Garnett has Stories

2020

Kevin Garnett has always had the stories, yet he was never a storyteller. He catalogued all of his NBA experiences throughout his 21-year career, some harrowing, some hilarious, some motivating, and has decided to reveal those tales, his innermost thoughts, turning himself into a sage and a comedian.

McHale: There was no "Garnett to the Celtics" Conspiracy

“First of all, I have an owner. Then on my staff I have like seven guys. So for that whole thing to happen, it would have had to be, ‘OK, this is what we’re doing because we like Danny, but you can’t tell the owner that.’ Like that could ever happen. Are you kidding me? We sat down and put every offer on the board, then hashed them and rehashed them. We went over it 5,000 times, and the one constant that kept coming up was that at 22, Al (Jefferson) was the best anchor piece that we could get. That’s what it came down to. Ok?"

Ok. Kevin.

We believe you.

Really.

Garnett & Sager 5.0

Garnett & Sager 4.0

Garnett & Sager 3.0

Garnett & Sager 2.0

Garnett and Sager 1.0

Is KG Bill Russell?

2009-10 Playoffs			FG		3PT		FT		Rebounds			Misc
	G	MIN	FGM-A	FG%	3PM-A	3P%	FTM-A	FT%	OFF	DEF	TOT	STL	BLK	TO	PF	AST	PTS
Totals	16	34.0	104-213	.488	0-1	.000	30-37	.811	1.5	6.7	8.2	1.00	.69	1.25	2.88	2.3	14.9
vs. ORL	6	32.7	28-72	.389	0-0	.000	6-9	.667	1.7	6.3	8.0	1.00	.67	.67	2.67	2.3	10.3
vs. CLE	6	34.3	50-96	.521	0-1	.000	13-13	1.000	1.3	6.7	8.0	.50	.83	1.33	3.33	2.2	18.8
vs. MIA	4	35.3	26-45	.578	0-0	.000	11-15	.733	1.5	7.3	8.8	1.75	.50	2.00	2.50	2.5	15.8

Remember when the Kevin Garnett rumors first began to swirl around the Hub? A sizable and vocal contingent of fans vehemently opposed acquiring Garnett if acquiring him meant losing Al Jefferson. Garnett's career was in its twilight, and, anyway, he couldn't win and never seemed to produce in the clutch. A smaller, less vocal contingent of fans compared Garnett to Bill Russell, and thus favored the deal. The former contingent howled with laughter upon hearing the Garnett-Russell comparison.

Both contingent's were right. Garnett had clocked a lot-0-minutes on those legs, but, in his one healthy season with the Celtics, KG reminded just about everyone who saw Russell play that he was indeed a throwback to the days of #6. There were some (announcers even) who swore Kevin Garnett was Bill Russell, at least during the 2007-08 NBA season.

Fast forward two years, and the same fans who compared KG to Russ are now just happy KG isn't the second coming of Bill Walton, which is to say a "one-and-doner." That's how I had KG pegged. I mean, didn't he choose to wear that darned number? That god forsaken #5? And with it came the curse, the Walton curse. But now, all of a sudden, KG seems to be back. He seems to have risen from the ashes. And let's be frank here, the timing is good. If KG plays 85% of what he did during the 2008 NBA Finals, the Celtics win in 6.

But The Ticket is not all the way back, not yet.

There's still plenty of room for him to improve.

Does he have it in him?

Can he elevate his game a la Kareem Abdul Jabbar during the 1985 and 1987 Finals?

That's what I want, and that's Celticdom is hoping for. And if the Bill Russell comparisons are fair, KG needs more than one ring to justify the comparisons. He needs to remind Kobe that there's more than one superstar in the 2010 NBA Finals.

Can IQ and Experience Overcome Youth and Athleticism?

Are We Seeing the Old KG or Just Old KG?

