Nice One On Duncan:How refreshing: A superstar who chooses winning over money

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn...ic.php?t=30128

How refreshing: A superstar who chooses winning over money

Stan McNeal
Sporting News

Two differences between baseball's best player and the NBA's best player: Alex Rodriguez says show me the money. Tim Duncan says show someone else the money. A-Rod says he wants to win. Duncan does win.

This isn't meant to rip on A-Rod. Well, maybe a little. Mostly, this is to show that when a special player such as Duncan hooks up with a special coach such as Gregg Popovich, the special times can last for a long, long time.

The day after A-Rod, 32, opted out on the final three years and $80 million on his contract, Duncan, 31, also made news (albeit more quietly) by agreeing to a two-year extension that will keep him with the Spurs for the next five years. Oh yeah, he also accepted about $10 million less than he could have demanded -- and certainly would have gotten -- to give the Spurs payroll flexibility. Granted, with him pulling in an average annual salary of $20 million, no one in the next 10 generations of Duncans is likely to go hungry. But in an era notorious for greed that extends far beyond A-Rod, Duncan's gesture was as rare as harmony on the Lakers.

Duncan didn't just say he cares about winning more than he cares about megamillions. He actually did something about it. Accepting less money ensures, as he says, that "in the latter years of my career, I can have a team around me that I'll want to be on."

Duncan shrugs off his decision so casually you almost wonder if the Spurs had to convince him to take as much money as he did. Well, don't. "He's not foolish," Popovich says. "He didn't want to be treated like a pauper, and he didn't want to break the bank. But we're very lucky -- we know that."

They're very successful, too. Thanks to their franchise player and coach, the Spurs are the front-runners to become the most dominant franchise in American pro sports this decade. They have won three championships in the past five seasons and should be in contention for the next five. The Spurs returned every player on their roster from last year's Finals, and their big three -- Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili -- are the healthiest they've been in years.

"Our smoothest training camp. It was like grease," Popovich says. Adds Duncan -- and remember, the Spurs are as stingy with compliments as they are with open looks for opponents: "There's a comfort level that hasn't been there following some championship years."

With so much in their favor, the Spurs could make noise about winning consecutive championships for the first time. But that's not something that concerns Popovich. "I'm not very impressed with repeating," he says. "If we don't repeat, I'm going to live a fine life. You'll never hear me say, 'Gosh. I wish we would have repeated.' "

So the Spurs will go about their business as usual. They will use the early part of the season to see what bench players such as point guard Darius Washington and forward Matt Bonner can contribute. They will introduce a few wrinkles to their motion offense. They will make sure their regulars don't pile up heavy minutes.

They also will do their best to avoid the spotlight. The Spurs express no disappointment that the Suns again are the trendy pick to win the title. Instead, they say stuff like this, from Brent Barry: "We're so boring. We get maybe one dunk a month, and that usually happens in practice. Phoenix will run more fast breaks in the first quarter than we're going to get in a month."

At their best, the Spurs do fast-break and play a pretty brand of team basketball on both ends of the floor. At their worst, they still play like they have a clue. "They don't spend a lot of time thinking about if something will work," Grizzlies coach Marc Iavaroni says. "They know it will work. They've seen it work. A newcomer comes in, he's given a role and told to just do his job."

And if he wants to be part of something special, he listens.

Good article.

:thumbsup

beat me to it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inagra

beat me to it

---

I'll take that as a compliment.
You're some tough competition! :spin

This article is a stretch.

Duncan is one the highest paid players in the league and will continue to be one with his newest contract.

How is this "pay cut" any different than the one Shaq took last year (or was it two years ago)?

When guys are criticized for taking money over winning, 20 million a year is usually MUCH more than theyre even asking for. We're suppose to applaud Duncan for having his cake and eating it too?

Grant Hill is a much better example of a player taking a pay cut so that he can play for a winning team.

and the hate continues....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

This article is a stretch.

Duncan is one the highest paid players in the league and will continue to be one with his newest contract.

How is this "pay cut" any different than the one Shaq took last year (or was it two years ago)?

