*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (7 Viewers)

[Jayrod]

Oh, and DeAndre Jordan is a freak. He has become one of my favorite players. Love what Doc Rivers has done for his game.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Best 1st round of playoffs of recent memory.

Carmelo Anthony Kevin Durant having a tough series for the Thunder.

 

[BassNBrew]

Maybe the NBA can use some of that $2.5 million to get a camera shot of the final shot somewhere closer than the nose bleed seats at the opposite end of the arena.

 

[rascal]

watching this brooks post game interview is painful

 

[Kev4029]

FWIW, the current Constitution and By-Laws have been posted and are linked to on this Deadspin article

I think there could be an interesting legal battle looming. There's a principle of contractual interpretation that says that a more specifically worded or more narrowly applicable provision will trump a more general provision.

The provision of the NBA Constitution that applies most specifically to Sterling's statement -- because it applies only to statements -- is section 35A©, which says:

Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the Association or of a Member or its Team, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 to be imposed by the Commissioner. The Member whose Owner, Officer, Manager, Coach or other employee has been so fined shall pay the amount of the fine should such person fail to do so within ten (10) days of its imposition.

(My emphasis.) So it allows only a $1 million fine -- no suspension.

Section 35A(d) is a bit less specific because it applies to any conduct, not just statements:

The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding $1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association.

It allows a $1 million fine plus an indefinite suspension.

And then there's the catchall, section 24(l):

The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner’s judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.

It allows a $2.5 million fine plus an indefinite suspension.

I think there's a strong argument that section 35A© applies, authorizing only a $1 million fine. If a statement that qualifies under 35A© also qualifies as conduct under 35A(d), then 35A© is superfluous -- which is a pretty good argument that we should not interpret it that way. Section 35A(d), therefore, probably does not apply, and the suspension is unauthorized.

Moreover, since both 35A© and 35A(d) fix a penalty for violation, I think there's a very strong argument that section 24(l) does not apply. (Section 35A gives a range of penalties rather than a specific penalty; but what's the point of saying "not exceeding $1,000,000" if the "not exceeding" part renders it un-fixed, and therefore subject to the $2.5 million penalty?)

If I were arbitrating this, I might uphold only a $1 million fine with no suspension.

Moreover, I'm not so sure the other owners will be able to force Sterling to sell his interest. Article 13 says:

The ... interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the ... Owner shall ... [w]illfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

The rule that Sterling violated is in section 35A. But did he willfully say anything detrimental to the league? He just might be stupid enough to think that refusing to publicly associate (directly or indirectly) with black people actually enhances his reputation in the community, and is a benefit to the league. It would be fun if he made that argument, anyway. Also, he didn't will that his statement would be heard by anyone but his girlfriend.

Thanks for finding that.

Ultimately, I think the NBA/Silver may have purposely overshot the punishment that they will be able to uphold in court. The backlash of a million dollar fine with no suspension to Sterling would have cost them significantly more money than the legal battle possibly could. With such a small punishment, it is very conceivable that the NBA would have lost sponsorships and they certainly would have lost many fans. At this point, even if Sterling does get the team back, there will be very few players willing to play for him, so I think he'll be forced to sell anyway.

 

[Moe.]

@royceyoung
Westbrook: "If they give me a 15-footer, I'm gonna make that nine times out of 10, so I'm gonna shoot it." Um. Uh. Hmm.

 

[Jayrod]

@royceyoung
Westbrook: "If they give me a 15-footer, I'm gonna make that nine times out of 10, so I'm gonna shoot it." Um. Uh. Hmm.

Inside the mind of a shooter.

 

[EYLive]

 

[Daywalker]

Gag city by Durant. Ooph.

 

[Raider Nation]

Doc was completely drained and tearing up in the presser just now. It's been a rough few days. Nice touch by mentioning what a shame it is that this nonsense has overshadowed the passing of Dr. Jack Ramsay.

 

[Max Power]

Nice dominating series by the Wizards. Congrats to their fans! Things are set up for them to have a nice playoff run. Despite the Bulls offense being horrible, I still thought the Wizards defensive was impressive.

