Unless... they see McLemore as a SF? I sure hope they wouldn't look at something like his 82games.com positional net PER and make that determination, but you never know... (note: I'm not advocating this by any means)
Kings active in trade talks?
- Thread starter The_Jamal
- Start date
- Status
Well if that's the case, why would we trade for a player to play him out of position? Usually you play a player out of position because you have nobody on your current roster who is better. Typically you make trades to correct that not to add to it. It makes little sense to me to trade for a player with the intention of playing him out of position. The player probably cost you more because of his value as a SG; however, you're getting his "SF" value. It's not worth it in my eyes.
Again, trades are typically used to help balance your roster and remove ill-fitting pieces not add to them.
Again, trades are typically used to help balance your roster and remove ill-fitting pieces not add to them.
You wouldn't trade for him to play out of position. You'd trade for him because he, along with Mbah, would be the only perimeter players on the team who have learned what the term "defense" means. And he does have some PG and SF flexibility.
Versatile, strong, athletic, defensive-minded, great rebounding players are exactly who we should be targeting to fill around our core.
Versatile, strong, athletic, defensive-minded, great rebounding players are exactly who we should be targeting to fill around our core.
Shumpert is a terrific defender, and not a bad shooter either. His outside shot was more than respectable last season. A lot of NBA scouts believe he could be a possible star because of his improvement since being drafted. His best position is SG, but as stated, he's not a bad defender at the SF position in the right matchup. The problem is, we already have a glut on the perimeter, so unless there's another trade, it doesn't make sense. The other problem, is that most of the players on the Knicks roster are ineligible to be traded right now, and the Kings have very few salaries that could be used straight up for a trade.
For instance, Jimmer makes too much money, as does Patterson, much less JT or Thornton. And the Knicks have no one to throw in to balance the salaries. It would almost have to be a three team trade to get it done.
For instance, Jimmer makes too much money, as does Patterson, much less JT or Thornton. And the Knicks have no one to throw in to balance the salaries. It would almost have to be a three team trade to get it done.
The difference with Shump, at least until this year, is that he does play a different position than the guards we have. Shump plays defensive guard. We let all of those go this summer, so acquiring him for just about any of our offensive personnel would be a step forward on that end. Unfortunately he can't shoot anymore and has been string together 4 and 5 point nights as a starter. Put him and Salmons out there together and we might not break double figures most nights. If the shot comes back he's got the potential to be a young "3 and D" guy though, which is what you want around Cousins.
if the idea is to start mclemore at SG, and rid ourselves of thornton/fredette/salmons (who is a natural SG, let's not forget), then somebody has to replace that dead weight on the bench. shumpert is a very solid defensive option to fill that role. he's a high-effort utility player in the vein of doug christie, and guys like that are valuable to teams hoping to contend for a playoff spot in the near future...
Thought I'd throw in that I listened to a podcast yesterday with V. Ranadive. When asked about the rebuilding process, and if he felt inpatient at times, he said yes, because he hates losing, but he has to constantly remind himself that its not going to happen overnight. Its going to take time. Now that unto itself isn't that revealing, but then he said, they aren't interested in putting together a team that will compete for just a couple of years, but he wants to build a team that will compete every year, and that's what will take time. To me, the translation is, they're not going to go for quick fixes, or older veterans who have in the past been great players. They're going to build the team with young, up and coming players that can play together for years to come. And they're going to be very specific about what kind of player they go after.
With that in mind, Shumpert makes sense. He's a young up and coming player that is known for his defense. He also has good size for the SG position, and his scoring ability has improved. There's nothing wrong with looking at a future with McLemore starting and Shumpert backing him up. I think any veterans brought in will be players in the 27 to 32 year range, and mostly be players to come off the bench and fill a specific need.
With that in mind, Shumpert makes sense. He's a young up and coming player that is known for his defense. He also has good size for the SG position, and his scoring ability has improved. There's nothing wrong with looking at a future with McLemore starting and Shumpert backing him up. I think any veterans brought in will be players in the 27 to 32 year range, and mostly be players to come off the bench and fill a specific need.
Actually, under the cap rules the Knicks can take back $2.65M for Shumpert's $1.7M contract. Jimmer only makes $2.4M so he is eligible for a straight-up trade. But otherwise, Jimmer-Shumpert appears to be the only way we can make that trade without stretching credulity or involving a ton of teams. A "ton of teams" trade could happen, perhaps with us sending off Thornton as well and bringing back Shumpert and a SF, but trying to predict that sort of thing is a fool's errand. But if it's a straight up trade, it's Jimmer.
By the way, Jimmer actually does work straight up:
http://basketball.realgm.com/tradechecker/saved_trade/6353284
and I could even make excuses why the Knicks might want him (they love spectacle, three point shooters, have been starting supplemental PGs the last few years etc.). BUT, Shump was a fairly hot commodity before the knee injury. Be surprised if we could get him just on a giveaway for our 5th guard.
http://basketball.realgm.com/tradechecker/saved_trade/6353284
and I could even make excuses why the Knicks might want him (they love spectacle, three point shooters, have been starting supplemental PGs the last few years etc.). BUT, Shump was a fairly hot commodity before the knee injury. Be surprised if we could get him just on a giveaway for our 5th guard.
Well I don't put Igoudala or Landry in the old used to be stars catagory. Iggy is 29 yr's old and Landry is 30. However, I can certainly understand questioning the signing of Landry for different reasons other than age. By the way, last year Shumpert shot around 40% from the three, which is certainly respectable. And lets not forget that he's coming off an injury this season, so maybe we need to cut him some slack early in the season till he shakes off the rust.