When guys are criticized for taking money over winning, 20 million a year is usually MUCH more than theyre even asking for. We're suppose to applaud Duncan for having his cake and eating it too?

Grant Hill is a much better example of a player taking a pay cut so that he can play for a winning team.

---

Grant Hill is on his last legs and trying to ride the curtails to play for a winning team. You probably picked the worst example to make your "point." :lol Grant Hill was getting paid MAX money back in Detroit and early Orlando for sitting away entire seasons due to his injuries.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Grant Hill is a much better example of a player taking a pay cut so that he can play for a winning team.

---

The difference is Tim Duncan is ALREADY playing for a winning team.
And a Multi-Championship winning team at that.

Duncan did not take a pay cut so HE could join a winning team.
Duncan took a pay cut so someone ELSE could join a winning team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1Parker1

Grant Hill is on his last legs and trying to ride the curtails to play for a winning team. You probably picked the worst example to make your "point." :lol Grant Hill was getting paid MAX money back in Detroit and early Orlando for sitting away entire seasons due to his injuries.......

---

:lol Ditto. Grant Hill was a terrible example.

no one in their right mind chooses anything over CASH. Duncan still gets another $20 mil every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1Parker1

Grant Hill is on his last legs and trying to ride the curtails to play for a winning team. You probably picked the worst example to make your "point." :lol Grant Hill was getting paid MAX money back in Detroit and early Orlando for sitting away entire seasons due to his injuries.......

---

What the hell is a curtail?

And Grant Hill took the league minimum to play for a winning team (when he was being offered the full MLE to play elsewhere).

Tim Duncan took a small pay cut to help keep the Spurs competitive, but he's still making crazy money. Duncan just found that he could have his cake and eat it too. There's nothing that he can do 23 million a year that he can't do with 20 million. Spurs should say "thank you", but this article is way over the top with its praise of the "selfless" Duncan.

Grant Hill is a much better example of someone who chose winning over money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

What the hell is a curtail?

And Grant Hill took the league minimum to play for a winning team (when he was being offered the full MLE to play elsewhere).

Tim Duncan took a small pay cut to help keep the Spurs competitive, but he's still making crazy money. Duncan just found that he could have his cake and eat it too. There's nothing that he can do 23 million a year that he can't do with 20 million. Spurs should say "thank you", but this article is way over the top with its praise of the "selfless" Duncan.

Grant Hill is a much better example of someone who chose winning over money.

---

Nah, you're right, dude. Duncan's really a complete asshole, but we have to pretend to like him or he'll shoot us, kind of like Voldemort. Shit, now I have to move.

(edited for bitchiness)

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

What the hell is a curtail?

And Grant Hill took the league minimum to play for a winning team (when he was being offered the full MLE to play elsewhere).

Tim Duncan took a small pay cut to help keep the Spurs competitive, but he's still making crazy money. Duncan just found that he could have his cake and eat it too. There's nothing that he can do 23 million a year that he can't do with 20 million. Spurs should say "thank you", but this article is way over the top with its praise of the "selfless" Duncan.

Grant Hill is a much better example of someone who chose winning over money.

---

Oh really? I didn't see Grant having a problem taking money from the Pistons and the Magic. I love Grant, but clearly the Magic didn't get any return on their investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDS4

Oh really? I didn't see Grant having a problem taking money from the Pistons and the Magic. I love Grant, but clearly the Magic didn't get any return on their investment.

---

Yep, and Duncan accepted a max contract (not a penny less) from the Spurs before as well.

Game. Set. Match.

I think your Duncan/Hill comparison is forgetting one fact:

Duncan has EARNED every penny of a max deal. He EARNED another max extension. The Spurs even said that if he asked, he would have gotten a max extension. Any team in the league would have paid that amount plus for even an aging Tim Duncan. Duncan took less money than his market value.

Hill earned 1/16th of his Orlando deal. Only a few teams were interested in Hill, and most of them were only offering the vet minimum. Hill took his market value for a free agent coming to a contender.

How can you honestly compare the two? If the Suns gave Hill a contract for 10 mil, and he said he'll take 7, that's a valid comparison. Hill was only offered the minimum. That simple.