This was a fun year in a different way. We all knew the Bulls weren't going to win it all this year, but watching Noah move to Superstar level was worth it. The Bulls are still in a good position to build for next season. The team's flaws are obvious and they do have a couple mid firsts to address some role player needs. I think Boozer is all but gone and we have a little bit of free agent money this offseason. But also a lot of holes in the rotation to fill.

Best Wishes to DJ Augustin, he earned whatever contract he can get going forward. I wish we could have seen more of Jimmer, especially when the team was struggling to score. I'd side with Thibs on this, his defense really must be atrocious.

Congrats to the Wizards. I didn't catch many of their games this year, but Wall and Beal have clearly taken the next step. Nene and Gortat are going to be solid down low. That team is going to be a tough out this year.

 

[Daywalker]

Zack Lowe's article on Grantland was interesting. Basically Mark Jackson is unlikely to return. Also that Jackson has asked that Jerry West not attend most practices and team activities.

West

Scalabrine

Erman

All have rubbed Jackson the wrong way. Kind of seems like Jackson cannot handle input from others.

 

[Daywalker]

This is the best thing you will hear about the Sterling situation. Bomani Jones just breaks it down and spells it out. Well done.

First four minutes are a bit light but then Jones really goes into it. Listen to all 12 minutes. Worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bLKe9-Mto

 

[Mr Non Sequitur]

Felt like Mark Jackson was pretty bush league encouraging the Clippers fans to stay home and protest, why didn't he say that to Warriors fans on Sunday when they played at home? Glad the Clippers put themselves in position to take the series in either of the next 2 games.

Agree with folks ragging on Brooks, OKC should not be down 3-2 to Memphis right now. Grizzlies struggled to make the playoffs, sure they are a solid team but OKC should be able to beat them. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy for Memphis.

Will any of SA/OKC/LAC fall in the 1st round? How about Indiana on the ropes down 3-2 in the East? How many of them don't make it out of the 1st? Mild upset in Washington knocking off the 4 seed in Chicago but watching the series, seems like the Wizards are the better team. It's possible they square off against Atlanta and avoid the Heat until the ECF.

The Heat have got to be loving this, they might end up with Toronto or perhaps Brooklyn next, then a possible Wash/Atl series for the ECF which would be rather easy for them I suspect. Even the West looks to be in shambles at the moment. The Heat might end up with only 1 real series and that could simply be the Finals and a battered beaten down team managing to come out of the West.

 

[Abraham]

Don't fool yourself: Memphis is a really good team. They were in the WcF last year and have a top 3 defense. They won 50 games with gasol missing 23 and players like Allen and Lee missing time. These guys are good. And their size down low will pose problems for anyone they play.

 

[Sinn Fein]

So I am sure Sterling does not want to sell, but I can't imagine the value of the Clippers will ever be higher under his ownership. Right now its a good young team, with bright stars, and is ready to take over the LA market.

If Sterling fights this, you'll end up with a crappy franchise again, with no star players or coaches willing to be associated with the team.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Second in what may be a lengthy string of reminders that the Brooklyn Nets tanked out of the 5 seed so that they could play the Raptors and the winner of Heat/Bobcats instead of the Bulls and the winner of Pacers/Hawks.

Does anyone know who in the Nets front office spearheaded this move? Or do I just send the Thank You gift basket to Barclays?

 

[pollardsvision]

So I am sure Sterling does not want to sell, but I can't imagine the value of the Clippers will ever be higher under his ownership. Right now its a good young team, with bright stars, and is ready to take over the LA market.

If Sterling fights this, you'll end up with a crappy franchise again, with no star players or coaches willing to be associated with the team.

I don't think that's true (that the value has peaked or is anywhere close to it), but even if it were, it wouldn't matter. It doesn't sound like Sterling cares about any of that. He doesn't want to sell. Period. He just wanted to own them for the rest of his life, and I assume for the Clippers to stay in the Sterling family for many more generations.

 

[pollardsvision]

Second in what may be a lengthy string of reminders that the Brooklyn Nets tanked out of the 5 seed so that they could play the Raptors and the winner of Heat/Bobcats instead of the Bulls and the winner of Pacers/Hawks.

Does anyone know who in the Nets front office spearheaded this move? Or do I just send the Thank You gift basket to Barclays?

Such a horrible decision.

 

[Timmay]

Im glad most of the political/Sterling posters are gone. That was too crazy for me yesterday, I had to leave and come back when the real basketball talk was back.

