If we win the championship without K.G, would we still keep him?

[guachi]

Im gonna start by saying I began to watch  Celtics basketball seriously only after they traded for Garnet, so we can say that Im big fan of his. However I asked myself the other day: what if we win it all without garnet??? what would that mean? would that means that we don't really need him and we can trade him?. It's something I have been pondering, I would like to know your opinions. Again I don't think we have a chance without him, but if we do win it all, would we want to keep him?

[BrickJames]

I can't tell if you're a troll or not, but I'll reply anyway.

First, a 'garnet' is a gem.  Kevin 'Garnett' is a future Hall of Famer, former DPOY/MVP whose acquisition has turned the worst team in the eastern conference into the Champions of the league, in ONE YEAR.

Also, he's under contract.

Last, he is called the BIG TICKET for a reason.  A whole lot of people would not go to the Garden if we didn't "keep him".

In short, he's not going anywhere.   That is all.

[guachi]

so we keep him for the ticket sells?

[Mean Gerald Green]

I think you're confusing Kevin Garnett with Mikki Moore.

[LarBrd33]

it's a funny idea to think that this team could conceivably win a title without the savior.  To imagine that all these players needed was a little motivation and the right system and they'd still be a championship team without KG...  I mean... if that's the case it's a bummer we lost Al Jefferson for nothing.  Luckily (or unfortunately)... I have a better chance of getting with Natalie Portman than this mediocre bunch has of winning a title without the savior.

It's a cute little idea, though.  Reminds me of those Walker/Pierce teams where we pretended we had a chance.

[I Am A Boston Celtic]

[Edited.]

What's this obsession with trading away all our players this year?

Lets trade Rondo he's not going to get much better,
Lets trade Pierce for some young kids,
Lets trade Ray, he's missing to many shots ect,

And.....

Lets trade KG, if we win it without him, it shows we dont need him.....

If we win it without KG, it would be considered miracle and lets be honest it wont happen, we have a great team, we aren't trading away anyone.

Simple.

[Roy Hobbs]

Even if we win without KG, it will have been an extremely uphill climb.  Just because it's possible to win without KG (in theory) doesn't mean that it maximizes our chances.

I still think KG is irreplaceable, and wouldn't trade him under any realistic circumstance.

[crownsy]

so we keep him for the ticket sells?

No, you keep him because he's the best defensive big man in the league, a top 3 scoring PF, and quite possably one of the best PF's of all time.oh, and also he has completely changed the team dynamic from "half arsed young kids with one good star trying to get other teams attention for future contracts" to "defense wins championships, and we take it deadly serious" in one year.

hope that summed it up for ya.

[RAcker]

This thread is making me nauseous.   

[Roy Hobbs]

There's no need for the hostility aimed at the OP.  It's a hypothetical question.  Please answer it civilly, or find a new thread.

[Celtic]

The OP said he just started watching Celtic's Basketball last season, does that mean you were a b-ball fan before the trade but not a C's fan, or are you just new to watching the NBA? I intend no hostility in that question, but find it hard to believe that someone who watches the NBA would question the value of KG. He is one of the best players in the NBA, and if by some fluke the C's win it all without him, it is just that, a fluke, KG is a very important part of this team for years to come.

[Jon Niednagel]

Even if we do win it all without KG, we are still a better team with him than without him. Thus, it makes no sense to trade him. Why reduce your chance of winning in the future if you don't have to? I can't think of another player who I would trade KG for anyway unless you're talking about King James or something impossible like that. Then, of course you trade whether we win it all this year or not.

[fairweatherfan]

If you pull an all-nighter and still get an A, do you conclude that you don't need sleep?

[crownsy]

Even if we do win it all without KG, we are still a better team with him than without him. Thus, it makes no sense to trade him. Why reduce your chance of winning in the future if you don't have to? I can't think of another player who I would trade KG for anyway unless you're talking about King James or something impossible like that. Then, of course you trade whether we win it all this year or not.

I might do it for timmy.

[Mr October]

it's a funny idea to think that this team could conceivably win a title without the savior.  To imagine that all these players needed was a little motivation and the right system and they'd still be a championship team without KG...  I mean... if that's the case it's a bummer we lost Al Jefferson for nothing.  Luckily (or unfortunately)... I have a better chance of getting with Natalie Portman than this mediocre bunch has of winning a title without the savior.

It's a cute little idea, though.  Reminds me of those Walker/Pierce teams where we pretended we had a chance.

Thats basically where we are at. The 2002 Celtics. If we make a miracle run, I absolutely want KG back.

In 2010 I don't want to hope for miracles. I want to kick some LA and CLE butt. This spring all we can do is try to squeak by.