Watch the first two minutes of game 7 against Cleveland (scroll ahead to the 8-minute marker), and you have your answer. It's not so much what he's doing on offense or defense. It's the way he's moving, the way he's bouncing. I watched this the other night on NBATV, thinking I'd watch the whole first quarter looking for differences. All I needed was two minutes.

This isn't necessarily the final word, however.

To quote Danny Ainge, when asked if KG had lost some of his athleticism, "sure, all of the big three have. But I'm not sure it's critical." I agree. The 1986 team was not particularly athletic, at least when compared to, say, the 1986 Houston Rockets, who made Team Green look very old and very slow at times. The question is whether these current, older Celtics can make the most of their remaining basketball skills (not related to youth and athleticism) to overcome the opposition in four playoff series.

That sounds like a lot to ask, doesn't it?

Knock, Knock. KG, are You Still There?

There are nights when Garnett looks like he might be all done as an NBA superstar. He drags his leg around the court, struggles to score, fails to rebound, and makes guys like Anderson Varejao look like Karl Malone.

This is not necessarily KG’s fault. He’s got more miles on him than my 1995 Volvo and isn’t the same player since he injured his knee in the middle of last season. He’s still the master of gesture and noise, but the game just isn’t the same.

Never forget that Garnett is the man who changed everything. The Celtics went from the lottery to the championship in a single season because of Kevin Garnett.

In order for a long run in April, May, and June, Garnett has to be that player again.

--Dan Shaughnessy

KG remains the #1 reason the Celtics won't get as far as we'd like them to this year. He's basically a B player, B+ on a good night, B- on a bad night. Paul Pierce and Ray Allen simply don't have it in them to bring there A games every night of the playoffs to compensate.

There remains the Kareem Precedent, whereby Kareem Abdul-Jabbar posted amazing numbers in playoff games long after he'd turned 35. Does KG have it in him? Let me turn this around and ask you: can you see him going for 30 and 20 in a playoff game, sprinkling in, oh, I don't know, 6 blocks and 7 dimes?

KG was Excited about Last Night's Win

The Celtics Offense Now Runs through Ray Allen

These days Kevin Garnett is better on offense than he is on defense (other than last night!). Paul Pierce can still fill up the box score, just not consistently (and maybe not very often). Ray Allen? For two years, the Celtics had trouble remembering he was on the team. Sure, he had his monster games here and there. No doubt he's had his share of game winners, too.

But you could never say that he was Option Numero Uno.

Not that I recall anyway.

I think that's changing.

Michael Jordan was 34 when the Bulls won their last title, or the same age as Ray Allen is today. Best I can tell, MJ had a pretty good year that season. Kevin Garnett has never been a go-to-guy for 82 games a season, even in his MVP year. Paul Pierce, even in his younger days, really didn't want to play Kobe for the Celtics every night.

Ray Allen is a different cat altogether.

Despite being the consummate professional, willing to subordinate his game for the better of the team, Ray Allen still likes to put ball in basket, and do so as often as his teammates will allow and the circumstances of the game require. Over the weekend, I observed that the Big 3 appear to be finally figuring out how best to play together. What I think is really going on is that Rondo, KG, and the Truth have figured out that Ray Allen's tank is still full, and as long as it is, the Celtics are riding in his car.

The Celtics offense has never revolved around Ray Allen. It might be fun to see how much it does over the last 20 games and into the playoffs.

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

Clearly, the 2009-10 Boston Celtics have my full attention for the first time in some time. Should they have your's, too? If you're like me, getting excited about the Celtics when the snow starts to melt is nothing new. I remember getting excited about the Celtics signing Artis Gilmore in 1988, and then adding Jim Paxson not long thereafter. 1988 was also the year that Bill Walton was supposed to return to health, and that really cranked up the noise in Celtic Nation.

Then there was the 1989 trade for Joe Kleine and Eddie Pinckney, the 1991 acquisition of Derek Smith, and the 2002 Joe Johnson trade for Tony Delk and Rodney Rogers. Boy was I excited. So excited, in fact, I remember going on long runs after both the Pinckney and Kleine deal and the Delk and Rogers deal and returning home still feeling like I could run another ten miles. The key question, of course, was how did all those deals turn out? Some better than others, but none yielded a championship. In hindsight, everything is so clear.