 

[thecatch]

So I am sure Sterling does not want to sell, but I can't imagine the value of the Clippers will ever be higher under his ownership. Right now its a good young team, with bright stars, and is ready to take over the LA market.

If Sterling fights this, you'll end up with a crappy franchise again, with no star players or coaches willing to be associated with the team.

I don't think that's true (that the value has peaked or is anywhere close to it), but even if it were, it wouldn't matter. It doesn't sound like Sterling cares about any of that. He doesn't want to sell. Period. He just wanted to own them for the rest of his life, and I assume for the Clippers to stay in the Sterling family for many more generations.

McCann at SI has a vey good article on the legal situation this morning. A point he raised - Sterling will have a massive capital gains tax bill if he sells, but if the franchise passes onto his heirs they can substantially reduce or eliminate the taxes owed. If nothing else, this gives him a huge incentive to fight tooth and nail on the sale issue.

 

[The Commish]

Has panther club's schtick always been this?

Depends on what you mean by "this".

Facts rarely get in his way. You should see his work in the Pepsi stunt driving threads and the thread about the dad shooting the laptop on facebook. This thread is just scratching the surface. For most others it's pretty simple. The NBA owners become such under the NBA rules and consequences. Becoming an owner means you agree to abide by those rules and consequences. Pretty cut and dry.....sans pantherclub.

 

[pantherclub]

So I am sure Sterling does not want to sell, but I can't imagine the value of the Clippers will ever be higher under his ownership. Right now its a good young team, with bright stars, and is ready to take over the LA market.

If Sterling fights this, you'll end up with a crappy franchise again, with no star players or coaches willing to be associated with the team.

I don't think that's true (that the value has peaked or is anywhere close to it), but even if it were, it wouldn't matter. It doesn't sound like Sterling cares about any of that. He doesn't want to sell. Period. He just wanted to own them for the rest of his life, and I assume for the Clippers to stay in the Sterling family for many more generations.

McCann at SI has a vey good article on the legal situation this morning. A point he raised - Sterling will have a massive capital gains tax bill if he sells, but if the franchise passes onto his heirs they can substantially reduce or eliminate the taxes owed. If nothing else, this gives him a huge incentive to fight tooth and nail on the sale issue.

I think this thing goes to court regardless. Some dude on satellite radio this morning was even talking about Sterling getting a stay from a judge just in spite of the NBA, not sure how feasible that is but pretty much everyone agrees that Sterling is lawyering up for a fight.

 

[pantherclub]

Has panther club's schtick always been this?

Depends on what you mean by "this".

Facts rarely get in his way. You should see his work in the Pepsi stunt driving threads and the thread about the dad shooting the laptop on facebook. This thread is just scratching the surface. For most others it's pretty simple. The NBA owners become such under the NBA rules and consequences. Becoming an owner means you agree to abide by those rules and consequences. Pretty cut and dry.....sans pantherclub.

My personal fan club

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So I am sure Sterling does not want to sell, but I can't imagine the value of the Clippers will ever be higher under his ownership. Right now its a good young team, with bright stars, and is ready to take over the LA market.

If Sterling fights this, you'll end up with a crappy franchise again, with no star players or coaches willing to be associated with the team.

I don't think that's true (that the value has peaked or is anywhere close to it), but even if it were, it wouldn't matter. It doesn't sound like Sterling cares about any of that. He doesn't want to sell. Period. He just wanted to own them for the rest of his life, and I assume for the Clippers to stay in the Sterling family for many more generations.

McCann at SI has a vey good article on the legal situation this morning. A point he raised - Sterling will have a massive capital gains tax bill if he sells, but if the franchise passes onto his heirs they can substantially reduce or eliminate the taxes owed. If nothing else, this gives him a huge incentive to fight tooth and nail on the sale issue.

I think this thing goes to court regardless. Some dude on satellite radio this morning was even talking about Sterling getting a stay from a judge just in spite of the NBA, not sure how feasible that is but pretty much everyone agrees that Sterling is lawyering up for a fight.

If only the NBA had a team of lawyers behind them when they made this decision. If only...

 

[pantherclub]

lawyers cant be wrong?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

lawyers cant be wrong?

You're right, they're wrong.

