The question now isn’t “do the Clippers want to make a series of trades with the Celtics that brings them Kevin Garnett and Doc Rivers?” They do. Both sides have basically hammered out a deal they liked.
The question is, “how do we structure a deal that David Stern and the NBA would sign off on?” Stern himself has said the deal would not get league approval. So it was back to the drawing board on how to construct a trade.
The latest plan is to get the coach first, reports Marc Stein and Ramona Shelburne at ESPN.com.
The Los Angeles Clippers’ new strategy, in the wake of NBA commissioner David Stern’s public comments Thursday expressing serious misgivings about the legitimacy of the proposed trade of Kevin Garnett and a corresponding transaction that would transport Celtics coach Doc Rivers from Boston to L.A. as a package deal, is to pursue Rivers first and roll the dice on acquiring Garnett and Paul Pierce later, sources told ESPN.
The Clippers’ primary target now is Rivers, whom sources said team owner Donald Sterling already has signed off on paying upward of $7 million a year for five years. Boston would require compensation for Rivers, who is still under contract for three years and $21 million with the Celtics.
You cannot trade a coach for players, as Stern and the league office interpret the Collective Bargaining Agreement. And you cannot have “side deals” attached to a trade, like throwing a couple picks on a Kevin Garnett for DeAndre Jordan swap and then suddenly it’s okay if you sign Rivers.
But if the Clippers get Rivers with no promise of Garnett… maybe. The league would not stop the Rivers move; there is a precedent of picks for coaches under contract who are let out to sign with another (the most recent being Stan Van Gundy going from the Heat to the Magic in 2007).
The question is how the league reacts in two weeks when the Clippers and Celtics propose Garnett for DeAndre Jordan straight up. This after the Celtics have bought out Paul Pierce and he has signed as a free agent in Los Angeles.
If you want to predict Stern, you go ahead. I’m sitting this one out.
LeBron James will reportedly star in Space Jam 2.
Space Jam 3? Jeremy Lin already claimed the top role in a very, um, strange video.
Did LeBron James lead the Lakers to NBA titles in 2012 and 2013?
If you haven’t already gotten your fix of laughing at children, here’s a kid who guessed that happened:
The question, as you surely know, is who are the Miami Heat?
The Warriors signed Kevin Durant.
The Celtics claimed they finished second for the superstar free agent.
And the bronze medal goes to…
Doc Rivers on The Vertical Podcast with Woj, as transcribed by CSN Bay Area:
And we were in it. We were in the Top 3 at the very end
We asked a simple question, and the first question I asked was, ‘Are we in the Top 3?’ And they said ‘Yes.’ So that made us feel good. My next question was, ‘Are we in the Top 2?’ And we had made the decision if they say ‘No’ then we go, if they say ‘Yes’ we stay. And they said ‘No.’
This is all obviously quite silly. It mostly matters only where Durant plays, not where he came closer to playing. Golden State won. Everyone else lost.
But teams are fighting for perception, trying to send a message to the next superstar free that they’re a legitimate destination.
I just have a hard time believing the Clippers were actually third and ahead of re-signing with the Thunder. The Clippers didn’t have enough cap space to keep Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan and give Durant a max contract.
I believe Durant could’ve told the Clippers they ranked third because he liked their pitch and the statement was largely superficial. But if it actually came down to it, would Durant have taken a reduced salary or joined a team depleted by losing one of its stars? Those were the only two options for picking the Clippers.
I have my doubts, but at least Rivers has a narrative he can sell. And sell it he will.
A Malawian newspaper, writing about Michael Jordan’s statement on race, used the Crying Jordan photo accompany the article.
How did that happen?
A page designer who didn’t understand the meme? A joke never fixed before printing? A staff-wide ignorance of the photo’s cultural relevance?
Justin Block of The Huffington Post:
As it turns out, the newspaper is called The Nation, or The Malawi Nation. When reached for comment on Thursday afternoon, The Nation Senior News Analyst Joy Ndovi stated that using the Michael Jordan Crying meme was intentional, and said Sports Editor Garry Chirwa picked the photo.
Chirwa told us that when he read the story, he felt that the emotions packed within Jordan’s quote, “I could no longer keep silent,” were represented in the Michael Jordan Crying meme.
“I just imagined him crying,” Chirwa wrote via WhatsApp.
Ndovi echoed Chirwa’s sentiments:
The article on Jordan reacting to the violence in U.S. was just the perfect one for the meme to be used. It depicts the emotional state of the former NBA star. Though it might seem unconventional, what other photo could be more suitable than the infamous Crying Jordan meme?
I can think of a few.