Doesn't sound like Cuban agrees with kicking sterling out presently

[BballTim]

For a whole season, probably not.

But the Warriors/Clippers and Heat all sounded like if Silver didn't come down hard in that press conference they weren't going to play that playoff game. Once that happens things could have spiraled one way or the other.

  Even for a playoff game, I think it was all talk no action.

[Casperian]

Again, I have a hard time buying the argument that suggesting a massive public uproar and threatened mid-playoff player and fan protests and boycotts would impact the league's finances is a "strawman", but comparing the uproar from customers and employees to a lynch mob is a valid and reasonable comparison. 

That fact that it will affect the league's bottom line is not in question, why it will affect the league's bottom line is in question, and that's where you're using the strawman. There's simply not the same mass hysteria over the Redskins or Paolo Di Canio as over Sterling's comments. Nice attempt at covering a strawman with a strawman, though.

And that's without getting into the notion that the league's primarily African-American players somehow only had a problem with it due to outside opinion. 

Yet, somehow, there was no outrage over the past 30 years. Are you seriously arguing that nobody could've known what kind of person Donald Sterling really is, even though Elgin Baylor, among others, told enough stories in great detail? I'm sure Doc was shocked to find out Sterling is actually a racist...

Either way my beliefs don't really matter; what matters is if the league itself saw a threat to their brand and their business in Sterling's comments and their response.  If you sincerely want to argue that the league honestly didn't think this incident would affect them in any meaningful way but threw the book at Sterling anyway, be my guest, but that seems unlikely to the point of ludicrousness to me.

Right, because the league never acted ludicrous out of fear over their public image, like, for example, telling their players how to dress, fining Pop for resting his players, or fining anyone in general who even suggested their officials would do a bad job. Got it.

That'd be true if the Clippers really were private property, rather than a licensed franchise of the NBA.

As far as I'm concerned, several of us really need to brush up on the differences.

Fine, fair enough. It's still only a minor detail in the grand scheme of things, especially considering the money involved. The NBA stilll needs an actual, legal reason to get him out.

[D.o.s.]

No, they didn't. While forcing him to sell the franchise might've been difficult, getting the Clippers out of the NBA (which would amount to much the same thing) would've been relatively easy, since the methods and rationale are already in the NBA constitution.

That's all irrelevant anyway, since Sterling's moving to sell the team through his wife.

[colincb]

Fine, fair enough. It's still only a minor detail in the grand scheme of things, especially considering the money involved. The NBA stilll needs an actual, legal reason to get him out.
The fact that there's a voting among the league's owners alone should be evidence enough that someone, somewhere, has an awful lot to gain from this sudden outrage.

I don't want to get involved in the rest of your argument, but this portion is incorrect.  Sterling was a party to a contract where he forfeited most of his opportunities to litigate given how much power is given to the Commissioner IF the Commissioner has the backing of the other owners. This is similar to a standard business franchise agreement and in those circumstances; people get forced out all the time if they don?t adhere to the standards set by the franchisor.  If Sterling had a leg to stand on, Sterling would be litigating. That's what he does. The fact that he's capitulated so early in the game tells you something.

Sterling still could have litigated nonetheless to draw out the process so that a sale would happen after he died which would result in tax savings to his estate. However, the NBA had the leverage to do things that would substantially diminish the value of the team so that he would have made less money from the sale if he had pursued that option. 

So financially it became what option had the best return and I'm sure Sterling's attorneys and CPAs made it clear to him as to what the better option was. I have some doubts about Sterling  having full mental capabilities given some of what has transpired, but from what I?ve seen he appears to have enough left to understand what his advisors would have told him.

I also don?t think the Sterlings can screw around too much on this.  They?re going to have to make a good faith and timely effort to sell the team or the NBA will step in.

[fairweatherfan]

Wall of text incoming, sorry folks:

Again, I have a hard time buying the argument that suggesting a massive public uproar and threatened mid-playoff player and fan protests and boycotts would impact the league's finances is a "strawman", but comparing the uproar from customers and employees to a lynch mob is a valid and reasonable comparison. 

That fact that it will affect the league's bottom line is not in question, why it will affect the league's bottom line is in question, and that's where you're using the strawman. There's simply not the same mass hysteria over the Redskins or Paolo Di Canio as over Sterling's comments. Nice attempt at covering a strawman with a strawman, though.

So my characterization of the league's motives was accurate, and it's accurate that failing to punish Sterling would've negatively affected the bottom line, but it's a multi-layered strawman to say so?  You'll have to walk me through that one.  Is it just that I'm not accepting your opinion on the cause and sincerity of the response as an irrefutable truth?