But right now, we don't know a damn thing. Will Rondo become Boston's D.Wade in the fourth quarter as the regular season comes to a close? Will KG and Sheed become the Twin Tower combination we contemplated in August? Will Shelden Williams earn more and more PT, and eventually play a key role in a playoff series against the Hawks, rebounding and blocking shots in a big time payback against his former team? What can we expect from Mighty Mouse? Can the Celtics defeat either Orlando or Cleveland in a 7-game series? Will the Nuggets oust the favored Lakers from the Western Conference playoffs?

Nobody knows. But right now I like our chances a helluva lot better than I did last year. Last year the writing was on the wall once KG went down, just like with all the injuries in 1987. I hate those kind of springs. All I want is a chance, and a chance is what we have right now.

So it's OK to put your toe back in the water. This is where the fun starts. The 61-game exhibition schedule is O-V-E-R.

Rivers to Celtics Doubters: If you Jumped Off the Bandwagon, Stay Off

“We have not played with a great rhythm over the last 20 games. I get that, and that’s fine. Whoever’s jumped off the bandwagon, stay off. But I like this team. I’ve said it over and over again. I didn’t think we needed to make a lot of changes and we didn’t. We’ll see if that was the right decision or not.”

LINK

The challenge is clearly in the players' laps.

Can they rebound better as a team (we got beat 50-43 last night)? Can they execute better in crunch time (they went scoreless for long stretches of the 4th quarter last night)? Can they win a big game in a dominating fashion? Can Rasheed shut his trap and find ways to help when his shot isn't falling? Can KG work around his physical limitations?

Is this KG's Last Year?

Rage, rage against the dying of the light, Dylan Thomas wrote, and for nearly 60 years since then, sportswriters have applied that refrain to athletes nearing the end of their playing days. Because, y'know, it's so poetic. And it does seem to capture much of what happens as the gusts of time cause that competitive flame to flicker.

In Kevin Garnett's case, though, there's nothing wrong with his light. Burns as fierce and strong as ever. It's his lantern that isn't in very good shape.

To see Garnett at age 33, his right leg sheathed in a black support sleeve from kneecap to ankle, his gait noticeably slowed and flattened from what it had been only a couple years ago, is to see and feel with each stride most of the 40,861 minutes he already has logged in regular season games, along with 3,162 more in All-Star and postseason play. He isn't exactly High Priest Imhotep out on the hardwood, dragging the leg Mummy-style, but if you isolate on the Boston Celtics' 7-foot forward, you will see him hop every so often to keep up. Or slide. Or otherwise cut a corner or find an angle that gets him where he wants to be without the explosiveness he once took for granted.

LINK

The rest of the world has finally joined us conspiracy theorists who long suspected that news about KG's knee wasn't lacking, it was just bad news and neither KG nor the Celtics brass cared to share it with the rest of us. It's hard to read a Celtics-related post anymore without seeing the phrase "shadow of his former self" when the Ticket is being discussed.

World class athletes have a couple of choices as Father Time exerts his limitations over youthful strength, speed, and agility. You can go the route of Rocky Marciano and Sandy Koufax, leave the game at the height of your powers or nearly so, or you can hang on and hang on and hang on. Kevin Garnett won't leave the game at the height of his powers, but he'll be damned if we seem him hanging on like Muhammad Ali or Michael Jordan.

So when will KG hang 'em up?

The answer depends in part on how much Garnett's game improves from here to April.

Say he doesn't improve at all.

Then the next question is how far do the Celtics get in the playoffs? If they get squashed in the first round with KG floundering, it says here KG is done, with Sheed following closely behind. Now suppose they get to the ECFs or NBA Finals but lose. Does he lace them up for another year? I don't know. He'd probably return for camp and see how it goes.

Either way, soak up what you can now, Celtics fans. The Big Fella may not be around these parts much longer.

It's Been Hell for KG

The power forward will turn 34 in May, and even teammates wonder how long he can continue doing the heavy lifting for a team that's also had its share of injuries. KG as in, this is KillinG him. "I don't have to watch him, I see him every day," said teammate Paul Pierce over All-Star weekend. "I'm aware it's definitely hell for him."

--Mark Heisler

Seems like old times, huh?

Celtics.

Lakers.

And our old friend Mr. Heisler weighing in. . .

The Fog & The Predicament

We're gonna trade Glen Davis, a better than serviceable big with young legs and someone who isn't afraid to bang inside for a back-up point guard. We're gonna trade Ray Allen, an all-time great and still one of the seven, eight, or nine best two guards in the league for Kevin Martin and Andres Nociono, neither one of which qualifies as being better than good. Ray Allen, I might add, is probably our second best player right now. I'd entertain arguments about Paul Pierce, but any player, no matter how good, who tells me he has a foot sprain and "it ain't gonna get any better" heavily discounts his value to me.

Which is where the fog sets in.

This team is on the cusp.

The cusp of contending and the cusp of descending. It seems clear the Celtics could go one of two ways: struggle their way to banner 18 this year, or begin a precipitous decline into oblivion. Trading Big Baby wouldn't trigger the decline per se. Shelden Williams could probably cover. Trading Ray Allen, on the other hand, most definitely could return the club to the dark days of of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Other than Rondo Gordon Orr, Ray Allen is the only Celtic who brings it every night, not surprising since Jesus is a consummate professional. Assuming you got adequate talent in return (and that does NOT mean Kevin Martin and Andres Nocioni), there's still no way to plug the void of professionalism left by a departing Ray Allen. The guy is basically begging to finish his career here, and there's almost no way you get value in return. I say unless the Heat off D.Wade, you keep Ray Allen.

Which brings us to the Predicament. When you are a player, as was Danny Ainge in the late 1980s, it's easy to tell management, "Christ, you idiots, you need to trade Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, and Robert Parish while you still can, as Danny Ainge told Red Auerbach at the infamous 1988 Christmas party. But once you've assumed the reins of power in the front office, and a fleeting last chance at another NBA championship is fluttering before your eyes, it's a little hard to push the button and blow the team up.

Rasheed Wallace provides the best example.

At this point in time, I'd say that less than half of Celtics Nation would be sorry to see him go, were Danny to send him packing before the trade deadline. But if Danny traded Sheed, are we better off? Sure, our energy level picks up. Our defense improves. But all of a sudden we're a bunch of short MoFos again, and I just can't watch this team get towered over by the rest of the league. Trust me, I'm not the only Celtics fan who feels this way.

And because we'd lack that extra seven footer, our chances of winning banner 18 are reduced to near -0-. Throw in the questionable health of KG's knee, and all of a sudden we're not talking about late 1980s Celtics basketball but late 1990s Celtics basketball. It seems like we get ourselves in this mess a lot. I hope Danny is smart enough to see us through the current state of affairs. But I'm beginning to have my doubts.

KG Reflects on his Chemistry with Marbury & Cassell

"The chemistry Steph and I share is probably basketball. It's the (chemistry) I've shared with Spree (Latrell Sprewell). The ones I've shared with Sam Cassell and Sam Mitchell. It's an untalked about chemistry. It's one of those things that just happen. The moons align correctly, things happen. And I don't think he's made that connection with anybody else. I sacrificed. He sacrificed. We made it work."

St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN)
March 27, 2006

NBAI: National Basketball Association of Intensity

Last October Around the Horn host Tony Reali asked his guests who they would rather start the 2007-08 season with, if the goal were to win a championship: Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, or LeBron James.

One guest said KG.

Why?

Intensity.

"Come on, Mariotti," Reali responded, "it's not the National Association of Intensity, it's the National Basketball Association."

