- 19,637
- 12,664
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
it's only valid if he's on an NBA roster.
so if he was broke wouldn't have been more profitable to take a smaller role...nba salary + $5 mil a year from rebook
A.I. reported to be broke
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by huiedagreat,
- Start date
it's only valid if he's on an NBA roster.
so if he was broke wouldn't have been more profitable to take a smaller role...nba salary + $5 mil a year from rebook
- 19,637
- 12,664
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
it's only valid if he's on an NBA roster.
so if he was broke wouldn't have been more profitable to take a smaller role...nba salary + $5 mil a year from rebook
- 19,637
- 12,664
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
it's only valid if he's on an NBA roster.
so if he was broke wouldn't have been more profitable to take a smaller role...nba salary + $5 mil a year from rebook
- 19,637
- 12,664
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
it's only valid if he's on an NBA roster.
so if he was broke wouldn't have been more profitable to take a smaller role...nba salary + $5 mil a year from rebook
- 19,637
- 12,664
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
it's only valid if he's on an NBA roster.
so if he was broke wouldn't have been more profitable to take a smaller role...nba salary + $5 mil a year from rebook
- 19,637
- 12,664
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
it's only valid if he's on an NBA roster.
so if he was broke wouldn't have been more profitable to take a smaller role...nba salary + $5 mil a year from rebook
- 19,637
- 12,664
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
it's only valid if he's on an NBA roster.
so if he was broke wouldn't have been more profitable to take a smaller role...nba salary + $5 mil a year from rebook
- 19,637
- 12,664
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
it's only valid if he's on an NBA roster.
so if he was broke wouldn't have been more profitable to take a smaller role...nba salary + $5 mil a year from rebook
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 1,462
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
"Lifetime" is left to interpretation, but I would ask you... What in the world would possess Reebok to pay him for the rest of "lifetime"? It's not like he's bringing them cash when he's out of the league.
Pro players, by in large, are notoriously bad with their money.
- 15,762
- 517
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
Are you talking to me?
- 15,762
- 517
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
Are you talking to me?
- 15,762
- 517
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
Are you talking to me?
- 15,762
- 517
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
Are you talking to me?
- 15,762
- 517
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
Are you talking to me?
