Doc Rivers – Memphis Flyer

Larry Kuzniewski

Alas, Jeff Green’s tenure as a Grizzly never really worked out, but they got a protected first round pick for him.

The Grizzlies have traded Jeff Green to the Los Angeles Clippers in exchange for a lottery-protected 2019 first round pick and guard Lance Stephenson. In doing so right at Thursday’s trade deadline, they turned an OK trade period—yesterday they turned Courtney Lee into PJ Hairston, Chris Andersen, and four second-round picks—into an unqualified success.

In turning two players who were playing well but underperforming into a first round pick (which might actually convey, assuming the Clippers make the playoffs that year), four seconds (though one is so protected it probably won’t ever make it to Memphis), a young guy who hasn’t lived up to his promise, a big to replace Ryan Hollins at the end of the Gasol-less frontcourt rotation, and whatever you want to call Lance Stephenson (a.k.a. “Born Ready” a.k.a. “This Guy Will Be Gone In A Couple Months”)… the Grizzlies really did well.

This is the kind of smart deadline those who watch the team were hoping they’d have: moving guys on expiring deals to teams willing to give up assets in exchange. The players the Grizzlies got back are pretty much all certifiably insane—and now they’re on a team that already had Zach Randolph, Tony Allen, and Matt Barnes—but the bet here is that (1) these guys are all going to be gone at the end of the year anyway, but those draft picks won’t and (2) the Griz may or may not make the playoffs anyway, so why not shore up their position for the future?

It’s going to be interesting to see how this works out on the court. Lee’s usage was pretty easily replaceable but the bulk of Green’s minutes now will probably be split between Matt Barnes and, well, Vince Carter? I’m not sure who’s going to be the bench 3 now. It could be James Ennis, recently recalled from the Iowa Energy. Maybe Stephenson will play backup 2 and Carter will slide over to small forward.

An ideal rotation might look a little something like (UPDATE — Now that it’s confirmed that the Grizzlies aren’t going to waive Stephenson, this is a better guess):

Conley / Allen / Barnes / Randolph / Wright
Chalmers / (Stephenson / Carter / Ennis wing bench wings) / Green (there’s only one now!) / Andersen

…at least, until Jordan Adams returns from his knee surgery, which will hopefully happen before the end of the season. I don’t expect Stephenson to play much, but if he can tamp down his insanity, he might be a nice addition off the bench. That’s a pretty big “if” though.

There’s something to be said for the comments that in adding Hairston, Andersen, and Stephenson, all guys with histories of off-court issues (well, and on court ones too), the Grizzlies may have added too much “crazy” to a locker room that already has some pretty outsized personalities, but I’m not sure I buy it. These guys are crazy, but they’re not stupid. The Grizzlies’ locker room has very solid leaders, who will keep guys in line (especially Zach Randolph and Tony Allen, in terms of keeping personalities in check).

The on-court fit is secondary to the haul of draft picks, of course. Once it comes time to sign free agents, the Grizzlies’ basic position is the same, except now they have a few more little pieces to work with if they’d like to facilitate a trade into their cap space instead of a signing. It’s a bet on the future, a recognition that they need to prepare for the road ahead, even if it costs them games in the short term—which, let’s be honest, might happen, especially at first with so many new guys to fill what had been established roles in the rotation (and I count the returning Brandan Wright in that, too).

This is exactly the kind of trade deadline the Griz needed to have if they were going to prove to the world that they recognized the importance of the future over the “now” (and even over next season). Plus they stuck the Clippers with Jeff Green, who—though he’s had some great games this season—caused more chemistry problems on the floor that he was worth.

We’ll see these guys in action tomorrow—Hairston and Andersen both practiced with the team today. More on this as it develops.

We all know the story by now. The mistress of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling recorded a conversation with Sterling in which he made racist comments. This led the NBA to ban Sterling for life, fine him $2.5 million, and announce efforts to get him to divest from the Clippers. This whirlwind drama has led people to ask a lot of legal questions.

Did the NBA violate Sterling’s First Amendment rights?

No. Public figures have routinely been smacked for making ill-advised comments. And every time a Paula Deen, a Phil Robertson, or a Donald Sterling is dealt consequences for their comments, people argue their right to free speech has been abridged. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The amendment applies to the government, not to private entities such as the Food Network, A&E, or the NBA.

How can the NBA get rid of an owner?

Until the Sterling brouhaha emerged, the NBA had kept its constitution and by-laws “secret.” However, the league has since made the document public. Relevant to the Sterling situation is Article 13, titled “Termination of Ownership or Membership.” It sets out a number of reasons the league can terminate ownership interests, including an owner’s failure or refusal to fulfill contractual obligations with the league. So, if Sterling breached a contract with the league, then there’d be grounds to terminate his ownership interest.

ESPN reported Sterling signed documents when he acquired the Clippers that include a clause indicating owners cannot take positions that could materially adversely affect a team or the league. Presumably, the NBA will say that Sterling’s comments fall into this category. Is this argument a slam dunk? (Sorry.) Probably not. Sterling will likely claim that a private conversation should not be considered “taking a position.” It was not a public declaration, after all. Will this argument carry the day? Stay tuned.

Does Sterling expose the Clippers to discrimination claims?

I am not going to argue whether or not Sterling is a racist. The recording speaks for itself. Draw your own conclusions. But if Donald Sterling is a racist and if his employees know it, is that a problem?

Well, sure. The Clippers organization employs African Americans and other minorities, and not just those on the court. Apart from the players and coaching staff, there’s marketing, administration, and so on. What, if any, effect does having someone who is publicly deemed to be a racist have on a workplace?

Let’s take the obvious path first. If Sterling were to fire Clippers Coach Doc Rivers (who is African American), could Rivers allege he was terminated due to his race and file a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or state law? Sure, he could. Part of the evidence could include that the man who fired him had demonstrated racial animus and that whatever reason he gave for the termination was a pretext for discrimination. Does this mean he’d win the case? Not necessarily. But it could make defending it more difficult.

But let’s say that Sterling didn’t fire anyone and has never said a racist word to any Clippers employees. Could an employee somehow claim that Sterling has created a “hostile work environment” due to his private comments?

To establish a claim of a racially based hostile work environment, a plaintiff must show, among other things, that race-based harassment unreasonably interfered with an individual’s work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

So could the mere fact that a known racist is in charge lead to an actionable claim? As long as the individual leaves their racism at home and doesn’t spread those thoughts in a work setting, absent action, liability seems unlikely. Is every employment decision Sterling made in relation to an African American now subject to attack based on his comments? Possibly.

The key take-away here is that if you own a business or work in management, it’s probably a good idea to avoid spouting racist comments, even privately. You never know who is recording you and when. After all, if you can’t count on your mistress who is about a half-century younger than you to be discreet, who can you trust?

R. Joseph Leibovich is a member of the law firm of Shuttleworth Williams, PLLC.