Copyright AFP/GETTY IMAGES, photo by Ronald Martinez
For a man who has made a billion dollars on wedding invitations, Glen Taylor sometimes isn't a very bright guy. Yesterday's comments to the daily beat writers--"KG tanked it" is the money quote--is a perfect example of how Taylor keeps cutting off the nose of this franchise to spite its face by his continual denigration of Garnett's role and impact on the team during the tail end of his dozen years with the Wolves.
First, let's give Taylor's comments their tiny due. When Garnett was shut down with five games to go last season I don't think I was alone in believing it was at the instigation of team management rather than Garnett himself, despite comments from the front office and KG's agent, Andy Miller, that he was indeed hurt. The statements by Miller and Garnett in response to Taylor's latest charge clearly imply that it was KG who instigated his removal from the lineup, albeit because of legitimate injury rather than a desire to secure a better draft pick by diminishing the ballclub's chances of winning.
But for that miniscule drop of truthful satisfaction, what has Taylor wrought for himself and his franchise? When it comes to tanking, his comments reek of baldfaced hypocrisy. There hasn't been a more blatant example of trying to lose a game that impacted the number of lottery balls a team would receive than the finale of the 2005-06 season, a year before the KG absence that is the subject of Taylor's allegation. During that game, versus Memphis, the Wolves *benched all their promising young players* down the stretch for the likes of scrubs such as Bracey Wright and Ronnie Dupree, allowed a Memphis opponent an uncontested layup in the waning seconds of regulation, and then had Mark Madsen chuck up seven three-pointers in a double-overtime loss. Mind you, this was all after the ballclub shelved both KG and Ricky Davis due to "injury." My column that night was entitled, "The One-Pointer: Wolves Disgrace Themselves." Anyone who watched knew exactly what was happening. And now Glen Taylor has the gall to say "I don't like that so much" with respect to tanking, and then drop the anvil on Garnett?
Look, Kevin Garnett is no saint--he's human. He was two-faced in his support/nonsupport of first Flip Saunders and then Kevin McHale. I ripped him for it at the times they were happening. He also was a lousy general manager, arguing on behalf of Troy Hudson and Mike James, among others. He openly feuded with Wally Szczerbiak (along with most of the roster). But Taylor's remarks continually besmirching KG since he dealt away the superstar--from the "freeze out" of Wally and team split between pro and con KG acolytes to the demand for a sizable contract extension last season to the pettiness of negotiations of how he should be honored on his return to Minnesota this weekend--do nothing but poison his own well. They collide face first into some hard realties ignored by Taylor's selectively biased perspective.
1. Kevin Garnett gave this franchise everything he had. The Minnesota Timberwolves were a standing joke--a dysfunctional gulag on the frozen prairie--before he arrived and for a dozen years he rebutted expectations that escalated into belittling demands that he abandon this franchise and go find a bigger, better market in which to play.
2. Within the fraternity of coaches and players in the NBA--the people who are on the inside, who genuinely know what's what--Garnett has an impeccable reputation as a player who doesn't stint on practicing or playing at anything other than 100 percent. His ability to set the tone from the top of the pecking order is of enormous value in sweeping away a lot of the motivational bullshit that many coaches and general managers--and, by extension, owners--have to endure when sheperding a ballclub through a long 82-game season.
3. Because of Garnett's sterling reputation and the frozen geography of the Timberwolves' locale, Taylor's calling out of his loyal superstar pretty much ensures that no prominent free agent will want to come to Minnesota in the near future. Remember what happened to the Bulls and Jerry Krause when he got into a power struggle with Phil Jackson, Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen? A similar dynamic now seems likely here.
I am on record as admiring the amount of money Taylor has put into trying to build a winner here, and it would be hypocritical of me to discourage the owner from speaking his mind. Give me the free-wheeling guy who believes honesty (even if it is only his version of it) is the best policy over some dissembling, secretive groupthink spinmeisters. But this is a food fight Glen Taylor cannot win. Frankly, I'm surprised he doesn't realize that. He and his organization would do well to drop this quixotic KG fixation and tend to the business at hand. Because contrary to all the wonderful spin we've heard locally about this great Garnett trade, the Celtics have the best record in the NBA and Glen Taylor is answering questions about whether or not his current ballclub will go into the tank for a third straight year.