Hill took 90 mil from Orlando and didn't do SHIT!

hahaha

Weaksauce.

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Yep, and Duncan accepted a max contract (not a penny less) from the Spurs before as well.

Game. Set. Match.

---

But Duncan lived up to his contract. Hill didn't.
Game. Set. Match.

Please someone tell me.....What is it with Suns fan? Is it the dry heat?
your examples are as pathetic as your team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

What the hell is a curtail?

And Grant Hill took the league minimum to play for a winning team (when he was being offered the full MLE to play elsewhere).

Tim Duncan took a small pay cut to help keep the Spurs competitive, but he's still making crazy money. Duncan just found that he could have his cake and eat it too. There's nothing that he can do 23 million a year that he can't do with 20 million. Spurs should say "thank you", but this article is way over the top with its praise of the "selfless" Duncan.

Grant Hill is a much better example of someone who chose winning over money.

---

He was getting minimal offers from other teams. Stop treating Hill like he still warrants a max contract.

Quote:

---

We're so boring. We get maybe one dunk a month, and that usually happens in practice. Phoenix will run more fast breaks in the first quarter than we're going to get in a month."

---

HA

LMAO!

Do you all realize that buy arguing that Duncan shouldn't have take as big a pay cut that you inherently lose this argument?

First of all, lets educate you morons with some facts:

Quote:

---

Despite the fact that the Phoenix Suns and San Antonio Spurs are offering only the veteran minimum salary for next season to Grant Hill, reports are that Hill is almost guaranteed to join the Suns.

Detroit, Toronto and Orlando will reportedly be making substanitally higher offers to Hill, but early word around the league is that he wants to join the Suns for $1.2 million. If the Suns can get Hill in the desert at such a low cost, it could end up being a move that rewards both Hill and the Suns with the NBA title they've been looking for.

---

So Hill took substantially less money because he wanted to win.

How well each respective player EARNED their last contract is irrelevant. Who made the bigger sacrifice to play for a winner?

Your collective argument is just sad. Duncan took a small pay cut that still puts him in the top ten salary wise. Hill took around 20% of what he was being offered to play for the Suns because he wanted to win.

If you want to say that Duncan shouldn't have to make as big of a sacrifice since he's earned every penny, thats fine. What you fail to realize is thats not what this article is saying. Don't tell me that he's doing this incredibly noble thing by taking 20 million instead of 23.

I don't know why I even bother. Texans can't even seem to understand the simplest forms of logic. Maybe you guys should just forget about professional sports and just stick to rodeos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

So Hill took substantially less money because he wanted to win.

---

Well, by wanting to win, he just lost. The way the Suns organization is treating Hill's playing time, his career will be probably be over in 2 months time.

Educate us "morons"? I think it is you who failed to understand what the article is all about. Memo: It is about a certain individual who had won championships, who had solidified a franchise, who had his contract extended and took a paycut so someone like Grant Hill can have the opportunity to win another championship with him.

The article is not about a former superstar, with no championship resume who is willing to take a paycut just to win.

Dumb ass.

Thanks for the article Duncan228, good article.

And for all the arguing , I think that Duncan is Selfish in a GOOD way. He cares more about himself winning later in his career than if he has another 10 mil in the bank. More about he and his TEAM’S standing as an all-time NBA great, than some bling he can wear around his neck or a couple of Bentleys in the garage. He is being selfish...only in a respectable way, and for the “right” reasons.

It is just a matter of what you want as a person in life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

LMAO!

Do you all realize that buy arguing that Duncan shouldn't have take as big a pay cut that you inherently lose this argument?

First of all, lets educate you morons with some facts:



So Hill took substantially less money because he wanted to win.

How well each respective player EARNED their last contract is irrelevant. Who made the bigger sacrifice to play for a winner?

Your collective argument is just sad. Duncan took a small pay cut that still puts him in the top ten salary wise. Hill took around 20% of what he was being offered to play for the Suns because he wanted to win.

If you want to say that Duncan shouldn't have to make as big of a sacrifice since he's earned every penny, thats fine. What you fail to realize is thats not what this article is saying. Don't tell me that he's doing this incredibly noble thing by taking 20 million instead of 23.

