RealGM

To get him, Screamin A Smith says Rivers could possibly leave the Clippers with the whole Sterling situation going on. With Wall/Beal and with Rivers more than likely wanting FO control should Ted pull all the stops and would Doc really come to DC???

Remember, still plenty of time for this to play out. But if he were to somehow become available, I don't know if we even would be going after him. I would want to, but I feel like Ernie and Ted would just stick with Randy.

I'm sure Doc would see us as a potential landing spot because of the foundation we are building, but I don't know if he'd have the patience. I'm sure there will be other spots open that might be more enticing to him.

We need a defense first type of coach. I don't think that is Doc. I am actually more interested in the outside possibility of making all the Clipper players free agents after this year. The pretext bring that the players should not play for an owner such as the Clips owner. A "get out of jail free" card could be interesting as it will allow other teams to pick up quality players. This is an idea suggested by the Houston Rockets owner.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app

Isn't Doc Rivers coach and GM of the Clippers? If so, he could potentially replace both Wittman and Grunfail.

I'm down.

TGW wrote:Isn't Doc Rivers coach and GM of the Clippers? If so, he could potentially replace both Wittman and Grunfail.

I'm down.

I dislike giving a coach that much power.

WallToWall wrote:We need a defense first type of coach. I don't think that is Doc. I am actually more interested in the outside possibility of making all the Clipper players free agents after this year. The pretext bring that the players should not play for an owner such as the Clips owner. A "get out of jail free" card could be interesting as it will allow other teams to pick up quality players. This is an idea suggested by the Houston Rockets owner.

To me, it seems like a pretty flimsy pretext to Houston using their upcoming cap space on Griffin or Paul. Big time ulterior motive.

As distasteful as what Sterling said was, Rivers isn't going to turn his back on the situation he has in LA. Great city, great salary, total control over basketball operations... and most importantly TALENT. That clippers squad is pretty damn good. Plus, having been in Boston, I'm sure that Rivers is no stranger to racism.

Also, if we win this series against Chicago, Wittman has all but booked his ticket back for next season.

Both Grunfeld and Wittman will be back.

Make Doc the GM

Randy is his HC



Teamwork, tbh

I don't think this Clippers thing is going to come out the way people expect. What can they do to him? If I'm an owner I do not want to set the precedent of voting someone out for what was clearly blackmail. Dude is a jerk but it's blackmail, pure and simple. She was like give me $2 million or I'm going public with this. So Sterling deserved it, sure, but what if one of the owners has a Marv Albert situation?

As an NBA owner, are you seriously going to consider taking a half billion dollar asset away from someone? That is an ENORMOUS penalty, I don't care what Sterling did or said, holy cow dude. I just don't see that happening.

Maybe they could buy him out?

dont let these playoffs fool you. To me this is still about your Franchise player and this system isnt right for him. You still have both Witt and Sam preaching about jumpers. We have talent. We can still be better with a better coach

dlts20 wrote:dont let these playoffs fool you. To me this is still about your Franchise player and this system isnt right for him. You still have both Witt and Sam preaching about jumpers. We have talent. We can still be better with a better coach

Question: do you think there is any chance that Randy is going anywhere if they make it to the second round?

Zonkerbl wrote:I don't think this Clippers thing is going to come out the way people expect. What can they do to him? If I'm an owner I do not want to set the precedent of voting someone out for what was clearly blackmail. Dude is a jerk but it's blackmail, pure and simple. She was like give me $2 million or I'm going public with this. So Sterling deserved it, sure, but what if one of the owners has a Marv Albert situation?

As an NBA owner, are you seriously going to consider taking a half billion dollar asset away from someone? That is an ENORMOUS penalty, I don't care what Sterling did or said, holy cow dude. I just don't see that happening.

Maybe they could buy him out?

I don't anything is expecting the Clippers to literally be taken from him. Sterling "losing" is getting paid roughly a billion dollars to no longer be owner of the Clippers.

Yeah there is some shadiness with the way it is being revealed, but it has been done in a way that can not be ignored. If it was an isolated incident, the calls to remove Sterling wouldn't get much support.

Zonkerbl wrote:I don't think this Clippers thing is going to come out the way people expect. What can they do to him? If I'm an owner I do not want to set the precedent of voting someone out for what was clearly blackmail. Dude is a jerk but it's blackmail, pure and simple. She was like give me $2 million or I'm going public with this. So Sterling deserved it, sure, but what if one of the owners has a Marv Albert situation?

As an NBA owner, are you seriously going to consider taking a half billion dollar asset away from someone? That is an ENORMOUS penalty, I don't care what Sterling did or said, holy cow dude. I just don't see that happening.

Maybe they could buy him out?

They can't take the team from Sterling, but they may be able to force him to sell it. There will be several filthy rich people who'd love to purchase the team, so while Sterling would lose the enjoyment of owning an NBA team, he'd be able to console himself with the $750 million (or more) he'd likely get in a sale.

Agreeing with Zonk. And Mark Cuban.

The guy is a reprehensible turd. But that's nothing new. He's allowed to believe whatever he wants, so long as he cuts a paycheck. I read where people suggest he has a plantation era mentality, profiting off of the sweat and labor of ... etc. Big difference: players are free to walk away, and they get paid unbelievable amounts of money to do so. And most importantly society casts scorn on that attitude, instead of supporting it with force of arms.