And that's without getting into the notion that the league's primarily African-American players somehow only had a problem with it due to outside opinion. 

Yet, somehow, there was no outrage over the past 30 years. Are you seriously arguing that nobody could've known what kind of person Donald Sterling really is, even though Elgin Baylor, among others, told enough stories in great detail? I'm sure Doc was shocked to find out Sterling is actually a racist...

Well, first you're assuming the players' issue was with Sterling being a racist, vs being caught saying some really racist things that they found degrading and embarrassing to be associated with.  Like a lot of people, I've worked with and for folks with some ugly racist beliefs, and like a lot of people I don't really care what they think as long as they keep their mouths shut and do their jobs.  Would it be hypocritical to only push for them to be punished when they say something racist that publicly embarrassed the business and me?

But even if we stick with the racist thing, I don't really understand this argument either.  Isn't giving Sterling a pass in the past an even stronger reason to do something now?  Otherwise, if another incident happens later, what's to stop people from saying, "Where was all this outrage when Sterling got taped making those horrible comments?  If you didn't act then you're a hypocrite for wanting to act now."  Past mistakes do not justify new ones.

Right, because the league never acted ludicrous out of fear over their public image, like, for example, telling their players how to dress, fining Pop for resting his players, or fining anyone in general who even suggested their officials would do a bad job. Got it.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is, other than to say you disagree with other actions the league's taken to protect their brand.  Which is fine, so do I, but so what?

But if I'm reading you correctly, your overall position seems to be that the league shouldn't be punishing Sterling, in spite of the negative consequences, because you see the uproar over Sterling as illegitimate?  I'm assuming because of the media?  (BTW, does that mean that if I can find media figures pushing your opinion, that it's also illegitimate and manufactured?)  Or maybe the conspiracy to sell the team to someone else that you're implying?  Either way, I don't buy the argument that the league should have ignored the reactions to the tapes, regardless of what conspiracies are alleged to be driving the market's response.

We'll just have to agree to disagree; I believe as a private business organization the NBA should be responding to the opinions of its customers and employees, and those folks clearly expressed that Sterling's behavior was unacceptable to them.  The NBA was well within its interests to kick Sterling out, and based on Sterling's agreement to sell the team, well within its legal rights too.

[CoachBo]

Wall of text incoming, sorry folks:

Again, I have a hard time buying the argument that suggesting a massive public uproar and threatened mid-playoff player and fan protests and boycotts would impact the league's finances is a "strawman", but comparing the uproar from customers and employees to a lynch mob is a valid and reasonable comparison. 

That fact that it will affect the league's bottom line is not in question, why it will affect the league's bottom line is in question, and that's where you're using the strawman. There's simply not the same mass hysteria over the Redskins or Paolo Di Canio as over Sterling's comments. Nice attempt at covering a strawman with a strawman, though.

So my characterization of the league's motives was accurate, and it's accurate that failing to punish Sterling would've negatively affected the bottom line, but it's a multi-layered strawman to say so?  You'll have to walk me through that one.  Is it just that I'm not accepting your opinion on the cause and sincerity of the response as an irrefutable truth?

And that's without getting into the notion that the league's primarily African-American players somehow only had a problem with it due to outside opinion. 

Yet, somehow, there was no outrage over the past 30 years. Are you seriously arguing that nobody could've known what kind of person Donald Sterling really is, even though Elgin Baylor, among others, told enough stories in great detail? I'm sure Doc was shocked to find out Sterling is actually a racist...

Well, first you're assuming the players' issue was with Sterling being a racist, vs being caught saying some really racist things that they found degrading and embarrassing to be associated with.  Like a lot of people, I've worked with and for folks with some ugly racist beliefs, and like a lot of people I don't really care what they think as long as they keep their mouths shut and do their jobs.  Would it be hypocritical to only push for them to be punished when they say something racist that publicly embarrassed the business and me?

But even if we stick with the racist thing, I don't really understand this argument either.  Isn't giving Sterling a pass in the past an even stronger reason to do something now?  Otherwise, if another incident happens later, what's to stop people from saying, "Where was all this outrage when Sterling got taped making those horrible comments?  If you didn't act then you're a hypocrite for wanting to act now."  Past mistakes do not justify new ones.

Right, because the league never acted ludicrous out of fear over their public image, like, for example, telling their players how to dress, fining Pop for resting his players, or fining anyone in general who even suggested their officials would do a bad job. Got it.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is, other than to say you disagree with other actions the league's taken to protect their brand.  Which is fine, so do I, but so what?