 

[pantherclub]

lawyers cant be wrong?

You're right, they're wrong.

wait what? I am saying Sterling is going to fight this, what are you saying again?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So I am sure Sterling does not want to sell, but I can't imagine the value of the Clippers will ever be higher under his ownership. Right now its a good young team, with bright stars, and is ready to take over the LA market.

If Sterling fights this, you'll end up with a crappy franchise again, with no star players or coaches willing to be associated with the team.

I don't think that's true (that the value has peaked or is anywhere close to it), but even if it were, it wouldn't matter. It doesn't sound like Sterling cares about any of that. He doesn't want to sell. Period. He just wanted to own them for the rest of his life, and I assume for the Clippers to stay in the Sterling family for many more generations.

McCann at SI has a vey good article on the legal situation this morning. A point he raised - Sterling will have a massive capital gains tax bill if he sells, but if the franchise passes onto his heirs they can substantially reduce or eliminate the taxes owed. If nothing else, this gives him a huge incentive to fight tooth and nail on the sale issue.

McCann's article was both good and bad. The cap gains perspective was interesting, but he appeared to be working off of an old copy of the NBA By-Laws and Constitution because he failed to mention the provision under Article 13 that the owners will argue applies.

I think Maurile's analysis in this thread was more interesting, (although I quibble with Maurile's interpretation of a scienter requirement in Article 13).

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

Tobias.. The Wiz!!!

 

[TobiasFunke]

Tobias.. The Wiz!!!

We're celebrating in the Wiz semi-respectability thread.

 

[The Commish]

Has panther club's schtick always been this?

Depends on what you mean by "this".

Facts rarely get in his way. You should see his work in the Pepsi stunt driving threads and the thread about the dad shooting the laptop on facebook. This thread is just scratching the surface. For most others it's pretty simple. The NBA owners become such under the NBA rules and consequences. Becoming an owner means you agree to abide by those rules and consequences. Pretty cut and dry.....sans pantherclub.

My personal fan club

damn right....I have a soft spot in my heart of hearts for continual trainwrecks....don't ever change GB.

 

[pollardsvision]

So I am sure Sterling does not want to sell, but I can't imagine the value of the Clippers will ever be higher under his ownership. Right now its a good young team, with bright stars, and is ready to take over the LA market.

If Sterling fights this, you'll end up with a crappy franchise again, with no star players or coaches willing to be associated with the team.

I don't think that's true (that the value has peaked or is anywhere close to it), but even if it were, it wouldn't matter. It doesn't sound like Sterling cares about any of that. He doesn't want to sell. Period. He just wanted to own them for the rest of his life, and I assume for the Clippers to stay in the Sterling family for many more generations.

McCann at SI has a vey good article on the legal situation this morning. A point he raised - Sterling will have a massive capital gains tax bill if he sells, but if the franchise passes onto his heirs they can substantially reduce or eliminate the taxes owed. If nothing else, this gives him a huge incentive to fight tooth and nail on the sale issue.

I think this thing goes to court regardless. Some dude on satellite radio this morning was even talking about Sterling getting a stay from a judge just in spite of the NBA, not sure how feasible that is but pretty much everyone agrees that Sterling is lawyering up for a fight.

If only the NBA had a team of lawyers behind them when they made this decision. If only...

I'm sure the NBA expects quite a legal fight.

Even if there's a chance the ban (even moreso a forced sell) wouldn't survive in court, they might see this as the best course of action. Maybe even the only course of action.

Sponsors were leaving. Players were talking about boycotting. This in the middle of a wildly successful round of Playoffs and the NBA in general is on the rise.

Even if none of this holds, they are giving the impression that they are doing everything they can. That could certainly be worth a lengthy court battle they ultimately lose. They staved off a Playoff catastrophe and set themselves up to minimize the harm even if they can't really get rid of Sterling.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So I am sure Sterling does not want to sell, but I can't imagine the value of the Clippers will ever be higher under his ownership. Right now its a good young team, with bright stars, and is ready to take over the LA market.

If Sterling fights this, you'll end up with a crappy franchise again, with no star players or coaches willing to be associated with the team.