That ended that discussion.

But it shouldn't have.

How many ways does intensity shape the outcome of pro basketball games?

I'm not sure we can count them all, but to answer that question, let's pose a few of our own.

--Why do teams like the Boston Celtics streak to a 29-3 start, including wins over good teams like the Los Angeles Lakers, Detroit Pistons, Utah Jazz, Houston Rockets, and Orlando Magic, but then go on to lose three of four against teams like the Washington Wizards and Charlotte Bobcats?

--Why do teams like the Boston Celtics win seven of nine without their star player in the lineup, take a week off for the all-star break, and then lose three in a row with their superstar back in the lineup?

--Why do teams like the Boston Celtics win four of five games on a brutal road trip that included tough wins over Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston only to return home and lose a game against an average team like Philadelphia?

--Why do teams like the 1985-86 Celtics post a 67-15 record that includes 11 losses against teams with records below .500?

--What does it mean to say "they won because they wanted it more"?

--What does it mean to say "they lost because they suffered a letdown"?

--Why does a moderately talented player like Dave Cowens make the Hall of Fame, while hundreds of more talented players don't last ten years in the NBA?

The common thread here, of course, is intensity. The energy, focus, commitment, discipline, and drive a player and his teammates bring to the floor play a significant role in determining the fate of that player and team. Yet all players are human, and no player can "elevate" their play for a big game without returning to earth against lesser competition, because by definition that is what it means to elevate your play.

Teams pay their superstars to perform all season, but they rely on them to perform big when it counts.

So with all due respect to Mr. Reali, Athletic greatness is determined, in part, by intensity, and NBA greatness is no different. If this weren't the case, then every player asked the question 'what makes the playoffs different?' would have to change their answer.

Gasoless Bryant Loses Three of Four

KG was the MVP front runner until he got injured and the Celtics went 7-2 during the games he missed. After he came back, suddenly it was as if Garnett had fallen off the face of the earth as far as the MVP discussion was concerned.

The new front runners were LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Chris Paul.

Bryant was thought to be the sentimental choice, since he had yet to win an MVP over his long career. Forget the fact that maybe he didn't deserve one earlier in his career when Shaq was the most dominant player on the planet. Also please ignore that the MVP award is not a lifetime achievement award. All of this bugs the hell out of me. But for now I'll go with it.

Then we move to LeBron. Wow, that dude can fill it up. Forty points here. Fifty points there. The LeBron-as-MVP talk stopped, of course, when the Cavs went on their current two-game losing streak and the King stunk up the joint against the Wizards.

This brings us to Chris Paul, a great player on a good team. Does he deserve to be in the discussion? Perhaps. Without Paul, the Hornets aren't even a .500 team. With him, they are in the hunt for the best record in the West. If the Hornets end up with the best record in the West, he should easily vault ahead of Bryant and James in the MVP race.

Which leaves us with KG.

The case for KG as MVP is well known, if underappreciated. He is the best player on the team with the best record in the NBA. The Celtics have had the league's best record the entire season, and are likely to make it a wire-to-wire job. Garnet is the fuel in his team's tank, and the quarterback of their league-leading defense. KG intimidates opponents, get in their heads, and gets his teammates on the same page, locked and loaded, and ready to play.

Despite what I said about Paul, I have little doubt that Bryant remains the MVP favorite. This puzzles me for a couple of reasons. Before the Lakers acquired Gasol, the Lakers were somewhere near the middle of the pack in the Western Conference. The Celtics had humiliated the purple twice in head-to-head match-ups.

The Lakers then acquire Gasol, go on a rampage against mostly lesser opponents, lose Gasol to injury, and promptly lose three of four.

So in the spirit of Bush 41:

Before Gasol: No winning.

With Gasol: Winning begins.

Without Gasol: Losing resumes

Sounds to me like if there is a Laker that should be in the running for MVP, his name is Gasol, not Bryant.