NBA Thread 2013-2014

[StrangeSox]

It's so entertaining to see idiots say that this is a first amendment issue on Facebook and comments section everywhere.

The First Amendment guarantees a right to free speech without criticism or response, obviously.

 

No, please don't point out the glaring internal conflict in that thought.

[Soxfest]

Sterling got what he deserved but it is time for everyone to be held to the same standard going forward.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Soxfest

[bmags]

Does anyone still have the Clips beating GS?

 

I mean, couldn't you see a Major League type moment with Doc and the players? Win the whole thing to shove it down the throat of the guy, since he can't even take credit for it?

[Buehrle>Wood]

Sterling got what he deserved but it is time for everyone to be held to the same standard.

It'll be interesting to see how sexual and violent crimes are treated going further.

[Jenksismyhero]

Slippery slope arguments are not convincing to me.

 

He didn't say "anything" behind closed doors, he said words that were hateful and directed at a community that makes up the vast majority of it's players and a significant portion of his fans. He didn't just say something that was offensive, he said something that was significantly damaging to the league he is an owner in and makes money being a part of. So if another says "anything" which has equal damage to the league, sorry, you will get paid 1 billion to leave that league.

 

Because people never say awful things to their friends/family while in the privacy of their own home?

 

I mean I get it, he's a racist and he's got a past so they had to do something, but Cuban's argument about the slippery slope makes sense. What if you're an outspoken guy (like Cuban) who is in the public eye (like Cuban) and you do things that piss off other owners (like Cuban) and you get drunk and say something stupid, let's say directed towards a woman, would this set a precedent that the NBA could ban him and take away his team? Could owners conspire together and fake outrage over some comment and try to force the commissioner to get rid of someone?

[Dick Allen]

I was googling JR and Sterling to see if JR had commented and came across an article written by the one and only Jay Marriotti who now has his own site. He mentioned that Sterling and JR once socialized at a Super Bowl.

 

So I looked at his site even further, reading his welcome letter. He has not let anything go. He's a total victim who know supposedly is living large in LA. Wronged by so many, but time has shown him to be visionary.

 

It actually was comical.

[Jenksismyhero]

Plus, you know, the record-setting housing discrimination settlement he paid in the past. It's not like he actually did keep his abhorrent views private, they had real-world effects on people.

 

Yeah but if there's some kind of by-law that is governing this move, none of that stuff is relevant. The question would be solely his ownership/management of the Clippers and how he treats his players/staff.

[pettie4sox]

Because people never say awful things to their friends/family while in the privacy of their own home?

 

I mean I get it, he's a racist and he's got a past so they had to do something, but Cuban's argument about the slippery slope makes sense. What if you're an outspoken guy (like Cuban) who is in the public eye (like Cuban) and you do things that piss off other owners (like Cuban) and you get drunk and say something stupid, let's say directed towards a woman, would this set a precedent that the NBA could ban him and take away his team? Could owners conspire together and fake outrage over some comment and try to force the commissioner to get rid of someone?

 

You have to believe that the people who running the NBA are smarter than to oust someone based on a slip of the tongue.

 

Sterling had the history and I'm sure he would have eaten into the NBA's bottom line when people boycotted his games.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah but if there's some kind of by-law that is governing this move, none of that stuff is relevant. The question would be solely his ownership/management of the Clippers and how he treats his players/staff.

 

He doesn't own the business. He owns a franchise of the larger business that is the NBA. As such, he signed a franchise agreement when he bought the team that stipulates what he can and can't do. Odds are pretty good that he is in very clear violation of that franchise agreement, otherwise the NBA wouldn't have been able to drum the guy in just a few days time.

 

Legally it is no different than a guy who owns a McDonalds or BP gas station being forced to sell them because his actions violated their franchise agreement. It is a legally binding document.

[Kyyle23]

Because people never say awful things to their friends/family while in the privacy of their own home?

 

I mean I get it, he's a racist and he's got a past so they had to do something, but Cuban's argument about the slippery slope makes sense. What if you're an outspoken guy (like Cuban) who is in the public eye (like Cuban) and you do things that piss off other owners (like Cuban) and you get drunk and say something stupid, let's say directed towards a woman, would this set a precedent that the NBA could ban him and take away his team? Could owners conspire together and fake outrage over some comment and try to force the commissioner to get rid of someone?

 

When it starts affecting the bottom line, then yes. 14 major sponsors have pulled out of agreements with the Clippers, that kind of stuff gets noticed.

 

Also, he offended a minority group that consists of 80 percent of the NBA, as well as specifically a legend of the game. This isnt as much fake outrage as you would like to think it is

[StrangeSox]

Right, I'm sure there's a dozen or two lawyers for the NBA who reviewed this before it was announced.