I don't know why I even bother. Texans can't even seem to understand the simplest forms of logic. Maybe you guys should just forget about professional sports and just stick to rodeos.

---

I don't know why I'm even bothering, but where are you getting your numbers from?

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns...04suns-ON.html

Quote:

---

Other teams could offer Hill more but have not seemed willing to use most or all of the mid-level exception (about $5.5 million) for him.

---

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2926650

Quote:

---

Hill has agreed in principle to a two-year deal -- known as a bi-annual exception -- for $1.8 million this season and almost $2 million in 2008-09 at the player's option

---

If he wanted to join the Suns for 1.2 million, why'd he sign for 1.8 and 2 million? Stop pulling numbers out of your ass.

Look, the first thing I thought when I read the title of the thread was "Well Shaq did the same thing a few years back," but that doesn't mean it's not a great move for the franchise. And like 1Parker1 said, Hill is a horrible example for you to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sprrs

I don't know why I'm even bothering, but where are you getting your numbers from?

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns...04suns-ON.html



http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2926650



If he wanted to join the Suns for 1.2 million, why'd he sign for 1.8 and 2 million? Stop pulling numbers out of your ass.

Look, the first thing I thought when I read the title of the thread was "Well Shaq did the same thing a few years back," but that doesn't mean it's not a great move for the franchise. And like 1Parker1 said, Hill is a horrible example for you to use.

---

So were arguing whether Hill took an 80 or 70% paycut?

Either way, its still far and away greater than what Duncan took (which was pretty small).

Nice try junior. You suck at this as well.

Hill didn't take a paycut, he got paid what he is worth. Duncan took a paycut because he was worth another 10 million on his new contract, but didn't take it for reasons already discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

So were arguing whether Hill took an 80 or 70% paycut?

Either way, its still far and away greater than what Duncan took (which was pretty small).

Nice try junior. You suck at this as well.

---

I'm arguing that you're pulling numbers out of your ass there Skipper. Find me a link where it says that anyone offered him the full MLE, which is what you seem to think. I found evidence to the contrary.

Also, since you're obviously not capable of doing the math...assuming he did get an offer for the MLE, 5Million - 2Million is 3 million...exactly the amount that Duncan gave up. You have no argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sprrs

I'm arguing that you're pulling numbers out of your ass there Skipper. Find me a link where it says that anyone offered him the full MLE, which is what you seem to think. I found evidence to the contrary.

Also, since you're obviously not capable of doing the math...assuming he did get an offer for the MLE, 5Million - 2Million is 3 million...exactly the amount that Duncan gave up. You have no argument.

---

This is why you suck:

The full MLE is around 5.5 million in the first year (with I believe 10% increments ever year).

Grant Hill will make 1.8 million this year.

1.8/5.5=.32

Or 32% of what he was being offered (by both Orlando AND Toronto).

Duncan was offered 23 million. He settled for 20.

20/23 = .869

Or 87% of what he was being offered.

I can't believe Im actually taking the time to type this.

ARE YOU PROUD SPURS FANS? THIS GUY SAYS THEY MADE THE SAME SACRIFICE BECAUSE THEY BOTH TOOK A 3 MILLION DOLLAR PAY CUT. FORGET THE FACT THAT DUNCAN IS MAKING OVER TEN TIMES AS MUCH AS HILL!!

Youre a freaking IDIOT!!! Just go to bed and stop embarrasing your state.

so hill lost a million and duncan lost 10 million, big difference

im sure hill would had taken a max contract if he was as good as duncan

duncan one of the best to ever play in the nba

hill a piece of shit just like the sun's fans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

This is why you suck:

The full MLE is around 5.5 million in the first year (with I believe 10% increments ever year).

Grant Hill will make 1.8 million this year.

1.8/5.5=.32

Or 32% of what he was being offered (by both Orlando AND Toronto).

Duncan was offered 23 million. He settled for 20.

20/23 = .869

Or 87% of what he was being offered.

I can't believe Im actually taking the time to type this.

