In a time marked by the seemingly effortless mobility of sports franchises and the growing influence that high-dollar corporations have on the future success of said franchises, there is a question that I have pushed repeatedly to the back of my mind and dismissed as one of life's little mysteries. Before asking that question, I would like to state the obvious and lay a sort of foundation on which this burning curiosity of mine may stand. The NBA is a business, and like any business, the NBA needs to make a profit. Subsequently, each individual "franchise" within this conglomoration needs to turn a profit as well, if for no other reason than to have the ability to stay competitive in a league that is raising its salaries and encouraging its most highly touted employees to move to franchises with the most spending power, or profit. These particular franchises also have the most draw for other reasons as well, exposure being one of the main. More exposure (aka TV time, resulting in commercial deals, merchandising, etc) results in more money for the employee. Some teams simply have more draw than others. The pressure is enormous, so much so that franchises have moved (not so much in the NBA, but we all know better than most that it as been threatened) to "greener pastures" simply because they needed a new stadium in order to increase revenue, thereby keeping them competitive. There is, of course such a thing as revenue-sharing....but, alas, this simply isn't enough. The least competitive teams are rewarded with high draft picks(most of the time), but those drafted players are human just like everyone else.....they want to win. And some franchises just can't seem to get over that "hump". Bearing all of this in mind, my question: Why in Hell haven't the Clippers moved out of LA yet? What on God's green earth could possibly be keeping them in that town? I admit, I could be speaking from ignorance to some sort of legislation long ago set down by the NBA. But any league that would let the Jazz move from New Orleans to Utah and then keep the name sure as hell ought to let the Clips move out of the godforsaken position they're currently in. Is it the management? Are they really that inept? They have to realize that they're a joke. They're considered to be the NBA's version of Siberia. Noone wants to play there. Hell, it's probably used as threats in contract negotiations. Mothers probably scare young, future NBA players with tales of the Clippers in order to get them to brush their teeth at night. So, it's the owners then? Some evil owner right out of "Major League" that, for some reason or another, actually wants the team to suck? I'm sorry, I really had to get all of this off of my chest. If anyone can give my an intelligent answer to this question and satisfy my curiosity, I will be most grateful. ------------------ "Have I not here the best cards in the game to win this easy match played for a crown?....." Bill Shakespeare
From what I can gather, the owner of the Clippers (an L.A. guy) likes the cachet of owning an NBA team in his home town. According to some, Sterling moved the Clips to Staples Center rather than Anaheim (where he probably could've gotten a bigger share of building revenues AND where the team had enjoyed some success in their few games played there) because Anaheim just isn't L.A. (and because Anaheim is too far from Sterling's Beverly Hills home, according to one person I heard from). I don't think it's that Mr. Sterling wants the team to suck. I just think he doesn't want to make the committment in dollars that it would take to make the Clippers into a much better team. It is my lifelong dream to someday own the Los Angeles Clippers, by the way. I wouldn't move them out of L.A., either. (I'd like being the underdog in the city), but I'd sure as heck hire some people that make better personnel decisions, and I spent more money to upgrade the player experience and at least try to win. Look for my plans for the Clippers in the near future at my new website BuyTheClippers.com Coming Soon! ------------------ [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited August 21, 2000).]
Oh, I just noticed that you asked for intelligent answers.... I offered my answer before reading that part, so I make no guarantees as to whether it's intelligent or not. ------------------
Sometimes there arent long, complicated answers to ones questions. This question is one that falls into that category. The answer---- Donald Sterling is just a CHEAP ASS IDIOT! Hey but I'm not going to complain. Thats just one less team in the WC that we have to worry about. ------------------ Fun Police Says: 1. Posting in stupid threads is not FUN! 2. Spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure are not FUN! 3. Stupid BBS names are not FUN! 4. Conduct yourself in a FUN way! The Fun Police are Watching. Vote for the Rockets & Have FUN or be Assimilated.
ummm...oeilpere, how about some insight into the Rockets plan. You must have alot of spare time to write an entire essay on Donald. ------------------ Fun Police Says: 1. Posting in stupid threads is not FUN! 2. Spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure are not FUN! 3. Stupid BBS names are not FUN! 4. Conduct yourself in a FUN way! The Fun Police are Watching. Vote for the Rockets & Have FUN or be Assimilated.
