Report > Amare called JJ, not the other way around

[sturt]

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/92333

Quote:

---

June 28, 2007

On eve of draft, Suns fans looking for blockbuster are now finding scenarios

Jerry Brown, Tribune

The eve of the NBA draft produced another long day of whispers, rumors and outright categorical denials — but left the Suns standing in place with today’s 24th and 29th overall picks and few remaining opportunities to improve that stance.

The Suns are still intrigued by the prospect of acquiring the Minnesota Timberwolves’ Kevin Garnett but will not deal Amaré Stoudemire to make it happen. They are still interested in securing a top-10 pick in today’s draft but have all but exhausted the list of possible dance partners. They are still anxious to reduce the looming luxury-tax penalty the NBA charges teams with high payrolls, but there are other cards to play before the draft begins at 4:30 p.m.....

While new Suns general manager Steve Kerr said last week that no one on his roster is untradeable, sources say their stance that Stoudemire would not be moved in any Garnett trade has never wavered — be it Boston, Minnesota or Atlanta. That didn’t keep ESPN and other media outlets, however, from reporting that a three-way trade with the Timberwolves, Hawks and Suns — one that would put Garnett in Phoenix, Stoudemire in Atlanta and draft picks and expiring contracts in Minnesota — was on the fast track toward completion.

Sources confirm that the rumors were strong enough to induce Stoudemire to place a phone call to his former Suns teammate, Atlanta guard Joe Johnson, to talk about a possible reunion with the Hawks.

Late Tuesday evening in New York, site of today’s draft,

the Hawks were telling members of the national and Atlanta media that the framework for a Stoudemire deal was vetoed by management because it would put the Hawks over the salary cap.

Blame landed on a name familiar to Suns fans: former Hawks majority owner Steve Belkin. Still embroiled in a lawsuit to regain control from his former business partners that dates back to the controversial Johnson trade in the summer of 2005, Belkin retains the right to halt any deal that exceeds the cap.

Kerr said he had a grand total of one conversation with the Hawks about a trade, and Stoudemire was never part of the conversation.

(ASIDE: Kerr has been quoted prior to this as saying he had NEVER spoken with the Hawks about the deal.)

“All of these reports of blockbuster trades involving us are so far-fetched; I’ve chosen not to comment on them,” Kerr said. “Most of them are complete nonsense, and those with a kernel of accuracy aren’t even close.

“But when you hear that we were taking about trading Amaré … wherever that came from, it’s totally wrong.”

---

[Sothron]

What I found interesting is that Kerr is already going back on his own quotes within a 24 hour period. First he never talked to the Hawks then he did talk to the Hawks? Which is it?

Our ownership situation is giving me pause. I can see them throwing Belkin under the bus if the owners that wanted Yi for Chinese $$$ convinced the others at zero hour to change their mind about trusting Knight with trades or drafting Horford. Belkin makes an easy scapegoat.

Note this is just my two cents not something relayed to me.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Atlanta media that the framework for a Stoudemire deal was vetoed by management because it would put the Hawks over the salary cap.

Blame landed on a name familiar to Suns fans: former Hawks majority owner Steve Belkin. Still embroiled in a lawsuit to regain control from his former business partners that dates back to the controversial Johnson trade in the summer of 2005,

Belkin retains the right to halt any deal that exceeds the cap.

---

The only way this deal can exceed the cap is if it is because of Amare's BYC status. And that expires next month.

If Belkin can only veto deals that put the Hawks over the cap then it seems like that would be an easy problem to overcome. Just wait a few days and send more salary as part of the deal.

[Sothron]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Atlanta media that the framework for a Stoudemire deal was vetoed by management because it would put the Hawks over the salary cap.

Blame landed on a name familiar to Suns fans: former Hawks majority owner Steve Belkin. Still embroiled in a lawsuit to regain control from his former business partners that dates back to the controversial Johnson trade in the summer of 2005,

Belkin retains the right to halt any deal that exceeds the cap.

---

The only way this deal can exceed the cap is if it is because of Amare's BYC status. And that expires next month.

If Belkin can only veto deals that put the Hawks over the cap then it seems like that would be an easy problem to overcome. Just wait a few days and send more salary as part of the deal.

---

That is what I said last night when that story first came out. Why would they risk a veto on the 28th when on July 1st it becomes a non issue as to rather or not Belkin approved it?

[Boondocks]

Isn't Belkin allowed a say in trades that

a) exceed the cap AND

b) are larger then the MLE (4-5 million)

so a) is not applicable to these rumors but b) is

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Kerr said he had a grand total of one conversation with the Hawks about a trade, and Stoudemire was never part of the conversation.

(ASIDE: Kerr has been quoted prior to this as saying he had NEVER spoken with the Hawks about the deal.)

---

Kerr would still be telling the truth under this scenario, since he may have talked about A deal, just not this deal or any deal involving Amare.

W

[Sothron]

The only thing I remember he could veto was trades over four years in length and if it exceeded the salary cap. If we did trade for Amare and waited until July 1st to make it official then we would neither be over the cap or be trading for a contract with more than four years in length.

Which is why my sources, FWIW, told me earlier this week that we might be drafting other team's players and it might not be until after the draft that we could officially do something.

[sturt]

"Hello, Joe?"

"Yeah?"

"This is Amare."

"Hey, Amare, what's shakin?"

"Wow, too much... I guess you've heard the rumors that I've been hearing."

"Yeah. Really exciting to think we might play together again. I think next year is our year, Stoud, I really do."

"Well, that's why I'm calling, Joe. See, I'm not interested in playing for your guys. I thought I'd call and tell you that, so that maybe you could get 'em to drop it."

"Really?"

"Yeah. I really don't wanna go there, okay?"

........

Is this or anything close to it within reason???

Can't see that one.