respectful as possible, I can't believe you said that.

casey wrote:Keeping it as respectful as possible, I can't believe you said that.

Everyone...and I mean EVERYONE thought Roy was a low risk pick. But they also didn't think he had much star potential.

Draft Express wrote:If we have to pinpoint a weakness in Roy’s game, it might be the lack of a standout trait that he can bank on at the next level. While Roy is certainly spectacular off the dribble, he doesn’t have that “blow-by” explosiveness or “dunk contest” leaping ability of a star NBA wing. He has the ability to handle the ball and create for his teammates, but he probably won’t be playing full-time PG in the NBA.

For this reason, Roy may project as a “consummate roleplayer” type at the next level, as opposed to a full out star.

At the time, we needed a point guard. While Foye was also not a true point guard, people thought he could make the transition, and that he would be more of a point guard than Roy. Point guard was a position of need at the time after the Cassell trade.

casey wrote:

shrink wrote:I think that's too simplistic. So if the rookie looked better, who cares about KG's age, the bad attitudes, the horrible financial position, and the lack of talent in the other 13 positions -- just keep Garnett?

The seeds to KG's departure were laid before that draft, and the team laid an awful lot of seed, to create problems in an awful lot of areas. No way we could say that picking Roy would automatically mean KG wouldn't be traded.

And it took everything going wrong for KG to finally get traded. That was the last thing they ever wanted to do. But everything was going downhill with the franchise at that point. Getting an impact player like Roy would've completely turned around the franchise. How pissed would fans be if they broke up that duo? If this team had any legitimate hope then KG was going to stick around. The franchise wouldn't necessarily be in a great position, but the only way he was getting traded is if they were in a terrible position.

Agreed, for the most part. I don't think it would have guaranteed that KG would still be here, but I do think it would guarantee that Garnett wouldn't have been traded when he was. Too many variables (injuries, McHale trading Roy for some lame semi-star, Ricky Davis corrupting Roy, etc.) for me to say KG would still be here.

Klomp wrote:I agree.....plus, who knows, Roy could have been worse than Foye was here.

Keeping it as respectful as possible, I can't believe you said that.[/quote]
I somewhat see where you were coming from, Klomp, since I think Roy would have gotten off to a slower start if we had kept him, but I think it's safe to say that he would have been better than Foye.