Glen Taylor made a knuckleheaded comment, but who cares that he said it? Everyone says something stupid at one point in their life, just because he's a public figure, he's suppose to be extra stupid for saying it. Everyone is making it sound like he was trying to contract the team or refuses to sign his best players.
In fact, I can't believe the league reprimanded him. This is the same league who did nothing when Jerry Stackhouse inadvertantly blew the lid on how bogus the deadline trades were getting. If Stackhouse had said those comments as a Timberwolf, Stern would have taken three more first round picks from our franchise.
This is the thanks Glen Taylor gets from the hypocritical league after bailing out Harv and Marv and saving the Minnesota franchise.
Here is a take I prefer...
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AhqP3EWnjBy_W55cXsRb0pS8vLYF?slug=...
Whoa whoa whoa whoa woooo---...
I just read the Reusse article. And it reminds me why I hate strib and pi press writers.
First, he talks about how it's Glen's right to slam KG because after all he paid for the right, 186 mill worth. Ok, so now if you pay enough money you can say anything you want even if it's untrue?
"And then Garnett was traded to Boston this summer, giving him a chance to capture the NBA title that he couldn't win here as the star of the Western Conference's No. 1 seed in 2004."
Reusse, that 186 million that glen paid to have the right to bash him was another problem in bringing in more free agents. And if I remember correctly in an NBA game there are 5 players on the floor during the game, not 1. But where the heck was Sam I am? Hmm...
And then I'm not even going to bother quoting it, but he talks about how Ainge was being maligned in Boston until he made some trades, landed some superstars, and now he's a genius etc. Sounded like a jealous little spoiled baby. But All one has to do is ask this question "WHICH TEAM HAS THE BEST RECORD IN THE NBA?"
You know, I don't beleive that Garnett would have ever asked for a trade. He would have finished out this year and opted out.
Reusse...it was WOLVES management that shopped him around, created the trade. Oh my god why did I read that dude's article? It's like the blind leading the blind with him defending Taylor...
I openly wondered last year why the trade could not have gone the other way. Why the WOlves didn't trade for Pierce to come to the Target center? But, you answer your own question Jessie. Garnett's price was too high and the TWOLVEs market did not have the support to pay him and Pierce. Boston does. So, the trade went Ainge's way.
I'm not a fan of our dailies, but its not because of Reusse. He likes to rile people up, especially rabid fans, but hes got a heart too. Reusse is a fan of KG. He has written many favorable things about him over the years. He has also criticized both Taylor and McHale for their dunderheaded moves. He's a good journalist telling a story. He presents his take on KG with the knowledge that many KG fans will write in to the Strib and make comments on his weight, while missing his point that KG started the verbal war and Taylor blew it in responding to him.Reusse never defends the trade or says Boston is not deserving of the best record in the NBA. He criticises Garnett for calling the Celtics a First class organization and inferring he left a second-rate one. Even if it true, he is merely explaing why Taylor might be miffed. But, Reusse is paid to get people riled up. The more mail he generates the happier they are at the strib knowing someone still actually reads the irrelevant dailies. He does his job with intelligence, style and wit. He's not as knowledgable as Britt on NBA ball, but he does all right and he has good instincts for a story. Hes one of the few reasons I still subscribe to the Strib.
Tanking is seriously stupid. How is it any different than shaving points? But yet, how is it that it becomes so acceptable to so many? Especially when it's your team in tank mode. Perhaps it's the prospect of young talent in order to achieve the ultimate goal to win a championship.
Captain, the way you stated it, is that Glen Taylor knew Kevin was tanking it, didn't agree with it and pulled him out. And that is exactly what Glen was saying.
Which might be true. But the one thing we do know is that the management has indeed tanked before.
So thinking back to last year, we were tanking with the vets, and we all knew it. We shelved our young players who were playing better than the vets.
Last night's game...
