RealGM

With a lot of folks making jokes about what McHale was able to get for Kevin Garnett, I thought I mention something that doesn't get mentioned.

The salaries of the 5 Celtic players traded to Minnesota totaled $3,078,455 less in 2008 salary than Kevin Garnett was due to make. Teams making offers to Minnesota had a range that could have been anywhere up to $4.48 million less.

In addition, the Celts added cash considerations, which undoubtedly was the maximum $3 million allowed.

So, in effect, after the trade, Minnesota had reduced their 2008 payroll by $3,078,455; and had $3 million additional received, for a net gain to their bottom line of $6,078,455.

It's not a lot, to some.

But if you're going to trade someone like Kevin Garnett, in addition to whatever players, cap flexibility and draft picks they had to show; the owner had an immediate cash inflow to his season's balance sheet. The NBA does not revenue share like the NFL.

While I'm not saying you are wrong, I will say that they could have saved money in other deals. I can't imagine any KG trade where they would not save some money.

Hemingway wrote:While I'm not saying you are wrong, I will say that they could have saved money in other deals. I can't imagine any KG trade where they would not save some money.

Some teams may have tried to send back more salary, to dump payroll onto the Wolves.

Plus, whether any other teams had firmly offered the $3 million payment that the Celts did was never confirmed. There were reports that it was open for discussion by the Lakers. That's not the same as saying here's the check if you want it.

Also, if the Lakers had tried to send Lamar Odom and Kwame Brown to the Wolves (whether Bynum was included or not), Odom and Brown would have exceeded KG's 2008 salary by $325,000. So, without knowing if there was any salary dumping, the salary reduction of the actual other offers is not known.

Other factors were of course, did KG want to play for the Coach (I'd heard rumblings from friends that KG did not want to play for Scott Skiles); and what type of extension would teams offer KG (again, don't know if there is any truth to this one, but I heard someplace that Chicago had tried to get Garnett to give them a discount because he would finally get to play with a "good" team. Don't know if that one is true, and don't even remember if I read it on the Boards, or a Chicago newspaper.

The Celtics didn't screw around on salary. KG was due to make $46 million over this season and next, the Celtics added three more years to that for a total contract of $105 million over 5 years (including the allowable trade kicker).

Hemingway wrote:While I'm not saying you are wrong, I will say that they could have saved money in other deals. I can't imagine any KG trade where they would not save some money.

It sounds as though you are implying that the wolves could have gotten a better deal? Please show it to me.

On the other end why are people still trying to rationalize this deal? It was the best one available period. They got freaking Al Jefferson and over 12 million in expiring contracts who can play this year.

bruno sundov wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



It sounds as though you are implying that the wolves could have gotten a better deal? Please show it to me.

I was in no way implying that. All I'm saying is that no matter what scenario KG got traded in, the wolves would have demanded dumping as much salery as possible.

Yes you can bring up the lakers deal but remember 2 things. 1 it probably was never that close to being real. 2. Even if the Wolves did take Brown and Odem, they would have added another junk player to make sure they didn't end up paying more.

What I'm saying is that it would be idiotic to trade KG only to have a higher payroll after the trade. We got KG not becasue we offered savings (every team in the league would offer 6 mil in savings for KG) we got it because we had Theo and Jefferson to trade.

i think Mchale made the trade with Boston, for basketball reasons first

making room under the salary cap is good for 2 things
1. signing potential big name free agents.
2. showing a large profit to make the team sell able for future ownership.

since i havent heard of the owners interest in selling or moving the team, im assuming they are interested in FA market.

honestly, which big name free agents does minny think they will get with the worst team in basketball?

From what I understand the Lakers offered a Bynum/Odom type of package...but IMO I think McHale said F YOU, you're the Lakers and Al Jefferson is at worst...AS GOOD as Bynum for potential and leap years ahead of him currently.

I like what McHale did in that KG trade. He's set that franchise up to be very successful in that particular trade. Now trading Brandon Roy for Randy Foye??? That's looking like a Firk-Traylor deal all over again.

Egregious Blunder wrote:making room under the salary cap is good for 2 things
1. signing potential big name free agents.
2. showing a large profit to make the team sell able for future ownership.

since i havent heard of the owners interest in selling or moving the team, im assuming they are interested in FA market.

honestly, which big name free agents does minny think they will get with the worst team in basketball?

The Wolves won't have any capspace until after the 2008-2009 season. They still won't be good but they will have enough assets to create an intriguing situation for potential free agents.

