I'm saying I don't understand why you think this is a "crazy pipe dream", given that it's an obviously poor trade for the Celtics. Garnett, on his last legs, is likely going to be better than any of those two players will be over the next two or three years.
So you're trading away the best player in the deal, and gaining no cap flexibility in the process. Not sure what the incentive is to do this deal
1. Right now, KG still seems the best player in the deal, but we haven't gotten a chance to see what Bledsoe is like as a full-time starter. If he produces even close to what he did against Boston, say 18 pts and 7 assists a game, he'd already be very close to KG's current level and has the chance to be even better.
2. With his no-trade clause, KG's value in any future deal is automatically lower than either Jordan's or Bledsoe's. KG really doesn't even have any value as an expiring deal unless he's willing to go to some team trying to unload a bad contract.
3. Giving up the best player isn't a big deal when the whole point is that you're not concerned with winning this year. Getting a shot at a top 3 lottery pick might be a better deal than holding onto the 8th playoff spot in the East.
4. If we just hold onto KG until he retires, Boston gets nothing but cap space. Unless you think a rebuilding Celtics team is suddenly going to become vastly more attractive to free agents than it ever has been in the past, players > cap space.
5. Getting Bledsoe allows you to make a future trade of either him or Rondo for another player.
Ultimately, all that matters is what KG wants. If he's willing to accept the trade, it would be crazy to pass on something like Bledsoe and Jordan. Which gets you closer to another title? 2 to 3 years of a continually declining KG with a no-trade clause or 5 to 10 years of Bledsoe and Jordan?
Mike