RE: Garnett?

[Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu (Kestutis Kveraga)]

--- You wrote:
That's a fair question, given some of the shady big-market dealings in the
past. What is your definition of "big market" however? LA, NY and Chicago?
How about Miami? Remember, Stern stepped in and voided the Juwan Howard deal
that Riley cooked up several years ago (think about that mistake Riley was
saved from the next time you criticize a Pitino move). He also challenged
the Chris Dudley deal with Portland, even though he lost.
--- end of quote ---

I guess I would exclude Miami and Portland from the 'large market' group, but I'm sure it's more complicated than that. That's why it was a rhetorical question - I can throw out such allegations, without having to back them up with evidence :) 

--- You wrote:
And as for Garnett, I don't know if he's worth it or not. I'm just
speculating on what the cost might be. I do know this: Garnett is without
question one of the five best players in the NBA. Neither Walker nor Pierce
crack the top 50 on most lists. Truly elite-level guys like Garnett are a
lot harder to come by than players like Walker and Pierce. I'm not saying
I'd do the trade, necessarily, but it's not as ridiculous as you make it
sound. 
--- end of quote ---

I don't think it's ridiculous, I think it is lopsided. Pitino wouldn't do a ridiculous trade. He might do a lopsided trade for "his type" of player. He has done it before - Fortson-Williams/Marks, anyone? And I wouldn't be so sure that Garnett is off the market. Everyone has his price (sounds like a line from a  bad movie). The T-wolves may not have declared Garnett sweepstakes, but if the right offer came along, they'd do it. If I were McHale, I'd take Walker, Pierce, picks or Moiso, and expiring contracts for Garnett. Heck, if someone put a package of Duncan and healthy Mourning for Shaq, do you think the Lakers would do it? 

This is not to suggest that Walker is close to Garnett's level, but their career stats, with the exception of blocks and FG% are comparable. Walker has, on occasion, played Garnett very successfully. Sure, Garnett is more mature, committed, under control, physically gifted etc.,  but when you throw in Pierce+, you're talking real value.  The reason I say Garnett is not worth Walker + Pierce is because, while he is legit superstar, he's not a Shaq/Duncan/Jordan, even Mourning, type of difference maker. He's more like a tall Grant Hill - a nearly flawless superstar, who's somehow not enough to change everything about a team. You put a Shaq on a decent team, they're championship contenders. You put Hill or Garnett on the same team, they're lucky to win the division. I guess I'm finding it hard to describe the distinction, but perhaps you know what I'm trying to say. 
Kestas