This is kind of a curveball. I've always heard it speculated that the Clippers would make sense for Paul Pierce since he grew up in Los Angeles. I hadn't thought of them wanting Kevin Garnett instead, though that makes some sense.
Of course, how much sense it makes to the Celtics is another matter.
Remember, Celtics have not yet decided whether they're going to stick it out with this team or make changes just yet.— Sean Deveney (@SeanDeveney) February 3, 2013
My quick take on it is this: It depends.
Will the Celtics decide to "sell" and build for the future?
Would Kevin Garnett decide to retire at the end of the season either way?
What other offers could we get for him?
Clear all that up and I'll tell you if this is realistic or not.
I'd hate to see Kevin Garnett go almost as much as Paul Pierce. But not quite. As much as KG has meant to this franchise, he didn't play his whole career here. So if the Celtics decide to start breaking up the band and if he is willing to waive his no-trade clause to play for a contender this year, then we could do worse than to pick up a guy like Eric Bledsoe.
Butler's game has declined in recent years and is mostly a salary matcher (he makes $8M this year and next year). Another note: A trade could be made with no other pieces and save the Celtics around $1.8M - bringing them below the luxury tax threshold.
Again, I'm really, really, really going to miss Garnett when he leaves (either through trade or retirement). I don't think we'll ever be able to duplicate the defensive impact that he's had on this team over the years. But his time left is short and if (big if) the Celtics decide to move on, I wouldn't mind getting some good value for him. We'll see how it plays out though.
Of course all this depends on KG waiving his no-trade clause, so it would be interesting to see how that conversation would go down.