The 14- 2 run the Wolves put on was impressive. And I'll give Foye some credit there too. In the midst of it, he hit a pull up jumper, a nice feed to AJ and then nailed a 3. I'm starting to have more confidence in Shaddy.
But I'm not sure he's not just a 6th man. You don't need height to be a scorer in this league. But I suppose you have to have a special talent for putting the ball in the hoop. Dare I say elite talent? Is McCants that? GGgrrr... I don't know.
I've always liked Mike Miller's game. Man did you see him abuse Brewer at the beginning? Anyway, AJ was spectacular in the 2nd half. I sometimes think he doesn't pass out of traffic enough, but when he plays like he did in the 2nd half, I justify it a little bit.
Anyway, good stuff Britt and all...
As a long time Wolves fan now living in the Boston area and wondered what Taylor's problem is. Is it that Boston has the best record in the league with KG being the force behind it, while the Wolves struggle and arguably aren't a lot better in March than they were in November? Is it that Danny Ainge and Wyc Grossbech (sp) put together the team that Taylor and McHale couldn't? Or is it that Taylor, a wildly successful businessman who was also a respected state legislator has proven to be a failure as the owner of a professional sports team who's name is more synonymous with Sterling and Dolan, rather than Kraft or even his crosstown friend Carl Pohlad and he's looking for someone to blame.
KG's not perfect, but my view of Kevin's personality is that he's the type of man who is completely loyal to his current situation. When he was with the Wolves, he was a partisan Minnesotan and it was extremely difficult for him to leave, but when he did, he needed to slam the door on that part of his life and move on. With Boston he expresses the same sentiments about the Celt's and the Boston community that I heard him express when I lived in Mpls and it is genuine.
Regarding the trade. Trading superstars never returns equal value in the short term, but this trade potentially can be great for the Wolves. Al is the real deal, Telfair and Gomes are contributors and then there are the draft choices...So it circles back to management, so back to you Mr. Taylor.
Patrick Ruesse has an interesting take on it in this morning Strib.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/wolves/16840596.html
To me, Glen Taylor's remarks hint at more than a fair amount of jealousy and resentment wrt the success that the Boston Celtics are having. The Wolves traded KG after a decade of futility in putting a team together that could take advantage of one of the best players on the planet. I don't intend to diminish the talents of Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, but to my mind, they are excellent "supporting cast" for KG. Szczerbiak and Sprewell's salaries weren't quite in the same ball park, but I'm sure it felt that way to Glen Taylor.
It's got to be obvious to us by now that Mr. Taylor is no judge of basketball talent, so I feel confident believing that he expected results for the money he was spending. The printing business is all about finding ways to lower costs and convincing customers that they are still getting full value for their money. I was looking up at the scoreboard tonight recalling how cheap he sounded about "investing" in it. Of course, players aren't printing machines, scoreboards, or other machinery and the true beauty of basketball is the blending of players to maximize the team result. At the NBA level, it's a lot more of the human "chemistry" that "gets `er done" than putting together a team based on salary alone.
So, the Celtics have success with KG where the Wolves didn't. Hard to imagine that Glen Taylor would blame his own ineptitude, eh?
This self-inflicted dust-up is another in a long line of Taylor actions that tells me he's in over his head.
Making a billion dollars in a back-water business in a back-water town is still making a billion dollars, no doubt. But sitting on a throne located in Mankato wearing a cockeyed crown stamped with a wedding cake does not qualify one for the big stage and bright lights of major sports ownership.
If Glen's hobby were piloting jets or racing cars he would have received adequate training to enjoy those activities safely. Sadly, no such training exists for pro team ownership.
My suggestion for Glen - sell your majority stake to a group led by Ralph Burnet and use the proceeds to collect Faberge eggs.
Hilarious and so true...nice post AK.
Did having KG around for all those years mask the fact that Taylor is a complete buffoon? Or is he getting worse at this as time goes by? Or is the guy having some personal/mental issues?
pro·fes·sion·al·ism (pr-fsh-n-lzm), n.
1. Professional status, methods, character, or standards.
Or lack thereof, I guess.
