Let's review the Garnett situation

Twolves Glenn Taylor stated yesterday that he has no plans to trade Kevin Garnett. Let's think about this for a second - IF Taylor DID plan on trading Garnett, why would he announce that Garnett was tradeable? Such a comment would hurt Garnett's value - see the Vince Carter trade (anyone remember who he was traded for?) or the TMac trade as examples of what happens when a star and owner announce a trade is pending. In short, you hurt your bargaining power. Although, if Isiah Thomas were involved, he'd find a way to trade more than even requested. Patrick Reusse of the Minn Star-Trib weighs in with the below, an outstanding column explaining the Wally trade was terrible, that Marcus Banks isn't a PG (as Boston realized), that Mark Blount stinks (as Boston realized) and that Ricky Davis isn't the 2nd or 3rd best player even on a bad team. Ricky is fun to watch - he has no pulse. The possibility of the TWolves acquiring Marbury is also mentioned, Reusse writing that Marbury is physically 75% of the player he once was - what that means, I'm not sure specifically, I guess an allusion to his perpetual ankle pain, sore shoulder and years of play. Teaming Marbury with Garnett for a 2nd time may invigorate the Big Ticket, giving him a teammate with game, a teammate who ferociously wants to win - unfortunately, Marbury tries to win games by himself, often unsuccessfully as I've personally witnessed. If Isiah Thomas can get rid of Marbury - a miracle in itself - he'll have to take on an equal contract in return. Most likely, that will be a player with another bloated contract, perhaps a Marko Jaric/Mark Blount type deal. While that would rid the Knicks of Marbury, is it worthwhile to get rid of your best player (yes, Steph is the Knicks best player)...to acquire Marko Jaric and Mark Blount? One to think about. --- "Wolves need to rid themselves of dead wood"