I guess you have all read these line by Sid Hartman from the Star Tribune:
What is your take on this? All this sounds like a desperate try to wash dirty hands clean, trying to exculpate the STILL incumbent McHale from the guilt of being the one that traded KG (although it was mainly his fault that near to never a competitive supporting cast was assembled around KG anyways) as well as shield Wittman from the image of being a regicide.Since both probably do not have the best standing with the fanbase, this seems as a logical move, although I assume it to be completely noneffective.

Maybe KG was indeed unwilling to take a paycut...Glen Taylor probably won't lie on such a topic...although I am not so sure that I believe that. As far as I know, he already did forfeit some of his salary that Hassel could be signed after he was waived by the Bulls back in 2003. I could imagine this being the half truth in a way, that KG was unwilling to take a pay cut as he knew that the money would not be spend on quality players anyways...but would have under certain circumstances. I don't know...I know near to nothing about KG off the court, besides that he is said to be a nice, polite and overall fun guy...I only admired his passion and energy on the court.

So what is your take on this as experts? Was it really that a greedy KG tied up the hands of the wretched management which desperately tried to build a contender but were unable to attract quality players because the millstone of Garnett's contract pulled them down deeper and deeper so the only option they were left with was to trade KG???

If KG made those \"demands,\" I could see it as a way for him to make a pseudo \"trade demand.\" It was probably the best way that he could get traded while still saving face, since he never came out and told the management to actually trade him. However, if they actually gave him the money I'd guess he was probably fine with making another 60 mil.

However, I do also agree with Sanyarin that this seems like an attempt to \"wash their hands clean\" and remove the burden of guilt from our Front Office, which is pretty pathetic too.

College Wolf:That is a great thought. I have considered this perspective. That seems very logical, indeed. Being the player KG is, he had never asked for a trade directly. But this way...

Thanks CW for enlightening me with that idea.

Good article, thanks Sanyarin. I still don't understand why we offered the position to Wittman once...now they're saying we offered it to him TWICE?!?!? UGGGHH!

As far as I know, KG desperately wanted to be a Wolf for life, so I don't think his refusal to take a paycut was his way of forcing a trade.

What I do think may be the case is that KG saw no need to take a paycut as we would have still likely been over the cap and not able to sign free agents anyway. After everything Taylor and McHale put him through, I'm sure he wasn't interested in signing for less money just to keep Taylor under the luxury tax.

If this is how the situation actually went, I could see KG not wanting to take a paycut and I could also see why the front office felt they had to trade him.

whiskeydizzy wrote:

Hahaha I know. Incredibly frustrating ain't it?

DeROK wrote:
I think you make some good points. KG clearly had a love and respect for the Timberwolves and the state of Minnesota rarely seen in today's athletes. However, Garnett didn't want to stay here if he was gonna be paid less and he didn't seem too down about the new opportunity in Boston. I don't blame KG for wanting a real chance at a championship, but I do think this trade was more of a mutual thing even if no intentions were declared on his part.

Not taking a pay cut is a signal to the management you're not 100% on board with what they're doing, IMO.

Unfortunately, this is something that won't be decided until someone releases their memoirs