I don't think that's true (that the value has peaked or is anywhere close to it), but even if it were, it wouldn't matter. It doesn't sound like Sterling cares about any of that. He doesn't want to sell. Period. He just wanted to own them for the rest of his life, and I assume for the Clippers to stay in the Sterling family for many more generations.

McCann at SI has a vey good article on the legal situation this morning. A point he raised - Sterling will have a massive capital gains tax bill if he sells, but if the franchise passes onto his heirs they can substantially reduce or eliminate the taxes owed. If nothing else, this gives him a huge incentive to fight tooth and nail on the sale issue.

I think this thing goes to court regardless. Some dude on satellite radio this morning was even talking about Sterling getting a stay from a judge just in spite of the NBA, not sure how feasible that is but pretty much everyone agrees that Sterling is lawyering up for a fight.

If only the NBA had a team of lawyers behind them when they made this decision. If only...

I'm sure the NBA expects quite a legal fight.

Even if there's a chance the ban (even moreso a forced sell) wouldn't survive in court, they might see this as the best course of action. Maybe even the only course of action.

Sponsors were leaving. Players were talking about boycotting. This in the middle of a wildly successful round of Playoffs and the NBA in general is on the rise.

Even if none of this holds, they are giving the impression that they are doing everything they can. That could certainly be worth a lengthy court battle they ultimately lose. They staved off a Playoff catastrophe and set themselves up to minimize the harm even if they can't really get rid of Sterling.

That's my point. I'm sure the NBA knows exactly what they're going to get in terms of a fight from Sterling. I'm guessing they went over a multitude of scenarios where if they did X, Sterling would do X and came to the conclusion that this was their best course of action. We, non-lawyers who've not read their by-laws/constitution, have no idea.

 

[Jayrod]

I know Sterling is a POS, but does anyone else think the punishment here doesn't really fit the crime, or is this like a lifetime achievement award thing?

 

[Sinn Fein]

In some ways, the NBA does not need the forced removal to be successful. They have won the PR battle, and the players are happy, media will move on to reporting about on-the-court activities.

Best case scenario for most everyone is probably a transfer of ownership to his children - he'll still "control" the team in the background, and the NBA can move on.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I know Sterling is a POS, but does anyone else think the punishment here doesn't really fit the crime, or is this like a lifetime achievement award thing?

Commissioner specifically said it was for this particular incident only - which I am sure is CYA language. But the NBA was faced with some serious negative publicity to all franchises if they did not take the action it took yesterday - players boycotting games would have been a nightmare scenario - and dragged this story on, when, arguably, the NBA is enjoying its best set of 1st round playoffs ever.

I also don't view this a real "punishment". Sure the fine is real, and the life time ban is real. But that is the equivalent of putting a kid in time out. He'll still recoup the value of his franchise. I'm sure his feelings are hurt by getting kicked out of the club, but i suspect he'll get over that.

 

[mrip541]

I know Sterling is a POS, but does anyone else think the punishment here doesn't really fit the crime, or is this like a lifetime achievement award thing?

The man was caught on tape admitting he uses his massive power to reinforce the racial divides he perceives in the world, because it’s good business. I’m not sure how you can keep him around after that. It's about all the actions he's taken based on his twisted worldview.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I know Sterling is a POS, but does anyone else think the punishment here doesn't really fit the crime, or is this like a lifetime achievement award thing?

I don't think of it as a punishment. I think that NBA owners should be able to decide they don't want to continue to be partners with someone who they think hurts their business. I know that some think that this blows the "crime" of Sterling's private racism out of proportion to other moral faults, but the reality of the NBA is that this is a business that relies in large part on the talents of African American men. And if 80% of the league's employees don't want the other owners to associate with a toxic, avowed racist, that has the potential to cause dramatic economic harm.

 

[The Commish]

I know Sterling is a POS, but does anyone else think the punishment here doesn't really fit the crime, or is this like a lifetime achievement award thing?

Whether one agrees or not, it's quite apparent these "actions" against him aren't solely over the latest incident, rather his entire long lived body of work. Similar to OJ here in that when he was finally thrown in jail the punishment seemed to be more about him getting off a murder charge rather than him committing "armed robbery".

 

[ffldrew]

If Silver wants to fix the league he should ban Joey Crawford for life

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I know Sterling is a POS, but does anyone else think the punishment here doesn't really fit the crime, or is this like a lifetime achievement award thing?