A trade for Jimmer would actually make sense in the context of the constant war for headlines between the Knicks and Nets. Not that it would make them any better since I'd assume Jimmer would still wind up playing behind Felton, J.R. Smith, and Beno. Then again, their Bargnani trade didn't make them a better team either.
Man, I just went back and tried the trade again on ESPN trade checker and once again, it failed. It has to be that Real GM is taking the Knicks trade exception into consideration and ESPN isn't. In any event, if the trade is possible, then I'd trade Jimmer straight up for Shumpert. The problem is, I thought the Knicks were looking for frontcourt help.
I'm not arguing the fact that we don't need defensive minded players. I think everyone on this board would laugh at someone who would say that. I'm arguing the fact that we should bring them in at positions of need. One could argue that SG is one of the only positions we don't need to bring one in since we have McLemore penciled in as our SG of the future future SG. Shumpert would be a great SG off the bench behind McLemore when it is all said and done. McLemore gets around 30 min while Shumpert gets the rest of the SG minutes as well as some SF minutes when the opposing team decides to go in a 3 guard set.
All I'm arguing is that I would prefer not to bring in a player if we immediately want to play him out of position. That is not a knock on Shumpert. I happen to like the guy a lot. He's exactly the type of player you want to have on this team, but if we're going to be playing him at SF, why not actually trade for a defensive player who has SF size?
All I'm arguing is that I would prefer not to bring in a player if we immediately want to play him out of position. That is not a knock on Shumpert. I happen to like the guy a lot. He's exactly the type of player you want to have on this team, but if we're going to be playing him at SF, why not actually trade for a defensive player who has SF size?
Edited to remove vestigial quote.
The Knicks' eagerness to trade Shumpert makes just zero sense. Shumpert is the only 2-way player on that team, and one of the few with real upside. Everyone else is a no-defense shot jacker.
Admittedly, I'm not high on Faried. Undersized, poor defense, hustle 4's are only slightly less common than no-defense shot jacking 2 guards. With that in mind, I think Denver is making a mistake in not taking Shumpert and trying to replace Faried elsewhere. Heck, they've got JJ Hickson who has a largely identical game.
I don't really want Shumpert on the Kings as he really is not a small forward and would get in the way of McLemore's development, but I wouldn't mind being part of a 3-way trade to bring back a defensive big man or a small forward.
The Knicks' eagerness to trade Shumpert makes just zero sense. Shumpert is the only 2-way player on that team, and one of the few with real upside. Everyone else is a no-defense shot jacker.
Admittedly, I'm not high on Faried. Undersized, poor defense, hustle 4's are only slightly less common than no-defense shot jacking 2 guards. With that in mind, I think Denver is making a mistake in not taking Shumpert and trying to replace Faried elsewhere. Heck, they've got JJ Hickson who has a largely identical game.
I don't really want Shumpert on the Kings as he really is not a small forward and would get in the way of McLemore's development, but I wouldn't mind being part of a 3-way trade to bring back a defensive big man or a small forward.
I'm not arguing with your premise of surrounding 3 and D guys around Cousins which everyone should agree with (once you add another go-to option next to Cousins of course).
I like the idea of trading for him if we see him as a bench wing option behind McLemore, but with our current roster makeup, there is a lot of clutter. Again if we had room for him, I would love to have him on our roster coming off the bench. I wouldn't even mind trading for him if our plan all along was to have him be our bench wing in the end, but with these contracts, we'll be in a cluster **** for the next couple years at guard. If the premise is that he is our SF of the future, then I am totally against the idea.
I'm not denying his talent. The kid is very athletic and has the potential to be one of the best defenders in this league, but I don't want him as our SF. I would love him as Ben's backup, but I would not like having him guard players who are 3-4 inches taller than him every night.
I like the idea of trading for him if we see him as a bench wing option behind McLemore, but with our current roster makeup, there is a lot of clutter. Again if we had room for him, I would love to have him on our roster coming off the bench. I wouldn't even mind trading for him if our plan all along was to have him be our bench wing in the end, but with these contracts, we'll be in a cluster **** for the next couple years at guard. If the premise is that he is our SF of the future, then I am totally against the idea.
I'm not denying his talent. The kid is very athletic and has the potential to be one of the best defenders in this league, but I don't want him as our SF. I would love him as Ben's backup, but I would not like having him guard players who are 3-4 inches taller than him every night.
No way New York bites on a Jimmer for Shumpert trade straight up. That said, New York is on the short list of teams that could, theoretically, use Jimmer in the rotation. Their 3 point guards have all been playing pretty bad thus far this year. Felton especially has been miserable on offense this year, and that is having repurcussions throughout the team as Felton's bad play is making everyone on the floor with him worse. From the last half of last year to this year, Felton has reverted to the Portland version of himself. No hustle, no defense. Without Chandler to run the pick and roll, Felton is out there for his shooting which has been Salmons level poor thus far.
If Jimmer plays point with Carmelo acting as primary ballhandler, he does a better job spacing the floor than Felton ever has. Defensively, Felton and Jimmer are about a wash, which speaks volumes for how badly Felton has been playing. Unfortunately for New York, Felton and Prigioni are on the books for 3 more years of mediocre play.
If Jimmer plays point with Carmelo acting as primary ballhandler, he does a better job spacing the floor than Felton ever has. Defensively, Felton and Jimmer are about a wash, which speaks volumes for how badly Felton has been playing. Unfortunately for New York, Felton and Prigioni are on the books for 3 more years of mediocre play.
- Status