Okay, the divorce hasn't been amicable, the friends are having a hard time choosing sides, and one party feels so besieged that at any moment, a question, comment or locker room scent starts an otherwise mild mannered billionaire off on a vindictive tear to anyone that will listen.
Welcome to Days of our Wolves.
How can I tell my daughter to say her prayers, take her vitamins, and behave just like the rich folk if the elite class are acting like children? As a newly appointed organizational divorce counselor, I would simply tell both parties that it's time to focus on dynamics that will allow the passage of time to heal the wounds and simply agree to disagree. For KG, it's winning a ring, because, damn, the Celtics are pretty good right now. For Mr. Taylor, it's getting back to the business of rebuilding the team. If you can actually manage to get this crew back to the playoffs, some fans (probably not me, but some fans) will begin to forgive and forget. Use meditation, mediation or any other method at your disposal to restrain yourself and various members of your organization from talking shots at your former spouse/employee.
Do it for the kids, for the fans, for yourself, for Captain America. Please.
Britt,
This perhaps was the most non-bias singular column I've read all day about Taylor's comments. It really puts everything in perspective. Its odd to me that Glen would bring this up at this time. It seem like a immature act, triggered by Souhan's piece.
You're are 100% right in that this is a battle the Wolves will not win. But I'm glad you were able to shed some insights into this situation.
Thanks
Well, I see Britt is in full-fledged KG defense mode. Sure, he inoculates himself by saying he called KG out on this or that, but fails short in giving any context behind the so-called "money quote." Oh, and thanks Britt for admitting that KG is human.
If Britt bothered to inform his readers beforehand, he would have mentioned the full context behind Taylor's KG tanking comment. But Journalism 101 does indeed call for full context. The article in question (not just the "money quote") refers to the Wolves current season and the entire Wolves organization's interest in finishing strong with something to build on for the future.
The article's author then asks Taylor to respond to allegations that the team was more interested in lottery pick standing (i.e., losing the remaining games) than winning out. Taylor responded by saying the team wanted to win out last season but that KG tanked that and it became a moot point.
This opened the pandora's box wherein resides the bubbling, festering avalanche of evil and boneheaded decisions and hypocrisies by the Wolves franchise. Oh, boy! It's Groundhog's Day again. Let's regurgitate the Mad Dog 3-point bricks, okay? The tanking third straight year? Sir Charles running off his mouth last night threatening to slap Glen Taylor if he walked into the studio (as if he would). It would only seem fitting if the media howlers found themselves in an aged pot of piss to stew in.
The best example of maturity regarding this overblown, out-of-context "money quote" comes from the reaction of KG himself:
“First off, I want to say Glen Taylor was good to me when I was a Timberwolf and I’m a Boston Celtic now,” Garnett said after last night’s win. “I’m not going to be going back and forth saying tasteless things. That’s not my character.
“I have nothing to do with the Minnesota Timberwolves. That’s in the past. I’m in a new chapter in my life. I thank them for the opportunity they gave me when I was younger and not only being able to explore my dream, but to be able to make it to where I’m at today,” Garnett said. “That’s all I’m going to say about that.”
Perhaps our media howlers could take KG's example and move on, keep the venom in the Pandora's box and deal with now and the future.
CA--
You both misunderstand the purpose of this blog and fail to give my readers enough credit.
Just as my three pointers assume my readers have either seen the game or read other accounts if they want a full blow-by-blow (you note I don't recap the entirety of the game or provide a box score), my take on the Taylor quotes assumed that my readers had already read or heard in some detail the contents of the article in question. In fact I think a commenter linked to it below my last three-pointer. In any case, if your point is that framing Taylor's comments in the context of the entire article, as you just did, dramatically alters the intent or substance or what he said, I think you're mistaken.
But what really seems to have angered you is that I posted anything at all on this subject. You wish Glen Taylor hadn't said anything in the first place--frankly, so do I. But it was on the front page of the Strib sports section, and is a prominent topic among Wolves fans and basketball fans in general. I tried to be as balanced in my perspective, and tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, as much as possible while still providing my honest take on the subject.
