clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Berman: Carmelo Anthony would consider waiving his no-trade clause

A very Knicks bit of news!

Brad Penner-USA TODAY Sports

Congrats to those of you who had December 12 in the "First Melo trade story" pool. Marc Berman of the New York Post dropped a bombshell early Friday morning with his report that star forward Carmelo Anthony -- he of the contract extension so fresh the ink still runs -- would consider dropping his no-trade clause. TO THE SOURCES:

Five months after swearing his allegiance to New York and signing a five-year, $124 million contract, sources told The Post the All-Star forward would be open to dropping his no-trade clause if team president Phil Jackson strikes a deal with a team Anthony would like to play for.

Part of Anthony’s deal included the rarely used no-trade provision.

For now, Anthony has no desire to be traded, but his willingness to consider giving up the no-trade clause shows how frustrated he has become with the Knicks’ historically bad start to the season.

Open to being traded, but with no desire to be traded.

As to Anthony's faith in Phil Jackson to steer New York onto a championship course, Berman quotes yet another source as saying, "[Melo] trusts Phil, but I think he’s afraid of Phil."

For what it's worth, Anthony has a 15-percent trade kicker built into his contract, so he wouldnn't come cheap. Berman mentioned the Chicago Bulls as a potential trade partner, while other late-night Twitter folk have brought up teams like the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers.

Personally, I prefer to cast a wider net. If Melo is interested in going to a contender, perhaps he should be dealt to the Chinese Basketball Association's Guangdong Southern Tigers for young guard Emmanuel Mudiay. Guangdong is currently in third place in the standings -- behind Liaoning and Guangsha -- which would certainly mesh with Melo's desire to play for a contender.

Let's see if a Melo-for-Mudiay swap works in my own personal trade machine:


Update: The requisite agent rebuttal: