Grant Hill Reportedly Leaning Toward Knicks

[ASUCHRIS]

I don't think Nash and Hill's drive to win can be questioned. If they want to do that for the Suns, that is their prerogative. They can play their best for the Suns and try and make them a winner. A trade cannot assure them a championship. Sometimes there is more to life.

C'mon Mainstreet, these sentiments are sweet, but you know the Suns are not one of the teams with a roster to compete for a championship. Grant Hill is free and clear, and had the chance to latch on to any number of championship contenders. Instead, both he and Nash decided they'd rather collect a paycheck in AZ where they have zero chance at winning a championship. I don't know how you can argue that.

 

[PetryJr]

Why would you get slammed for it? It's obvious that they're nearing the end of their careers, and both have chosen to avoid a situation where they have any chance of winning a championship. I don't know what other conclusion can be drawn.

That winning it all doesn't define a player's career? That there's more to a career than simply "chasing a championship"? In Grant Hill's case, that there's more to life than basketball? He loves living in Phoenix, doesn't want to uproot his family or spend a year far from it.

I give both of them credit. Hill has been through a lot. He decided being healthy (and the Suns' staff is very important in that regard) and having fun playing basketball is more important than winning at all costs. I can definitely respect that. And Nash has decided that, if he signed a contract, he should honor it and do the best with what he has to work with, instead of "demanding" things like most players like to do.

 

[Mainstreet]

either their drive to win can be questioned or their ego's can because anyone not blinded by incredible ego can see this team ain't winning jack squat. and yes, there is more to life than basketball for some guys... just not the guy's who usually win championships, because that's ALL they want. and if that's the case, fine, but it does speak to their drive to win.

We just don't agree that winning a championship is everything. Being a winner can be just going out every night and giving it your all. I respect players who have loyalty to a team which is all so rare in today's NBA.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I really don't get Hill and Nash. Where is their ultimate drive to WIN? Do they really just like playing fun basketball where the two of them can be top-dogs of a poopy team? I gotta tell you... and i know I'm gonna get slammed for this... but it kinda makes me think a little less of them as competitors.

I'm on the opposite side of the fence on this one. I think it might be more of a generational thing although I'm sure you're much closer to their age than mine. For many of my generation, leaving the Suns in order to ride the coattails of someone else in order to get a ring is like buying trophies at a swap meet and then putting them on display in your study.

Steve

 

[Mainstreet]

C'mon Mainstreet, these sentiments are sweet, but you know the Suns are not one of the teams with a roster to compete for a championship. Grant Hill is free and clear, and had the chance to latch on to any number of championship contenders. Instead, both he and Nash decided they'd rather collect a paycheck in AZ where they have zero chance at winning a championship. I don't know how you can argue that.

A winner can be someone who does not quit and plays hard every night in my book. Sure I want a championship as much as everybody else but I am not going to become a fan of another team to get it. I think the same applies to some players if the compensation is near equal and they like where they are at.

 

[JS22]

Looks like Hill is staying according to Gambo & Burns. (Which probably means Nash is, too.)

Board meltdown in 5....4........

 

[Cheesebeef]

That winning it all doesn't define a player's career? That there's more to a career than simply "chasing a championship"? In Grant Hill's case, that there's more to life than basketball? He loves living in Phoenix, doesn't want to uproot his family or spend a year far from it.

right... in other words their will to win isn't as great as most guys who will do anything to win a title. you're making our point for us.

I give both of them credit. Hill has been through a lot. He decided being healthy (and the Suns' staff is very important in that regard) and having fun playing basketball is more important than winning at all costs.

again, proving my point. they've decided to have fun rather than win... thus I question them as competitors at the highest level.
I can definitely respect that. And Nash has decided that, if he signed a contract, he should honor it and do the best with what he has to work with, instead of "demanding" things like most players like to do.[/QUOTE]

 

[Cheesebeef]

We just don't agree that winning a championship is everything. Being a winner can be just going out every night and giving it your all. I respect players who have loyalty to a team which is all so rare in today's NBA.

I never said they weren't winners... i just question them as ultimate competitors and when you choose to play on terrible teams because it's "fun", I don't really see how that can be argued. Guys who are the ultimate competitors eat, sleep and breathe everything it takes to win a title. these guys haven't done that.

 

[PetryJr]

right... in other words their will to win isn't as great as most guys who will do anything to win a title. you're making our point for us.



again, proving my point. they've decided to have fun rather than win... thus I question them as competitors at the highest level.

"Will to win" is relative. When they're playing, their "will to win" can't be questioned. They just don't want to win at ANY cost. And most people are like that.