I don't think of it as a punishment. I think that NBA owners should be able to decide they don't want to continue to be partners with someone who they think hurts their business. I know that some think that this blows the "crime" of Sterling's private racism out of proportion to other moral faults, but the reality of the NBA is that this is a business that relies in large part on the talents of African American men. And if 80% of the league's employees don't want the other owners to associate with a toxic, avowed racist, that has the potential to cause dramatic economic harm.

Yep

 

[mrip541]

People keep suggesting his is some kind of private racism as if he wasn't recorded talking about the real life impact of his views, and as if he hadn't been sued multiple times for racism and discrimination.

 

[Tom Hagen]

So I am sure Sterling does not want to sell, but I can't imagine the value of the Clippers will ever be higher under his ownership. Right now its a good young team, with bright stars, and is ready to take over the LA market.

If Sterling fights this, you'll end up with a crappy franchise again, with no star players or coaches willing to be associated with the team.

I don't think that's true (that the value has peaked or is anywhere close to it), but even if it were, it wouldn't matter. It doesn't sound like Sterling cares about any of that. He doesn't want to sell. Period. He just wanted to own them for the rest of his life, and I assume for the Clippers to stay in the Sterling family for many more generations.

McCann at SI has a vey good article on the legal situation this morning. A point he raised - Sterling will have a massive capital gains tax bill if he sells, but if the franchise passes onto his heirs they can substantially reduce or eliminate the taxes owed. If nothing else, this gives him a huge incentive to fight tooth and nail on the sale issue.

I don't think McCann did a very good job of explaining this. He states the combined federal/state capital gains rate would be 33% but the top federal estate tax rate is 40%. I'm not sure how selling it while he is alive would be more expensive than allowing the team to pass through his estate.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

People keep suggesting his is some kind of private racism as if he wasn't recorded talking about the real life impact of his views, and as if he hadn't been sued multiple times for racism and discrimination.

That's because Silver told us that he didn't consider Sterling's history of being sued for housing discrimination. Sterling's comments weren't directed at why he preferred renting to Koreans instead of Hispanics and African Americans. They were directed to why he didn't want his mistress posting pictures with black dudes on Instagram.

 

[Jayrod]

So I am sure Sterling does not want to sell, but I can't imagine the value of the Clippers will ever be higher under his ownership. Right now its a good young team, with bright stars, and is ready to take over the LA market.

If Sterling fights this, you'll end up with a crappy franchise again, with no star players or coaches willing to be associated with the team.

I don't think that's true (that the value has peaked or is anywhere close to it), but even if it were, it wouldn't matter. It doesn't sound like Sterling cares about any of that. He doesn't want to sell. Period. He just wanted to own them for the rest of his life, and I assume for the Clippers to stay in the Sterling family for many more generations.

McCann at SI has a vey good article on the legal situation this morning. A point he raised - Sterling will have a massive capital gains tax bill if he sells, but if the franchise passes onto his heirs they can substantially reduce or eliminate the taxes owed. If nothing else, this gives him a huge incentive to fight tooth and nail on the sale issue.

I don't think McCann did a very good job of explaining this. He states the combined federal/state capital gains rate would be 33% but the top federal estate tax rate is 40%. I'm not sure how selling it while he is alive would be more expensive than allowing the team to pass through his estate.

Proper estate planning can mitigate that a great deal. I doubt he has a plan in place to handle the capital gains tax.

 

[metoo]

For those of you that think this doesn't hurt Sterling because he bought the team for 12 million and he will be able to sell for over 700 million, BS. You are looking at it from your perspective not his. This guy has all the money in the world and he can never sit courtside at a Clippers game again. This guy is concerned about how he's being depicted on Instagram at 80.

 

[Timmay]

Jamal Crawford wins 6th man of the year.

http://nba.si.com/2014/04/30/report-jamal-crawford-sixth-man-of-the-year/

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

BTW - This is a prime opportunity for Vivid or someone to make a porn where a Magic Johnson "look-alike" bangs Sterling's mistress while an old man Sterling looks on and laments.

 

[Abraham]

Jamal Crawford wins 6th man of the year.

http://nba.si.com/2014/04/30/report-jamal-crawford-sixth-man-of-the-year/

Has he won it before?