ARE YOU PROUD SPURS FANS? THIS GUY SAYS THEY MADE THE SAME SACRIFICE BECAUSE THEY BOTH TOOK A 3 MILLION DOLLAR PAY CUT. FORGET THE FACT THAT DUNCAN IS MAKING OVER TEN TIMES AS MUCH AS HILL!!

Youre a freaking IDIOT!!! Just go to bed and stop embarrasing your state.

---

You're arguing percentages? Please. I SINCERELY doubt that if Hill was being offered 20 million by the Suns he would still only take two million. You're a moron if you really think that.

da suns fan, you quote in a previous post:

Detroit, Toronto and Orlando will reportedly be making substanitally higher offers to Hill, but early word around the league is that he wants to join the Suns for $1.2 million.

Your numbers in your argument are correct, but where do you get off saying those teams would give Hill 5.5 million. You quote an article that says "substanitally higher" but that doesn't mean 5.5 mil. Maybe 3 mil. so 1.8/3=60%

U can't say what Detroit, Orlando or Toronto would offer because you are not their GM (unless you have an article that says what they would have offered, which maybe you do).

Remember, this thread is about Duncan and the Spurs, not Hill and the Suns.

LOL man this is the biggest tool i have ever seen.... what a completely uneducated moron

he's a suns fan, what else would u expect?

how can u use hills contract as an excuse when he robbed the magic franchise....by sitting on the bench and accepting to retire so his contract can get off the books

the Suns is a winning team? wait, until early-May, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RussN

da suns fan, you quote in a previous post:

Detroit, Toronto and Orlando will reportedly be making substanitally higher offers to Hill, but early word around the league is that he wants to join the Suns for $1.2 million.

Your numbers in your argument are correct, but where do you get off saying those teams would give Hill 5.5 million. You quote an article that says "substanitally higher" but that doesn't mean 5.5 mil. Maybe 3 mil. so 1.8/3=60%

U can't say what Detroit, Orlando or Toronto would offer because you are not their GM (unless you have an article that says what they would have offered, which maybe you do).

Remember, this thread is about Duncan and the Spurs, not Hill and the Suns.

---

Regardless of how close to the MLE Hill was offered, he still took substantially less money to play for a winner.

Ive won this argument, time to move on.

LOL, you won jack shit in this discussion, exactly like your fav. team. :lol

Comparing a franchise player who decided to take less money for the sake of winning against a coattail player -who's even a damaged good with the injury background- trying to salvage his tarnished image as a max paid player who had never been able to deliver, is just completely MORONIC, if not even worse. No matter what the percentage says, simply because it's apple vs orange -a rotten one- comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursIndonesia

LOL, you won jack shit in this discussion, exactly like your fav. team. :lol

Comparing a franchise player who decided to take less money for the sake of winning against a coattail player -who's even a damaged good with the injury background- trying to salvage his tarnished image as a max paid player who had never been able to deliver, is just completely MORONIC, if not even worse. No matter what the percentage says, simply because it's apple vs orange -a rotten one- comparison.

---

He is delusional. :lol

da_suns_fans_ reply in 3... 2... 1...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Regardless of how close to the MLE Hill was offered, he still took substantially less money to play for a winner.

Ive won this argument, time to move on.

---

You still don't get it don't you? Duncan has been a Spur since he joined the NBA, he is worth a max-contract but he took 11 million less money in order to help the Spurs signing new players. Grant Hill took less money than offered (nobody denies that) to join a team where he thinks he has the best chance to win a ring. If Marion or Stoudemire take less money than they already make you'd have a legit arguement. You're fixed on Grant Hill, but with mentioning him you'd also take Michael Finley, Chris Webber or other Veterans who signed for the minimum with contenders into account. Fact is, Duncan earned his praise by accepting less money than he makes now on a team he is already on. That's unique, and that's why the media loves him. And by the way, taking the amnesty contracts into account Duncan isn't in the top 10 of highest player salaries anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Regardless of how close to the MLE Hill was offered, he still took substantially less money to play for a winner.

Ive won this argument, time to move on.