[StrangeSox]

It takes a few minutes to get going, but I thought Bomani Jones had a great breakdown of the whole Sterling situation.

 

http://deadspin.com/in-10-minutes-espns-bo...-ste-1569195989

btw this was fantastic

[Jenksismyhero]

He doesn't own the business. He owns a franchise of the larger business that is the NBA. As such, he signed a franchise agreement when he bought the team that stipulates what he can and can't do. Odds are pretty good that he is in very clear violation of that franchise agreement, otherwise the NBA wouldn't have been able to drum the guy in just a few days time.

 

Legally it is no different than a guy who owns a McDonalds or BP gas station being forced to sell them because his actions violated their franchise agreement. It is a legally binding document.

 

I guarantee you that McDonalds could not pull a franchise because one owner said something racist in a private conversation. Those types of places are different animals compared to a professional sports league.

 

You may be right, I dunno. It's interesting that Silver said they were going to work with Sterling to sell the team, not that they were going to force him to relinquish it.

[Kyyle23]

Yeah but if there's some kind of by-law that is governing this move, none of that stuff is relevant. The question would be solely his ownership/management of the Clippers and how he treats his players/staff.

 

Ask Corey Maggette about that

[StrangeSox]

Ask Corey Maggette about that

There's precedent for this, at least in the MLB

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott#Controversies

[southsider2k5]

I guarantee you that McDonalds could not pull a franchise because one owner said something racist in a private conversation. Those types of places are different animals compared to a professional sports league.

 

You may be right, I dunno. It's interesting that Silver said they were going to work with Sterling to sell the team, not that they were going to force him to relinquish it.

 

It depends on what the franchise agreement he signed stipulates. If it were something that got out and did damage to the image of the parent company, I would bet money that there is a morality clause that this would fall under. Pretty much any agreement worth a spit contains generic catch-all language about saying/doing things that damage the company image.

[Jenksismyhero]

When it starts affecting the bottom line, then yes. 14 major sponsors have pulled out of agreements with the Clippers, that kind of stuff gets noticed.

 

Also, he offended a minority group that consists of 80 percent of the NBA, as well as specifically a legend of the game. This isnt as much fake outrage as you would like to think it is

 

Well, let's be honest, it is a bit faux outrage. This dude's been doing this kind of stuff for decades and the drum beat to get him out of the league never started until now and he was out of the league in what, 4 days?

 

I'm not at all suggesting it's unjustified by the way. I'm just saying I can see Cuban's argument about how this might play out in the future, depending on what by-law/provision they used here.

[southsider2k5]

There's precedent for this, at least in the MLB

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott#Controversies

 

MLB has an anti-trust exemption which pretty much lets them do whatever they want to do. The NBA doesn't. There has to be a pretty clear violation of their agreement, along with a clear explanation of what can happen if said agreement is violated.

[Dick Allen]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/108...donald-sterling

[southsider2k5]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/108...donald-sterling

 

A lot of good info in there.

[pettie4sox]

Yep this states that Sterling is pretty much done for.

[Kyyle23]

Well, let's be honest, it is a bit faux outrage. This dude's been doing this kind of stuff for decades and the drum beat to get him out of the league never started until now and he was out of the league in what, 4 days?

 

I'm not at all suggesting it's unjustified by the way. I'm just saying I can see Cuban's argument about how this might play out in the future, depending on what by-law/provision they used here.

 

I will never argue with you that this shouldnt have been done earlier. This is why I wish Stern had to face the music, and not Silver

[bmags]

Well, let's be honest, it is a bit faux outrage. This dude's been doing this kind of stuff for decades and the drum beat to get him out of the league never started until now and he was out of the league in what, 4 days?

 

I'm not at all suggesting it's unjustified by the way. I'm just saying I can see Cuban's argument about how this might play out in the future, depending on what by-law/provision they used here.

 

Life is unfortunately complicated and has different consequences for different actions. While being accused by NBA legend Elgin baylor of racial discriminatory practices was also "this kind of thing", Baylor didn't have a video tape of Sterling saying his accusations on tape as this person did. They are both "this kind of thing" but they are also different.

 

It's really easy to always sweep things under the rug with "hypocrisy" and "well how come" but life happens and sometimes timing and circumstance cause bad things to be met with good reactions and no reactions. Life.

[HuskyCaucasian]

You're welcome

 

NBA Evicts Slumlord #DonaldSterling

— Husky Caucasian (@HuskyCaucasian) April 29, 2014

[Jenksismyhero]

A lot of good info in there.

 

So basically the sale of the team angle is: if you want to make any money on the sale, let us have it, otherwise you can take your franchise and it'll be worthless since it won't be apart of the NBA anymore.