For Kobe, who is said to be the most competitive guy in the NBA, winning just wasn't enough. He had to be the man. Was he lacking "will to win" when he didn't want Shaq in LA?

If winning at all costs was all that mattered, no 12th man on a title team would change teams.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I'm on the opposite side of the fence on this one. I think it might be more of a generational thing although I'm sure you're much closer to their age than mine. For many of my generation, leaving the Suns in order to ride the coattails of someone else in order to get a ring is like buying trophies at a swap meet and then putting them on display in your study.

Steve

See I can buy that argument for guys like Payton and Malone, among other Smeagols that are well past their prime and only latching on to get that elusive ring.

The difference with guys like Nash and Hill is that both are still playing at a very high level, and would be good starters and legitimate pieces to winning a championship, not bench guys that are just "riding coattails". Totally different story.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

A winner can be someone who does not quit and plays hard every night in my book. Sure I want a championship as much as everybody else but I am not going to become a fan of another team to get it. I think the same applies to some players if the compensation is near equal and they like where they are at.

Loyalty as a fan and loyalty as a player is not comparable.

 

[Cheesebeef]

"Will to win" is relative. When they're playing, their "will to win" can't be questioned. They just don't want to win at ANY cost. And most people are like that.

right... just not all-time great champions. That's what I'm saying about those guys. They're great players and winners, but them being happy with being top-dog on poopy teams and never creating waves is probably a contributing factor that's kept them from winning titles. Note, not THE contributing factor, but one of them. To win titles, it's got to be everything to you (or you just have to have ridiculous talent like Shaq). Otherwise, the all-time greats did whatever they could to win, whether that was getting into fights with management, each other's players, forcing moves, whatever it is.

 

[Mainstreet]

Loyalty as a fan and loyalty as a player is not comparable.

So a player cannot be loyal to a team if all things are otherwise equal? Those days seem to be long gone but I think it lives on somewhere. Remember Nash wanted to stay with the Mavericks if Cuban had matched the Suns offer. Even then I respected Nash's loyalty.

 

[PetryJr]

right... just not all-time great champions. That's what I'm saying about those guys. They're great players and winners, but them being happy with being top-dog on poopy teams and never creating waves is probably a contributing factor that's kept them from winning titles. Note, not THE contributing factor, but one of them. To win titles, it's got to be everything to you (or you just have to have ridiculous talent like Shaq). Otherwise, the all-time greats did whatever they could to win, whether that was getting into fights with management, each other's players, forcing moves, whatever it is.

I'm not getting into totally subjective concepts like "all-time greats". I think Nash and Hill are just as competitive as everybody else, but winning a title doesn't make or break their lives. Good for them. I think Dirk is just like them, by the way, and he still willed his team to a title. If that means he's not an "all-time great", fine. I'd take his "less than all-time great will to win" on my team over almost anyone.

 

[Cheesebeef]

So a player cannot be loyal to a team if all things are otherwise equal? Those days seem to be long gone but I think it lives on somewhere. Remember Nash wanted to stay with the Mavericks if Cuban had matched the Suns offer. Even then I respected Nash's loyalty.

I gotta be honest... respecting a guy who loyal to someone who continually spits in their face isn't an altogether admirable quality. I can't imagine why Nash has been loyal to Sarver when Sarver's undercut his chance at championships continually. Part of me thinks that Nash might be too egotistical to take a position on another team where the Sun doesn't revolve around him and that's why he stays here. He gets paid a buttload of money and everything is geared toward him... even if that means he plays on a mediocre team.

that wouldn't happen anywhere else.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

. He decided being healthy (and the Suns' staff is very important in that regard) and having fun playing basketball is more important than winning at all costs. I can definitely respect that. And Nash has decided that, if he signed a contract, he should honor it and do the best with what he has to work with, instead of "demanding" things like most players like to do.

And that is all well and good, I don't begrudge either of them for the decisions they made. That being said, it says something about their competitive nature, especially Hill.

 

[Mainstreet]

right... just not all-time great champions. That's what I'm saying about those guys. They're great players and winners, but them being happy with being top-dog on poopy teams and never creating waves is probably a contributing factor that's kept them from winning titles. Note, not THE contributing factor, but one of them. To win titles, it's got to be everything to you (or you just have to have ridiculous talent like Shaq). Otherwise, the all-time greats did whatever they could to win, whether that was getting into fights with management, each other's players, forcing moves, whatever it is.