As for my "full-fledged defense mode," why don't you check out every other media outlet you can find on the two occasions when Garnett was first praising McHale's coaching at Saunders' expense, and then wistfully remembering Saunders' coaching at McHale's expense. For that matter, see if anyone is raising those points again today. I'd be happy to know I had some company calling out Garnett in print on these three occasions, so go see if you can find it.
Finally, when it comes to "media howling" I'd set the tone of your post beneath a full moon. If the subject bothers you so much, simply pass--nothing terrible will happen, I promise.
Britt -
I was raised to be intellectually honest and give my frank account (as I'm sure you do while sharing a different perspective). I'm less concerned for Taylor's comment than I am the hyperventilating that it inspires. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction every time the KG experience comes up to conjure up the ghosts of seasons past with overtones about The Trade over and over and over again.
And the echo chamber is as resounding as the ghosts that surface. It appears that each media member checks first to see how the others react and then react in same manner. TNT Chuck wanted to slap Glen Taylor and most remarkable there are actually people who agreed with him! It was KG who actually stood up for Glen Taylor while essentially asking fans to let bygones be bygones. Time to release the ghosts!
Let's be brutally objective. It was KG who decided to end his season with a handful of game left, as Taylor stated. Taylor wanted the team last season to try to win out, so, with KG being the only real threat on the team that existed last season, he tanked the remainder of the games for the Wolves. The fans be damned.
Glen Taylor is a proven business leader. He must scratch his head at times wondering how a $18M (or so) per year performer simply decide to sit out the remaining games last season irrespective of ticketed fans hopes and aspirations. If Taylor has any faults it is that he is brutally honest.
As for giving a "pass," I don't think that is entirely fair to the other posters. Agree or disagree, one would expect some level of divergence of opinion instead of an echo chamber.
Kg was merely taking the high road with transparent artifice. He portrays himself as above the fray and not wanting to engage in any mudslinging while Taylor is central in the sty, wearing his gophers wrestling tights. Letting bygones be bygones only made the contrast more apparent.
I'm curious as to why you only give frank accounts that are in deference to Glen Taylor. It would be improper to discuss the tanking accusation without referring to the wolves over the previous years. It is especially disingenuous to refer to KG tanking with a few games left is equivalent to the aversion to playing your only functioning lineup (McCants, Foye, Smith and Jaric) for at least the last 25 games, even trotting out THud for 30+ for a number of games around game 60 or so.
Also, Glen Taylor, is a proven business leader, so he wants money out of this franchise. I, however, am a fan, and want only wins. Over the last few years I've started to worry (as Clippers fans did for years) that our interests are divergent.
To add to midlife's comments, Taylor is a proven business leader in his first business. In the NBA, however, he's not. He's been willing to do some things that were in the best interests of his franchise (including paying KG), but the number of things he did that weren't far outweigh them. Here's a brief list: hiring an inexperienced GM in McHale and not supporting him with enough guys who understand the work needed to be successful (at least until recently), negotiating an illegal deal with a modestly-talented player that cost the team 3 first-round picks (probably the most negative thing an NBA owner has done to his team in the past 15 years), staying loyal to McHale when that was a bad business move for so many reasons, and signing off on hiring a coach that he wasn't willing to stick with.
As a fan, I want a team that can compete for a championship. I don't need to have that team in the playoffs every year, but if they're not, they should be building toward a championship-level contender. Only twice have I felt that they were doing that: during the KG-Steph-Googs years and at some points during this year. Is Taylor interested in building a champion? We know he's interested in using "Let's Build It" as a slogan to sell season tickets, but I don't know that he's interested in building a champion. What he doesn't realize is that winning teams sell tickets because their team is consistently a contender, and the team wins by establishing a system and maximizing their draft position and their talent. That should be Taylor's goal: disregard short-term profits for long-term profitability.
Along with the initial post-trade remarks Taylor made about KG (which Britt pointedly referenced already), this recent stuff leaves me with two possible conclusions:
1) We don't know the whole story in regards to KG and the Wolves' front office, and there's much more at play here; or
2) Taylor is trying as hard as he can to sever the ties between KG and the franchise in order to market the team not as a result of his trade, but as a new entity in itself. "See what the guys we got for KG can do" isn't a very snappy marketing slogan.
