Page 1 of 1

McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:27 pm
by shrink
Chi Guy wrote:http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=5027781
The lack of a promising young big man eliminated the Chicago Bulls from being a serious player in trading for Kevin Garnett when he was traded from the Minnesota Timberwolves three years ago, said the general manager who dealt him.

Kevin McHale, who was the Timberwolves general manager from 1995-2009, traded the franchise's biggest star in July of 2007 to the Boston Celtics for a package of players built around 6-foot-11 Al Jefferson, then a 22-year-old coming off his first significant NBA season, averaging 16 points and 11 rebounds during the 2006-07 season.

McHale said the Bulls, long rumored in deals for Garnett, who was drafted out of Farragut Academy in Chicago in 1995, couldn't compete with the top two bidders.

"I talked to the Bulls some about things, but at the end it really came down to I thought the best offer was to get a good, young big man, either Al Jefferson -- who we ended up taking -- or we were talking to the Lakers about Andrew Bynum," McHale said Thursday on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000. "Both of those guys were involved. It was just the decision that we wanted to go with a big guy and try to get a post-type player and a defender.

"We talked to [the Bulls] off and on. I just didn't think that the pieces fit quite as good."


I never bought the CHI offer from summer of 2006. I don't think the front office or the fans were ready to move Garnett until 2007, after the failed season.

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:51 pm
by moss_is_1
I'd much rather have Al then to have Deng and possibly tyrus thomas....Bynum is intriguing because him and Love would pry look better together, but I still think that Al is the better player..and trading KG out of the west is a better plan.

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:18 pm
by Tekkenlaw
moss_is_1 wrote:I'd much rather have Al then to have Deng and possibly tyrus thomas....Bynum is intriguing because him and Love would pry look better together, but I still think that Al is the better player..and trading KG out of the west is a better plan.
Think about what the Wolves could have moved Odom's 14 million expiring contract for though. Although Bynum has attitude issues that Jefferson doesn't.

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:29 pm
by Foye
moss_is_1 wrote:I'd much rather have Al then to have Deng and possibly tyrus thomas....Bynum is intriguing because him and Love would pry look better together, but I still think that Al is the better player..and trading KG out of the west is a better plan.


This. :clap:

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:41 pm
by Worm Guts
moss_is_1 wrote:I'd much rather have Al then to have Deng and possibly tyrus thomas....Bynum is intriguing because him and Love would pry look better together, but I still think that Al is the better player..and trading KG out of the west is a better plan.


I think keeping KG in the West would have been better. It's not like KG is going to be an impact player by the time we're good, and we'd be stealing young talent from a Western Conference.

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:18 pm
by casey
People say that all the time about trading big time players. It makes no sense. If you're going to rebuild why does it matter that you're making a team in your conference better? I'd rather have that team good right now, and then by the time we're coming up they will be going down.

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:06 am
by moss_is_1
casey wrote:People say that all the time about trading big time players. It makes no sense. If you're going to rebuild why does it matter that you're making a team in your conference better? I'd rather have that team good right now, and then by the time we're coming up they will be going down.

I wouldn't want KG to have assraped us more than 2 times a season...

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:02 am
by casey
Why though? Another two losses and another home sellout. Seems like a good thing to me. :dontknow:

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:44 am
by horaceworthy
I can see the logic in it a little if you're trading a young player. If we had known KG would break down so quickly, it wouldn't have mattered.

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:44 pm
by MN Die Hard
"Both of those guys were involved. It was just the decision that we wanted to go with a big guy and try to get a post-type player and a defender.


And a defender?? Who would that be?

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:19 pm
by B Calrissian
MN Die Hard wrote:
"Both of those guys were involved. It was just the decision that we wanted to go with a big guy and try to get a post-type player and a defender.


And a defender?? Who would that be?


Image

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:11 pm
by mandurugo
moss_is_1 wrote:I'd much rather have Al then to have Deng and possibly tyrus thomas....Bynum is intriguing because him and Love would pry look better together, but I still think that Al is the better player..and trading KG out of the west is a better plan.


I think the problem with Bynum has turned out to be that he has so many nagging injuries. It seems like he misses double digit games every year, which makes him pretty tough to build around. A healthy Bynum probably would be a better player than Jefferson, but the actual Bynum is more complicated to assess.

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:19 pm
by Esohny
mandurugo wrote:
moss_is_1 wrote:I'd much rather have Al then to have Deng and possibly tyrus thomas....Bynum is intriguing because him and Love would pry look better together, but I still think that Al is the better player..and trading KG out of the west is a better plan.


I think the problem with Bynum has turned out to be that he has so many nagging injuries. It seems like he misses double digit games every year, which makes him pretty tough to build around. A healthy Bynum probably would be a better player than Jefferson, but the actual Bynum is more complicated to assess.


True.

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:15 pm
by BrooklynBulls
B Calrissian wrote:
MN Die Hard wrote:
"Both of those guys were involved. It was just the decision that we wanted to go with a big guy and try to get a post-type player and a defender.


And a defender?? Who would that be?


Image


Now it makes sense why Ratliff's stuck around the league so long. Dude's got 3 arms.

Re: McHale: Bulls didn't have Pieces for Garnett

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:04 pm
by Narf
BrooklynBulls wrote:
B Calrissian wrote:
MN Die Hard wrote:"Both of those guys were involved. It was just the decision that we wanted to go with a big guy and try to get a post-type player and a defender."
And a defender?? Who would that be?


Image


Now it makes sense why Ratliff's stuck around the league so long. Dude's got 3 arms.
Wait for it























Wait for it























That's what she said