Sometimes it is not in the cards. Winning a championship at any cost is not something I believe in nor does it always work.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I'm not getting into totally subjective concepts like "all-time greats". I think Nash and Hill are just as competitive as everybody else, but winning a title doesn't make or break their lives.

yes, but there ARE players out there who winning a title will make or break them and there have been throughout NBA history, right? That alone means they're not as competitive as everyone else. not sure how you keep arguing this. i mean... you're contradicting yourself in the above unless you're going to tell me there aren't players out there who winning a title is all that matters.

 

[PetryJr]

I gotta be honest... respecting a guy who loyal to someone who continually spits in their face isn't an altogether admirable quality. I can't imagine why Nash has been loyal to Sarver when Sarver's undercut his chance at championships continually. Part of me thinks that Nash might be too egotistical to take a position on another team where the Sun doesn't revolve around him and that's why he stays here. He gets paid a buttload of money and everything is geared toward him... even if that means he plays on a mediocre team.

that wouldn't happen anywhere else.

It's not about being loyal to Sarver. It's about being loyal to the fans, the community and to the fact that HE SIGNED A CONTRACT and it's his job to honor it.

And yeah, Nash and egotistical go hand in hand.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

So a player cannot be loyal to a team if all things are otherwise equal? Those days seem to be long gone but I think it lives on somewhere.

A sweet sentiment, but loyalty is a two way street. It's no secret that Nash doesn't have a ton of time left in the league, and Sarver made many choices along the way to ensure that he would never have a chance to win a championship with the Suns. It's not an issue of loyalty, it's an issue of goals. Nash should have far different priorities than Sarver who has screwed him out of any chance of winning a championship.

Remember Nash wanted to stay with the Mavericks if Cuban had matched the Suns offer. Even then I respected Nash's loyalty.

Totally different situation, the Mavs at the time were still a good team that with a couple additions could have at least made the argument they were trying to win a championship.

 

[PetryJr]

yes, but there ARE players out there who winning a title will make or break them and there have been throughout NBA history, right? That alone means they're not as competitive as everyone else. not sure how you keep arguing this. i mean... you're contradicting yourself in the above unless you're going to tell me there aren't players out there who winning a title is all that matters.

I just have a different idea of competitiveness, one that doesn't require being a jerk or a primadonna. If that's your idea of competitiveness, doing ANYTHING to win, well, ok, no need to argue with you. We just have very different concepts. NO PLAYER does anything to win. Some players are willing to do more than others. That does not necessarily mean they are more competitive, in my book.

Being competitve means being willing and intent on competing, no matter if it's for a title or for the playoffs. When Nash and Hill are on the floor, there's no question they compete.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I just have a different idea of competitiveness, one that doesn't require being a jerk or a primadonna. Being competitve means being willing and intent on competing, no matter if it's for a title or for the playoffs. When Nash and Hill are on the floor, there's no question they compete.

Can we at least agree there are levels of competitiveness? I believe both Nash and Hill are competitive, but to a degree. Both have the opportunity to put themselves in a situation where they can legitimately compete for a championship, and they choose not to. I don't know how you can argue this.

I don't know how Hill would be a "jerk" or "primadonna" to go start on a title contender. I can't imagine anything more exciting than competing on a title contender. I know, I know, family etc, but if Grant retires next year, he'll have an opportunity to spend far more time than any normal person with his family. One year to try and achieve the goal that every professional athlete should aspire to. Instead, he signs a deal to stay where he's comfortable. I think one day he'll regret it.

 

[Mainstreet]

I gotta be honest... respecting a guy who loyal to someone who continually spits in their face isn't an altogether admirable quality. I can't imagine why Nash has been loyal to Sarver when Sarver's undercut his chance at championships continually. Part of me thinks that Nash might be too egotistical to take a position on another team where the Sun doesn't revolve around him and that's why he stays here. He gets paid a buttload of money and everything is geared toward him... even if that means he plays on a mediocre team.

that wouldn't happen anywhere else.

I guess you believe everyone can be bought for a price, sold to whoever has the pieces to win a championship. We just disagree about philosophy... that winning a championship is everything.

 

[PetryJr]

Can we at least agree there are levels of competitiveness? I believe both Nash and Hill are competitive, but to a degree. Both have the opportunity to put themselves in a situation where they can legitimately compete for a championship, and they choose not to. I don't know how you can argue this.

EVERYBODY is only competitive to a degree. Dirk had a chance to leave the Mavs last year. People were saying he'd have a better chance of winning if he left, but he stayed. He didn't know he was going to win, but he stayed and his competitiveness and talent willed his team to the title. For me, that's the competitiveness that matters.

 

[Bells]

I saw Nash play against the Spurs with a gashed and broken nose and I also saw him win a playoff series with an eye swollen shut.

Seems competitive to me.