Over the weekend, several Eastern Conference general managers told ESPN.com that Minnesota Timberwolves GM Kevin McHale is finally listening to trade offers for Wolves superstar Kevin Garnett.
Any number of teams would want to get involved in the KG sweepstakes, if indeed bidding has opened.
For a couple of years, the Bulls have seemed to be a natural destination for the former Chicago high school star -- Bulls GM John Paxson has stockpiled a lot of young talent that could potentially go to Minnesota in a trade.
But the Wolves might have missed their best chance to make a Chicago deal work. With P.J. Brown entering free agency, two things would have to happen for a KG-to-Chicago trade to be possible: (1) the Bulls would need Brown to agree to a sign-and-trade to make the numbers work, and (2) the Wolves would have to pay Brown upwards of $10 million next season. If those two conditions are not met, it's very unlikely the Bulls and Wolves will be able to make a KG deal under the rules of the collective bargaining agreement.
If KG's not going to Chicago, where could he go? From what I'm hearing -- and at this point it's just a hot rumor -- the Wolves and Boston Celtics talking about a Garnett deal.
In this scenario, Boston would send Al Jefferson, Gerald Green, Sebastian Telfair, Theo Ratliff, and change to Minnesota along with the No. 5 pick in the upcoming draft. In exchange, the Celtics would get Garnett.
While a six-for-one trade would create some awkward roster dilemmas, it could work for Boston in this case because the Celtics would be giving up only one member of their core Jefferson. Meanwhile, the Timberwolves would get an emerging low-post star, a wing player with a lot of upside, another high draft pick and future cap flexibility.
On Saturday, I spoke with Celtics vice president Danny Ainge about the rumor, and he replied that he would not comment on trade discussions. He did say that the Celtics were talking with a lot of teams at the moment about a number of different trade scenarios, but that none of them were close to happening.
One could argue that the Celtics would be better off trading Paul Pierce and continuing to create a younger team. But if they are committed to keeping Pierce and trying for more immediate success, the Garnett deal would make sense for the Celtics. A combination of Garnett and Pierce would make the Celtics instant contenders in the Eastern Conference.
Even if the Wolves could come to an agreement with the Celtics (or another team) on which players should be involved in a Garnett deal, there are some logistical and risk issues that might kill such a deal.
For Minnesota, Garnett won't be easy to trade to any team.
Garnett is due to be paid $22 million next season, and he could be owed about $3 million more than that because his trade kicker is 15 percent. That makes the mere act of balancing salaries a challenge in any Garnett trade, given the restrictions of the collective bargaining agreement.
On the other hand, to make a trade work under the collective bargaining agreement, Garnett would be allowed to waive part of his trade kicker, if he so chose.
At the same time, acquiring Garnett would come with plenty of risk for the Celtics or any other team.
Garnett can opt out of his contract at the end of next season, meaning that teams may be reluctant to trade a lot of assets for him, given that he could leave next year.
While the Celtics might be willing to offer Garnett a multiyear extension, they would not be allowed to negotiate with Garnett until after both July 1 and the trade. Therefore Boston would run the risk that they could make a major play for Garnett, only to watch him walk away after one season in Celtic Green.
And if the Celtics are willing to offer Garnett an extension, how many years and millions should they offer? Garnett is already 31 years old.
Furthermore, with Garnett and Pierce eating most of the team's cap room, Boston's financial flexibility to make moves to the supporting cast would be severely limited.
So even if Garnett were available, and even though the trade proposed above would be a good one for Boston on paper, it's not the no-brainer it might appear to be at first glance.