I think in the list of reasons from 1 to 10 as to why KG was traded to us, this reason is roughly #6,078,455.

1. he also wanted his pick back.
2. he also thought gerald green was way better than he is.
3. he also thought telfair could play well enough to warrant a trade deadline trade.
4. he also thought he could resign gomes to a very modest salary.

1 was obviously true
2 and 3 were wrong
4, we will see

Jammer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




Other factors were of course, did KG want to play for the Coach (I'd heard rumblings from friends that KG did not want to play for Scott Skiles); and what type of extension would teams offer KG (again, don't know if there is any truth to this one, but I heard someplace that Chicago had tried to get Garnett to give them a discount because he would finally get to play with a "good" team. Don't know if that one is true, and don't even remember if I read it on the Boards, or a Chicago newspaper.

The Celtics didn't screw around on salary. KG was due to make $46 million over this season and next, the Celtics added three more years to that for a total contract of $105 million over 5 years (including the allowable trade kicker).

I've thought KG has gotten something of a pass int his respect. I love the guy, but for all the intensity and will to win he has I'm under the impression that he wouldn't have given up any of the money to go to a contender, i.e if we had taken 4 million off his contract in order to give the team more money to go after another player (posey reportedly took a discount, what if we needed more money) KG would have vetog the trade. Again, I love the guy, but his motives aren't necessarily purely bball driven.

Hemingway wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I was in no way implying that. All I'm saying is that no matter what scenario KG got traded in, the wolves would have demanded dumping as much salery as possible.

Yes you can bring up the lakers deal but remember 2 things. 1 it probably was never that close to being real. 2. Even if the Wolves did take Brown and Odem, they would have added another junk player to make sure they didn't end up paying more.

What I'm saying is that it would be idiotic to trade KG only to have a higher payroll after the trade. We got KG not becasue we offered savings (every team in the league would offer 6 mil in savings for KG) we got it because we had Theo and Jefferson to trade.

Sorry Jammer, but this is more or less correct. The Wolves were going to dump some salary no matter how they did it. If it was to the Lakers or GS, then Mark Blount's contract probably would have been included. They still have a couple bad ones left even after all their moves in Jaric and Buckner...

McHale wanted Jefferson. That simple. No conspiracy. That was the player he wanted most and that was the player he got. Cap elief was nice. But everyone else in the deal was just gravy.

[quote="Hemingway"]-= original quote snipped =-



I was in no way implying that. All I'm saying is that no matter what scenario KG got traded in, the wolves would have demanded dumping as much salery as possible.



Well that i can agree with. i just wish more people understood that Minnie didn't do us any favors. they got the best possible deal they could all around. between young players, and cap flex.

Oh, they did us a favor. That may not be WHY they did it, but I think we are all happy with the trade.

theman wrote:Oh, they did us a favor. That may not be WHY they did it, but I think we are all happy with the trade.

I'm thrilled with the trade. i don't think we got something for nothing though. As people like to make it out to be. Imagine our bench now with Ray, Paul and big Al. we would be a legit 50 win team. Not 65 and and going to the finals. I want a championship is what it comes down to.

Laker Fan here...not trolling or trying to be rude just wanted to offer my take:

the KG trade to me looked like Kevin McHale and Danny Ainge did a secret handshake and celebrated afterwords. McHale will always be a C's fan and you know when he made that trade he put you guys back in the picture: especially knowing you already had Ray.

On top of that: the Twolves were immediately transformed to the worst team in the NBA with no future either. when I watch the T-wolves I just feel bad for them. Al Jefferson is the sh*t, I love him but he's no KG.

The ray of sunshine in all of this is that if the Lakers can get ourselves to the Finals and play you guys again it will be my dream. Best of Luck until we meet again; maybe we'll leave out the short shorts though.

all that said... why is any of this important?

bruno sundov wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I'm thrilled with the trade. i don't think we got something for nothing though. As people like to make it out to be. Imagine our bench now with Ray, Paul and big Al. we would be a legit 50 win team. Not 65 and and going to the finals. I want a championship is what it comes down to.

Well, the only problem with that is that Posey and House never would have come here if KG was not on the team. Posey was huge the first month of the season and House has been very solid. Perk plays much better next to KG than he does next to Al and PP has been incredible on the defensive end, partially b/c of KG's intensity. So I think it is doubtful this is a 50 win team w/o KG. More like 40 wins and change.