In any case, it's very bad form for an owner to call out a player after he leaves the team, not to mention the fact that Mr. Taylor made quite a bit of scratch off of Garnett's back. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for Jim Pete to address the issue.....
I agree with everything in regards to the hypocrisy Taylor displayed in his KG tanking argument. However, as an economist, I believe in the theory of maximizing individuals in search of profits. That is not a defense of Taylor's entrepruniaral skills, but rather merely points out that free agents, stars and even selfless players like KG do what all "homongenous globules of desire", as elegantly put by the turn of the century economist-social critic Thorstein Veblen put it, do.They make decisions based upon what maximizes their welfare and give them the greatest utility, ceteris paribus (all things being equal - sorry about dropping so much economic jargon into one post). Of course, the folly of all this economic analysis is the caveat ceteris paribus. All things never remain equal and the quality of the owner, weather, coaching, family matters, metropolitan area, GM, coaching, teammates, all come into play when free agents make decisions. Still, I think money trumps them all. Al Jefferson is happy as long as he is paid fairly. When he considers himself underpaid for his performance and Taylor disagree, then we have problem. I don't think he cares what Taylor says about KG. Likewise, free agents. Pay them what they are worth according to the free agent market, and they will come play. Money speaks the loudest - even KG knows that.
Andy B,
Interesting post. I enjoy your Veblen quote and I agree that we can chalk up much of individual action to selfishness. Yet, I must also point out, that, as an economist, you are not required to believe in selfishness, but rather, to believe that people are inherently rational. And, to be rational, simply means to be consistent (or to go all econo-speak, to have complete and transitive preferences).
For example, once can have consistently altruistic preferences with regard to others or one can consistently be willing to sacrifice their own well-being for the well-being of others (e.g., for equality).
Although KG is not perfect, I would argue that KG has sacrificed his own health and well-being for the benefit of his teammates, his coaches, and his owners many, many times. He's done this by playing injured in games and in practice and by remaining remarkably loyal to the Twolves (at least in public) way past the time when most people, especially these selfish homo-economicus people you reference, would have remained loyal.
Bottom line: I think money, although important, does not always speak the loudest and that things like reputation and heart (or love) matter for NBA teams, just as they often do for private business, or the invention of new technology.
I apologize for polluting the airwaves with so much talk of economics, but, I must defend economists from the misperception that their school of thought is fundamentally based on greed and selfishness. I just don't think that's true.
Hi Nate,
Yes, I did forget the rational assumption. Homo-economicus is a rational processor of perfect information who make split second calculations to discover which alternative brings him or her the most utility. Altruism definatel is an alternative. But, as Paul Samuelson once pointed out, anyone (Gary Becket) who attempts to explain altruism within the economic framework and the assumptions behind homo-economicus, does not understand the real nature of altruism.
All that is beside the point on Garnett. Garnett was certainly deserving of being paid a high salary and maybe even the highest salary commanded in the NBA. But, it should not be trivially swept aside that Garnett was, in fact, well-paid by Taylor. Garnett was also not done any disservice by Taylor in being traded to Boston where he can compete for an NBA title and sign an extension to his contract. As Patrick Ruesse points out this morning, a case can be made that Garnett took the first shot at Taylor in his quotes to the media following the trade and beginning the season in Boston. Taylor, to his detriment, fired back and looks like the deserving fool for doing so.
But, I'm with Ruesse on this. Garnett is a sacred cow as the majority of commenters on this site reveal. He's earned it, but I kind of enjoy people taking shots at sacred cows once in awhile.
I also enjoyed Ruesse's take. Pretty much the same general point as a lot of these posters. Dumb thing to say, and unwinnable fight, but that has more to do with the "sacred cow" he's dealing with than anything substantively wrong with the comment itself. KG was the first to show sourness, and there's no reason he couldn't be as classy as Allen Iverson was last night in Philadelphia. Maybe his taking the high road on this issue is his first step in that direction, and both sides can put this non-issue to rest.