Insight In no particular order. Goal: Acquire a Power Forward. Goal: Use the $4.45M Exception before it expires. Goal: Do not mess with the team chemistry too much. Goal: Improve on last year. Situation: Maurice Taylor is available. Solution: Get Maurice Taylor which will satisfy all of the above goals. Problem: Taylor wants big money if it's a sign and trade(3 years minimum). Solution: Offer $18.5M over three years. Problem: Exception requires a "trade", Clippers have to be agreeable. Solution: Kiss some major butt or offer them Drew and a pick for the sign and trade concession. Problem: Clippers don't want players but want more picks. They will give up Nesby with Mo for Drew and major Rox picks. Solution: Finally realize that Nesby is a bench luxury the Rockets do not need. Tell Clippers we don't need Nesby,but thanks. Call Falk tell him we will offer the $2.5M exemption for one year and will give him a showcase spot at the 4. Tell Falk we will give a better contract next year, if everything pans out.
mrpaige, Can I get in on your buy the clippers deal? If long entertained the thought of buying them, and if we join forces we won't get into a bidding war and unnecesarily drive the price up. ------------------ Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info
Sure. Come on aboard. As far down as the Clippers are, I'll need all the help I can get. ------------------
mrpaige, I've got 5 bucks to chip in too - how much do you think we're going to need to buy the clippers? ------------------
Thank you, everyone, for indulging my curiosity. I hadn't heard anything previously about the owner.....but, hey, if he's content to suck...let him. ------------------ "Have I not here the best cards in the game to win this easy match played for a crown?....." Bill Shakespeare
The Short Answer To The Theory!!!!! For a long time Sterling was a mover and shaker in LA, with real estate deals, investment capital and the guy to know for raising major venture money. All he lacked was a recognizable "face". You see, he may have been a behind the scenes type of guy, but he wanted his fifteen minutes like every other bottom dweller in LA. You see, in LA, that end of the food chain describes having a face not as the front end of a head. Not a facial portrait of your feelings. Nor as one especially congruent with beauty. You do not have to be beautiful to have the "face". Ask Ernie Borgnine. You don't even have to have mountains of money. Ask Mark Furman. You don't even have to have a modicum of talent. Just ask Jim Rhome. "Face" is being able to give a party and the attendees are spilt evenly between "faces" from a level just slightly higher than you (to give one an opportunity to grovel). And, an equal number of "faces" just below your level (so as provide you with some grovelers of your very own). "Face" simply put, is what can be interpreted by the media-powers as anyone who can garner star-like attention for no other reason than there is a timely demand and fashionable support for it. This would be best demonstrated by, but not limited to, having people rushing to a "face's" chic club table to fan the air (and presumably to inhale the fragrance in the hopes of gaining some inner knowledgable edge), when the adoring"face" signals the need to possibly fart in their presence. The fashionable level of the "face"in terms of stardom is best measured by the number (the quantity) of admirers and the level (the quality) these fart fanners are themselves. Sterling, you see was a wannabe, a low level, in essence, a fart fanner if you will, for a number of celebrities. No matter how much money made, no matter many celebrities he helped with venture projects, he remained at the same lower level. The purchase of the Clippers, moved him up a several levels, and made him a well-known "face" and farter, with his own fanners. Including the entire LA Clipper fandom. That is the short answer. And, The Long Term Goals? So you see, the center of Strerling's modus operandi in not in owning a major sports franchise. It is not providing a team that is particularily talented or entertaining, (although in spite of this, the Clippers have had some talented teams in the past). It is not to aspire to bring glory to the gladiators or even to the lions. No, his real goal is and will always be to keep his "face" and to gain more fans, er ..... that is fanners than he had the day before. <center> </center>
