Hey y'all, sorry I'm late to this. To catch up:
1. Adrian Wojnarowski reports the Knicks and Clippers are discussing a trade that would send Iman Shumpert and Raymond Felton to Los Angeles for Darren Collison and some other people to make salaries match.
3. Ken Berger's sources suggest the deal won't make it past this discussion stage.
5. Update: Ian Begley throws Jared Dudley's name in there, too.
I think that's where we are. Just discussions (albeit of a trade that works), plus someone's sources saying nothing will happen and another's pointing at a much sadder return package.
So. I don't mind that. The first two things, that is. Darren Collison isn't so much better than Raymond Felton that the Knicks' point guard problems will suddenly be solved, but that's not the point there. The point is Collison makes less money than Felton over a shorter period of time ($1.9 million x two years vs. $3.6 million x three years). That swap would be lovely.
That leaves Shumpert. I guess how you feel about this potential deal depends on how you feel about Shumpert. If you think Shump has the potential to blossom into a very good player in New York, then getting Reggie Bullock and a little cap friendliness in return is disappointing. If you feel like Shump either: 1. sucks or 2. has too much enmity cooked into his relationship with the Knicks at this point, then trading him feels less offensive. I think Shump has the makings of a very useful defending and shooting role player, and I suspect if he ends up on another good team-- especially a well-run, well-coached one like the Clippers-- he has a good chance to flourish. I've lost most of my hope that he'll have any chance to do that here in New York, especially as long as Mike Woodson is coach. I wish they'd canned Woodson a while ago, if only to get a better sense for the real value of someone like Shumpert.
But anyway, I've long since resigned to a Shump trade. Pawning off Raymond Felton's quietly onerous contract (which the Knicks traded assets for. On purpose. Don't forget this.) in favor of a smaller one attached to a better player while also adding the unproven but plenty interesting Bullock isn't a thrilling deal, but it would be something. It's a halfway respectable cutting of losses. Not Ford's deal, though. Just ditching Shumpert without getting rid of Felton's contract would be a bummer.
To add to this: Y'all make a good point in the comments. Just using Shumpert to ditch Felton without getting anything more than Collison in return would be a bummer, too. If Shumpert's value is really just Incentive Another Team Needs To Take Raymond Felton Off The Knicks' Hands, then that sucks. And I'd rather just sit on Felton's contract and hope someone will take it later.
This is nowhere near done. It may never be done. I will update when there are updates.
Update (2:08 PM) Here's another one that won't go away, just for funsies:
EVERYONE GETS AN IMAN SHUMPERT.
Man, imagine if this deadline passes and Shump is still a Knick? And then they fire Woodson? And then Shump feels happy again and plays well again? And so does Tyson Chandler? And then James Dolan's like "shit, I should just sell the team"?
Update (3:00 PM):
Clips undeniably interested in Shumpert. Knicks definitely want Collison. But Clips prefer not to take back Felton or part wi/Reggie Bullock— Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) February 19, 2014
So you just want to do that deal, but without all the parts that are nice to the Knicks, eh? NO THANK YOU, SIRS.
ESPN has learned Knicks are telling teams that have interest in Shumpert: It'll either cost you a first or you have to take on Felton's deal— Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) February 19, 2014
Yeah, that'd be preferable. Or just don't trade him, but yeah, a pick would be nice. Trading Felton would be nice, too, though less so. How about both!?