And Nate,
As an economist, I was not taking any shots at economists or their view of people. Obviously, the neoclassical model is a simplification as all models must be. No one in this world acts like homo-economicus at all times and makes decisions like he does. The utility of the model is that the economy as a whole (as pointed out by Friedman - sorry folks, we should take this to an econ blog) behaves as if, in the aggregate (at times) all individuals are "homogeneous globules of desire" or the rational homo-econimicus.
These types of stories are what fill up Around the Horn and PTI, and get fans more worked up than they should. Britt's reaction was well-thought out and much more readable than the "How dare you insult KG!" stuff that is expected from others in the media. It was a stupid thing to say, just like a lot of stuff athletes say to the press--only this time it was an old, business-man owner, so people are more shocked by it. They shouldn't be. He seems genuinely invested in this team--both financially and emotionally--and, on some level, or on every level, is bitter about KG and Boston's success after the trade that needed to happen. I'm not saying it wasn't a stupid thing to say, because it did attract unprovoked negative attention on the franchise. But, if this is the sort of thing that prevents you from being a fan of the franchise, then you may not have been one to begin with.
This bitterness, both from Garnett's side, as well as Taylor's (remembering KG sticking out the C's logo after the first Boston win) has been a lot more divisive than I expected at the start of the season. I figured KG would be happy to move on to a contender and MN would be more respectful in remembering their greatest ever Wolf. I also remember thinking that it would be kind of cool to cheer for KG on a contender, while we rebuild. It's not feeling that way anymore. It seems like Minnesota has a lot of Wolves fans and a lot of KG fans. That's unfortunate, and that's a big reason why Taylor should've thought before making this last comment.
"This bitterness, both from Garnett's side, as well as Taylor's has been a lot more divisive than I expected at the start of the season. I figured KG would be happy to move on to a contender and MN would be more respectful in remembering their greatest ever Wolf."
Felt exactly the same way
"I also remember thinking that it would be kind of cool to cheer for KG on a contender, while we rebuild."
Defenitly! When people asked me "so, are you now gonna be a celtic fan (not a lot of ppl are "loyal" to a franchise here in Belgium..."" I always tought that I'm a timberwolves fan, but it'll still be cool to cheer for Garnett.
It's probably the frustration of 12 years of trying to get something and never really getting close. They both wanted to win so much they probably kept those little frustration under the surface and now it's all coming out.
Nicely written again Britt.
Glen picked the absolute worst time to bring more negative attention to this team. The same day Garnett's new team blows out a club on an historic winning streak on national television? Is he that clueless to think anyone would side with him? He's been ripped by everyone from us to Chuck Barkley, and deservedly so. Of all the people to blame for the Wolves dysfunction, KG is not even on the list, despite his imperfections. People are smart enough to know that the Wolves failure ultimately starts at the top and Taylor is responsible for the amount of apathy toward his team.
This is the best actual analysis of Taylor's comments/KG's reaction. Everyone (including myself) seems be taking one side or the other, but every specific you provide shows that this has been a two-way street.
That being said, this wreaks of pettiness from Taylor. What could he possibly gain from responding to that journalist's question??
Also, Brit, could you link the info about "pettiness of negotiations of how he should be honored on his return to Minnesota this weekend"? I haven't heard anything about that.
This sort of pettiness drives me up a wall. I don't know how else to put it. Why would Al want be the face of this franchise if he knows this same type of BS is waiting for him down the road?
Does Taylor realize that Garnett is the only reason most Minnesotans have even HEARD of the Timberwolves?
Count me as one who's willing to discourage Glen Taylor from speaking his mind. Besides the great point that Britt (and others made in yesterday's comments) about Taylor's comments turning off potential free agents and probably trade targets as well, it's also a real turnoff for the many local fans who really started following the Timberwolves during KG's tenure.
While I've been a fan since the days of Pooh Richardson and Tony Campbell, I did not become a regular ticket buyer or season ticket holder until KG's arrival. By the number of Boston jerseys and T-shirts bearing #5 that I saw at the game on February 8th, including my own, I'd venture to guess I'm not alone in that sentiment.
Taylor needs to remember that fans embrace a team because of the players, not because of the owner and he should shut the [bleep] up.