Timberwolves observation

[IrishHand]

Some people seem to feel that Garnett is unjustly held accountable for the Wolves' string of 1st round playoff exits. These people tend to base their objections on the fact that KG has a limited supporting cast. Well...they wouldn't have a limited supporting cast if he hadn't held the team hostage prior to signing the $126M deal which killed their cap. Marbury likely wouldn't have left. They might have been in a position to sign free agents rather then watch them walk away (Jackson, Billups, etc).

Can the Wolves be a big winner with Garnett on the team? I honestly don't think so. They'll never get another 2nd star player (a la Marbury) while his contract (and subsequent ones) are on the books. Find a team willing to give them an all-star, a very good player, and a 1st round pick and let the good times roll. I'd be the first to admit that Garnett is a phenomenal player, but he's a phenomenal 2nd superstar - sort of an uber-Bulls-era Pippen.

I feel far more badly for Flip Saunders, who's proven he's a phenomenal coach over the past several years.

[Clarkmeister]

Marbury was leaving eventually anyways. Garnett's contract hurts them a little, but not nearly as much as losing.....what....4 #1 draft picks? Its amazing they have done what they have really, and a testament to Garnetts overall ability. I think he's clearly a top 5 player along with the other obvious 4. Shaq's contract is pretty obnoxious too last I looked, and no one is blaming shaq for the Lakers inability to hire something other than the ragtag supporting cast they have now.

[IrishHand]

(1) One of Marbury's stated primary reasons for wanting out was the fact that he was only going to be making 1/2 of what Garnett was, thereby ensuring (in his mind) that he'd never be the leader of that team. I get the impression that it's pretty well-understood in league circles that Garnett's salary was a big obstacle to Marbury's continued presence there. I think this is stupid, but pro athletes rarely make decisions based in intelligence or logic.
(2) They originally lost 5 1st-rounders (2001-2005) and had that reduced to just 2001, 2002 and 2004 by the league. Losing the draft picks isn't that big a deal - you're talking about late- (or at best, mid-late) 1st round picks. Had they had their picks in 2001 and 2002 and had selected the player taken in thier slot, the would have had:
2001 Jason Collins, 6'11" C (Houston traded to Nets - right before Zach Randolph, Brendan Haywood, Joe Forte)
2002 Nenad Krstic, 6'11" PF/C (Nets - right before Frank Williams, John Salmons, Chris Jeffries)
So...of the 8 players there were what? A couple of decent accesory players? Certainly nothing that would have changed their team's fortunes or makeup the past two years. Sorry - losing the draft picks had a negligible impact thus far. It might hurt more in the long run, I suppose.
(3) Shaq's contract is enormous and his team has won 3 straight NBA titles. There really isn't much point comparing him to Garnett's streak of 7 straight 1-round exits. Certainly, Shaq's deal limits the Lakers options somewhat - but how many more players did they need while the current "ragtag" cast won the last 3 titiles? Garnett's deal ensures the Wolves will be above-average despite great coaching, and it should be obvious by now that he doesn't have what it takes by himself to will the Wolves to victory over any playoff opponent.

[pudley4]

The whole salary discussion isn't as simple as it looks. First of all, KG's contract was signed the year before the current collective bargaining agreement went into place. At the time, there was no max salary on an individual player who was re-signing with his current team (the "Bird Exception). The contract was limited to a 30% raise each year. The following year the new collective bargaining agreement went into place, limiting the amount an individual player could sign for, regardless of the team's salary cap space.

The max contract for Marbury was $71 million - this was agreed on by the league and the players association. Marbury would have been signed to a contract similar to KG's if it had been allowed (at the time of the 1996 draft, Minnesota stated they would choose Marbury #1, ahead of AI.) Even if he was paid the same as KG, Steph wanted to be "the man", and in Minn it wasn't going to happen. Even though he could be the best PG in the league, and he'd have been the go-to guy in the clutch, Steph wasn't going to be more popular than KG.

The draft picks they lost aren't as important; however, it does restrict their ability to make moves. Many deals are completed by having one team include a first round draft choice.

Shaq's deal precludes the Lakers signing high-priced free agents. However, they don't need these players because they also have Kobe. Put Kobe on the Wolves (instead of Wally) and they'd be one of the favorites in the West.

[Bob T.]

Some people seem to feel that Garnett is unjustly held accountable for the Wolves' string of 1st round playoff exits. These people tend to base their objections on the fact that KG has a limited supporting cast. Well...they wouldn't have a limited supporting cast if he hadn't held the team hostage prior to signing the $126M deal which killed their cap.

In addition to KG's salary, the Wolves were severely limited by the penalties imposed when they were caught violating league rules in signing Joe Smith. They didn't have a first round draft pick for three years, and no second round for two years. Prior to their penalty, they hadn't made very good use of their draft, usually selecting, a center, most of which have subsequently dissappeared from the league.

I think that KG's salary has to hurt them a little in providing them with a supporting cast, but the wolves management has contributed greatly to the problem.

Although his salary is huge, the cap in the NBA is a soft cap, and you never hear any real whining from the wolves, or for that matter any of the other NBA teams about how they are hurting financially, so I think that regardless of the incredible salaries in the NBA, the money to provide a supporting cast might be there.