But if I'm reading you correctly, your overall position seems to be that the league shouldn't be punishing Sterling, in spite of the negative consequences, because you see the uproar over Sterling as illegitimate?  I'm assuming because of the media?  (BTW, does that mean that if I can find media figures pushing your opinion, that it's also illegitimate and manufactured?)  Or maybe the conspiracy to sell the team to someone else that you're implying?  Either way, I don't buy the argument that the league should have ignored the reactions to the tapes, regardless of what conspiracies are alleged to be driving the market's response.

We'll just have to agree to disagree; I believe as a private business organization the NBA should be responding to the opinions of its customers and employees, and those folks clearly expressed that Sterling's behavior was unacceptable to them.  The NBA was well within its interests to kick Sterling out, and based on Sterling's agreement to sell the team, well within its legal rights too.

And based on Sterling's action today, he's been convinced that he has no case whatsoever against the NBA - which some of us have known from the beginning.

Since Sterling is a voluntary participant - no one forced him to buy the Clippers - in that private business organization, he is bound by that organization's constitution - and to the penalties it sets forth for violations, a detail that the people who want to rush to the old bigot's defense for whatever inexplicable reasons want to ignore in their anguish.

Ergo, he has no legal defense whatsoever against any action to remove him. None. Never has, never will. All this personal liberty claptrap is meaningless - because Sterling himself chose to be bound by the constitution he violated, by operating a franchise in the league.

Good post, foul. TP.

[D.o.s.]

More importantly, this is the last serious discussion we'll be having about Donald Sterling.

[CoachBo]

And there's tremendous value in that.

Bye, Don.

[Moranis]

For a whole season, probably not.

But the Warriors/Clippers and Heat all sounded like if Silver didn't come down hard in that press conference they weren't going to play that playoff game. Once that happens things could have spiraled one way or the other.

  Even for a playoff game, I think it was all talk no action.

I concur and frankly that would have been the time to do it.  If they strike for meaningless regular season games they only hurt themselves (not that I think they would actually go on strike).  Just bluster.

[Roy H.]

More importantly, this is the last serious discussion we'll be having about Donald Sterling.

Let's hope so.  There's some speculation that either the NBA will reject Sterling's attempt to sell the team, or that this is a legal maneuver by Sterling.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140523/donald-sterling-wife-shelly-los-angeles-clippers-sale-nba/?eref=sihp

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10974321/sudden-willingness-consider-sale-la-clippers-tactic-delay-termination-donald-sterling-ownership

[D.o.s.]

I suppose Sterling could continually bring up buyers like Tom Metzger that the Board of Governors was sure to veto, but I do feel that there's some precedent regarding the sale of franchises that we could glean from the Maloof debacle in Sacramento last year, esp. in regards to the NBA's preference vs. the ownership's preference.

Not sure about that, though.

[fairweatherfan]

More importantly, this is the last serious discussion we'll be having about Donald Sterling.

Let's hope so.  There's some speculation that either the NBA will reject Sterling's attempt to sell the team, or that this is a legal maneuver by Sterling.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140523/donald-sterling-wife-shelly-los-angeles-clippers-sale-nba/?eref=sihp

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10974321/sudden-willingness-consider-sale-la-clippers-tactic-delay-termination-donald-sterling-ownership

Well, apparently the league tried to kick Sterling out in 1982 after he missed a bunch of vendor payments and was taped advocating tanking for Ralph Sampson.  Sterling halted the vote to boot him by saying he would sell ASAP, then reneged once the opposition lost steam.  So maybe he's trying to pull that again.  Don't think that can work under these circumstances, though.

EDIT:  Pretty good summary of the 1982 events here: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sterling-legal-20140502-story.html

[Finkelskyhook]

You have to admit it's a VERY slippery slope. ...what if Mark Cuban's protests to the referees are deemed annoying by other owners? What if he loses a popularity contest? Sterling did nothing criminal. He made no public statement. He had a private conversation where he expressed views it was long thought he actually held. He is also 80 years old.

...if I were an NBA owner I would NOT vote in favor of stripping Sterling of his team. Too much risk that I could be stripped of MY team for a similarly private, non-criminal, infraction.

I would. Because if Sterling is not stripped of owning the Clippers, then the players go on strike and it could end up becoming armaggedon for the NBA.

The one who pays the most if that happens?

Us, the fans.

The ones that everyone seems to always forget about.

No way the players go on strike.  They'll whine up a storm like they have been...But they're not walking away from their paychecks.

[Casperian]

You know what, foul? You win. I really don't want to waste any more time defending that scumbag. May he rot in hell.

Found a nice post about Cuban's statements on mavsmoneyball, though.

http://www.mavsmoneyball.com/2014/5/22/5742288/mark-cuban-bomani-jones-etc