Mike Petraglia offers to trade Kevin Garnett. Has it come to this?

When a team is struggling, it's only natural for its fans to demand trades. That I'm OK with. Now, since ESPN created Trade Machine, we've witnessed a myriad of stupid trades that would make sense for only one team that's involved, but you know what, that's OK too, because at least there was effort put in them to make the math work, because some people propose trades that disregard not just laws of the NBA but of the universe as well.

Yet if you're an expert, I would expect you to address the team's problems and work out sensible trades. You might have a crazy idea, but if you explain why it would make sense for all the teams involved, then why not? For example, you might disagree with Bill Simmons, but when you read what he wrote, you see that he actually explains things as long as you get beyond his popular culture references.

That brings me to Mike Petraglia, who is a great source on New England sports and a credible writer. Read his solution:
The Celtics should ask Kevin Garnett to waive his very rare no-trade clause (one held by Garnett, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki and Kobe Bryant), listen to all offers leading up to the Feb. 21 NBA trade deadline and get very creative.
Wait, what?

We should convince Garnett, who has explicitly said that he would retire if he doesn't play for the Celtics and for Doc, to waive his no-trade clause and trade him? Even if that's somehow possible, why and how the Celtics would do that?

We don't know. Petraglia, in the following 28 paragraphs talks about the Celtics' poor record, the risk of getting caught in a trap like Atlanta, mentions Garnett being the only feasible asset (because the other assets are young), but that's about it. No proposals, no explanations on how this would improve the team, how it would solve the problems...

As for trade partners, he throws in teams like the Thunder who have Serge Ibaka and cap problems themselves, Clippers who have Blake Griffin and Deandre Jordan locked up and Warriors who are doing great even without Bogut who will return at some point. Why would they trade with us? What do we get in return?

The Celtics trade Garnett and become a terrible team now. And then what? We're left with an expensive roster that still doesn't give Ainge enough room. So how does he attract other players? What does signing a franchise player to a no-trade clause and letting him go do for the Celtics' reputation? Do we become a lottery team and work up from there, which is a path that seldom works? What's the plan here?

It's official: the Celtics nation is going nuts. This trademania has to stop at some point, and we need to focus on actual problems. Like using Terry in more pick-and-rolls or optimum starting lineups/rotations, or at least wait for Bradley's return to form which would take 4-5 games.

Suggesting the Celtics trade Kevin Garnett and not mentioning one feasible way to do that is not helping. Celtics need constructive criticism from credible people, not signs of desperation.