The only area where the NBA has grounds to sanction Sterling is that he hurts their brand. That sponsors are taking the back door exit and distancing themselves from the franchise. Maybe that hurts the players' deals too, or leastways the advertisers may not want to see them in Clipper gear in those Kia and State Farm commercials. I suspect they'll pressure him, but Sterling has proven time and again to be immune to shame. Not sure they have real legal grounds to force him out.

As for Rivers. Doc Rivers eldest son Jeremiah was on radio this morning saying that his dad saw Sterling maybe twice this year, to shake his hand or whatever. I can't see someone walking away from $14 mills just because the CEO of their corporation is a schmuck. He'll claim he is there for the players, and the fans, etc. no matter how galling it is that his employer thinks he is subhuman.

Truth is though I don't see him as al that much of an upgrade over Randy. His strength is motivation, more than X's and O's, and that's Randy's strength as well. I get the impression that Rivers is better at developing talent as well, which is important, but 'break the bank'? Nah. If I'm looking for an upgrade I want a real clear improvement in the areas where we're weakest. Quite frankly other than player development I think Randy does a pretty good job.

Zonkerbl wrote:I don't think this Clippers thing is going to come out the way people expect. What can they do to him? If I'm an owner I do not want to set the precedent of voting someone out for what was clearly blackmail. Dude is a jerk but it's blackmail, pure and simple. She was like give me $2 million or I'm going public with this. So Sterling deserved it, sure, but what if one of the owners has a Marv Albert situation?

As an NBA owner, are you seriously going to consider taking a half billion dollar asset away from someone? That is an ENORMOUS penalty, I don't care what Sterling did or said, holy cow dude. I just don't see that happening.

Maybe they could buy him out?

Zonk, I respectfully disagree with you. While this may or may not have been blackmail, we're not talking about the legal system. This is about damaged to the mega brand and billion dollar industry that is the NBA. The NBA can't not allow an owner to cause major financial and public relation damages for the other 29, which is exactly what could happen. Just think about the fallout if the Clipper players decide to boycott tonight’s game. That means absolutely no ratings for TNT/ESPN for that timeslot, which means no advertisements will be seen. Additionally, quite a few major advertisers have already either suspended or cut their ties altogether. And that's not even to mention the alienation of a franchise in terms Players, Coaches and Fans alike. No one, with any respect for equality, or disrespect for any forms of racism will want to work or support a franchise headed by Donald Sterling ever again. So while I agree that he may have been baited into saying those things in a setting where he was being recorded, for whatever motive, it doesn't change the fact that he said it and feels that way about minorities of color and it got out to the public. The NBA CANNOT have this cloud over its head. I think it was LeBron or MJ who said, "there is no place in the NBA for racism".

Side note: Look at what happened to Paula Deen. Who's industry and fame doesn't come close to that of Donald Sterling and the NBA.

As I have said several times on the general board, this is a broken system (not just a broken individual).

The system says that owners can use tax payers' money to build their stadiums. They can flood old ladies out of their homes to get them to leave (to make their money), and pay lawyers to cover it up. They can pay off the NAACP to endorse them, despite continual racism. They can treat their employees like slaves, and talk about them as such. They can impose morality clauses on their workers, but afford themselves "free speech."

This isn't one individual. It's a mindset fostered, and protected, by a broken system.

What I'm curious about is whether players currently contractually bound to the Clippers could possibly get their contracts voided.

MDStar wrote:Zonk, I respectfully disagree with you. While this may or may not have been blackmail, we're not talking about the legal system. This is about damaged to the mega brand and billion dollar industry that is the NBA. The NBA can't not allow an owner to cause major financial and public relation damages for the other 29, which is exactly what could happen. Just think about the fallout if the Clipper players decide to boycott tonight’s game. That means absolutely no ratings for TNT/ESPN for that timeslot, which means no advertisements will be seen. Additionally, quite a few major advertisers have already either suspended or cut their ties altogether. And that's not even to mention the alienation of a franchise in terms Players, Coaches and Fans alike. No one, with any respect for equality, or disrespect for any forms of racism will want to work or support a franchise headed by Donald Sterling ever again. So while I agree that he may have been baited into saying those things in a setting where he was being recorded, for whatever motive, it doesn't change the fact that he said it and feels that way about minorities of color and it got out to the public. The NBA CANNOT have this cloud over its head. I think it was LeBron or MJ who said, "there is no place in the NBA for racism".

Side note: Look at what happened to Paula Deen. Who's industry and fame doesn't come close to that of Donald Sterling and the NBA.

The problem is that Sterling's an owner. He's not an employee and thus not beholden to anyone. At best, he can be kicked out of the NBA but they can't force him to sell. Of course owning a basketball team that's not in a league would be so devastatingly expensive that Sterling would have no choice to sell but Zonk and Cuban's point still stands that getting booted from the league over words - no matter how unsavory those words may be seems draconian.

Cuban invoked slippery slope because IF Sterling is booted, it would force the owners and the league to convene and vote on what does and does not constitute eviction. Once you set that precedence, things get messy. Where do you define the bounds of racism? How far out does the bounds of this code of conduct extend? It just hands over a ton of power to the league and the owners might not (will not) want to do so.