---

You did not "win", you can't even prove the basis of your argument. In case you forgot what your argument was, it was that he was going to get paid 5.5 million. Until you find a legit article that says that one of the teams above was going to give him 5.5 million, you haven't won anything, and your making yourself look stupid.

Your game Swallowing the Spurs is pretty damn funny though, I'll give you credit for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eisfeld

You still don't get it don't you? Duncan has been a Spur since he joined the NBA, he is worth a max-contract but he took 11 million less money in order to help the Spurs signing new players. Grant Hill took less money than offered (nobody denies that) to join a team where he thinks he has the best chance to win a ring. If Marion or Stoudemire take less money than they already make you'd have a legit arguement. You're fixed on Grant Hill, but with mentioning him you'd also take Michael Finley, Chris Webber or other Veterans who signed for the minimum with contenders into account. Fact is, Duncan earned his praise by accepting less money than he makes now on a team he is already on. That's unique, and that's why the media loves him. And by the way, taking the amnesty contracts into account Duncan isn't in the top 10 of highest player salaries anymore.

---

Best points of the whole thread....

:tu

If Nashty is up for an extension and takes less money to keep the Suns flexibility in future seasons....then you have an argument.

Granted, Duncan has made a TON of money and will continue to do so....but he left a considerable amount ($11M) of money on the table because he trusted the Spurs to translate those savings into more championships.

Bottom Line: Taking less money showed his committment to the best franchise in all of sports and to the fans of San Antonio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PHAT TONY

Best points of the whole thread....

:tu

If Nashty is up for an extension and takes less money to keep the Suns flexibility in future seasons....then you have an argument.

Granted, Duncan has made a TON of money and will continue to do so....but he left a considerable amount ($11M) of money on the table because he trusted the Spurs to translate those savings into more championships.

Bottom Line: Taking less money showed his committment to the best franchise in all of sports and to the fans of San Antonio.

---

You Texans just don't get it.

Here's a better analogy.

Britney Spears just released her monthly earnings and spendings for her custody hearing.

She makes 700K a month. She gives 500 dollars a month to charitable purposes.

Are we suppose to applaud Britney for giving $500?

Of course not. And while Duncan's decision was good for the Spurs, this article is way over the top.

Finley is another terrible example. He's still getting paid 20 million from Dallas. The difference between the MLE (which he was being offered by Miami) and what he's getting paid San Antonio is grossly overshadowed by what he's getting from Dallas.

Grant Hill is making 1.8 million. Thats it. He could have had 3 times that much, but he decided he would rather play with a winner.

Im not saying Tim Duncan doesn't deserve his contract or even the 23 million that he was initially asking for, Im just saying that his acceptance of 20 million is hardly "refreshing" when other players (like Grant Hill) have made larger sacrifices because they wanted to win.

I hope that clears it up. If not, then there's no hope for ya.

Some is trying to say Grant Hill sacrificed money after getting paid several tens of millions of dollars to NOT play basketball?

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__

Grant Hill is making 1.8 million. Thats it. He could have had 3 times that much, but he decided he would rather play with a winner.

...when other players (like Grant Hill) have made larger sacrifices because they wanted to win.

I hope that clears it up. If not, then there's no hope for ya.

---

Bull. What larger sacrifices? Tell that to those teams who overpaid him sitting on their benches.

By the way, your analogy using Britney Spears is terrible.

Nice article on Duncan. The obvious comparison is with Kobme moreso then A-Rod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duncan228

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn...ic.php?t=30128With so much in their favor, the Spurs could make noise about winning consecutive championships for the first time. But that's not something that concerns Popovich. "I'm not very impressed with repeating," he says. "If we don't repeat, I'm going to live a fine life. You'll never hear me say, 'Gosh. I wish we would have repeated.' "

---

Disturbing. Is this one of CIA Poops headgames or does he really have no passion for a repeat?

How much money did Grant Hill give back to Orlando for playing only 200 out of 492 games?

Where is that article stating how much the other teams were going to pay Hill, da suns fan?????? Can't find one can ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RussN

Where is that article stating how much the other teams were going to pay Hill, da suns fan?????? Can't find one can ya.

---

Suns fan is bad with using actual sources to back up his "facts"