No exception for Grant Hill

[MFFL]

By Brian Schmitz | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted July 16, 2003

The Orlando Magic's shock and frustration in dealing with Grant Hill's injury saga apparently knows no end. The Magic are reeling from the NBA's decision to deny their request to receive a $4.9 million disabled player's exception on behalf of Hill.

"Obviously, we're surprised and disappointed," Magic Chief Operating Officer John Weisbrod said Tuesday night. "We think it's the wrong decision.

"We wouldn't have applied for it if we thought Grant would be ready."

But a league-appointed doctor who reviewed the case ruled Hill could play at some point this season, and his opinion -- not the advice of the Magic's physicians or Hill's surgeons -- was all that mattered.

That doesn't mean Magic fans should expect to see Hill on the court any time soon.

The Magic already have said Hill would sit out the season to recover from his fourth -- and his most extensive -- surgery on his left ankle March 18. He is still on crutches.

Hill, a six-time all-star who was acquired as a free agent in 2000, tried resting 10 months after the past two operations. Each time, his ankle eventually gave out. The Magic wanted him to take at least a year off after his last surgery.

When asked whether Hill could play at some point this season, Weisbrod said, "We don't think it's prudent. This could be Grant's last kick at the can. If it breaks again, there might not be another chance. We're not going to respond to popular opinion or player emotion.

"We've been like a yo-yo with this thing, wondering when Grant will play, how many minutes he'll get. If we go on like we have, shame on us. We have to look out for Grant's career and his life."

The Magic said Monday they likely would not use Hill's medical exception even if it were granted, considering they weren't excited about the list of free agents remaining. But they still wanted the option to use the exception, perhaps in a trade or if a suitable free agent fell to them after the start of the signing period, which begins today.

The NBA's ruling has left the Magic dumbfounded, upset and asking the following questions: If Hill doesn't deserve to get the medical exception, then who does? Does a player have to lose a limb first?

Why does the NBA even offer such a relief plan if a star who has missed most of three seasons can't receive it?

Weisbrod said the league interpreted the ruling in "black and white. They deemed that there's a possibility he could return to action at some point this season."

The Magic are upset that the doctor chosen to review Hill's history and who also personally examined Hill "had no feel for Grant or what has happened the past three years," according to a league source. "The team is not included in the process."

Weisbrod wondered whether Dr. James Nunley's glowing prognosis after performing the fourth surgery on Hill at the Duke University Medical Center had an impact on the league doctor's decision.

"I'm assuming that doctor's words were very powerful," Weisbrod said.

There's often no rhyme or reason in how the league makes its decision. It won't discuss the criteria.

Perhaps the NBA felt it had been burned two years ago after it granted the Miami Heat a medical exception on behalf of Alonzo Mourning, only to have Mourning return later in the 2000-01 season.

[MavKikiNYC]

There's often no rhyme or reason in how the league makes its decision. It won't discuss the criteria.

Why do owners put up with this kind of abitrariness from the league? Who owns the damned league anyway? How much of his own money does Stern have tied up in the NBA? If I were an owner with a couple hundred million tied up iin a franchise, you could be damned sure that I'd either be getting some answers or some new bureaucrats.

F*ck Stern and his minions.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Why do owners put up with this kind of abitrariness from the league? Who owns the damned league anyway? How much of his own money does Stern have tied up in the NBA? If I were an owner with a couple hundred million tied up iin a franchise, you could be damned sure that I'd either be getting some answers or some new bureaucrats.

F*ck Stern and his minions.

I've always wondered this -- why do the guys who own the franchises allow a guy who honestly owns nothing tell them how it's gonna be, especially on issues like this?

[Dooby]

I support this decision 100%. For the same reasons, I would have understood if 'Zo couldn't play and the Mavs were denied a medical exception. If the guy has missed the better part of THREE SEASONS, the team isn't entitled to a medical exception. The team has known forever that Hill was doubtful. At the time they applied, they still had their exceptions. They chose to spend it on Juwan Howard. At some point, the league needs to just look at the team and say, "So you think Grant Hill might not play this year? Well, duh!"

[Usually Lurkin]

Perhaps the NBA felt it had been burned two years ago after it granted the Miami Heat a medical exception on behalf of Alonzo Mourning, only to have Mourning return later in the 2000-01 season.

this is big, IMO. The exception is an exception for a reason. And you have to have a central authority to determine who gets the exception.

Should we have been able to grab an exception for popeye last year? Should we be able to grab an exception for anyone who sucks because they are physically not up to their old standards or because they might get injured? If so, then the whole idea of an exception is moot. The whole salary cap is moot.

Hill's ankle broke. A couple of times. It will heal and then it might break again. Should they get an exception for every year that there's a possibility that Hill's ankle might break again?