Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
Relax... it came from enough sources that I believe it to be true.
Also, players lie all the damn time... maybe lie is strong... they say stuff they don't mean. What is he supposed to say? "We talked about contracts, but I'm about to get paid... 90M eff that I'm getting 130". PG was talking up how he is happy in Indiana and is a Pacer... yada yada... this week the narrative changes.
For what it is worth I though Hill would have a ton of options, but now it has shrunk... had he extended already it would help us retain Hayward.
I could see him getting less than he was offered for sure.
Players lie all the time, but reporters are reliable. That's what you're going with?
Regardless, you believe what you want. I have zero doubts that money was part of the reason he turned down the extension, but I also have no doubts that keeping his options open on where he was going to play out the last years of his career was a key reason. I believe if Hayward had committed to Utah, there's a good chance Hill would've taken the extension.
Anyway, even if you want to assume Hill's agent advised him not to take the extension, these decisions are made on playing the odds. Had Hill not been injured and continued to play like he had to start the season, nobody can say it was a bad bet. There's always chances that other teams will make trades, or the player gets injured, but it seems kind of silly to me to blame an agent for things like that happening.
If you play the odds and the odds go against you, I just don't understand the line of thinking that someone is too blame for not having their crystal ball shined up enough to see the future.