Maybe this is part of an elaborate bluff or misdirection or…
Maybe the Clippers are just moving on from Doc Rivers.
Brad Turner of the Los Angeles Times:
Clippers actually talked contract with Byron Scott after meeting with Sterling Tuesday night; Clips also talked contract with BShaw also
— Brad Turner (@BA_Turner) June 22, 2013
BShaw talked contract after his meeting Wednesday with Sterling sources.
— Brad Turner (@BA_Turner) June 22, 2013
But in case of BScott, sources said they are "getting there, but still talking" with Clippers. No deal yet though.
— Brad Turner (@BA_Turner) June 22, 2013
When I wrote the Clippers might get a coach better than Rivers, I didn’t mean Scott. I meant Hollins or, if he really demonstrated his upside during the interview process, Shaw.
By negotiating with two candidate at once, it seems like the Clippers are trying to balance hiring the best coach and the least expensive coach. If that’s what they’re doing, that’s the wrong process.
For a team in contention for a championship, this is not the time to be cheap. (Though, maybe for the Clippers, it’s always the time to be cheap.) The Clippers should pick the coach they believe will do the best job, try to hire him and if, and only if, contract talks fail, then they should negotiate with their next choice.
Perhaps, the Clippers haven’t decided on the best coach, so they’ve begun negotiations with two only so they’re prepared once they decide. If so, that’s a perfectly acceptable way to operate.
But these are the Clippers. Which seems more likely?
Really, though, the coach matters right now only in his ability to convince Chris Paul to re-sign. Scott coached Paul with the Hornets, and maybe the superstar free agent is open to a reunion.
If Paul wants only Scott, hire him. But if that were the case why negotiate with Shaw, too?
The Clippers should be doing everything they can to secure the best coach who meets Paul’s approval. I don’t see negotiating with Scott and Shaw simultaneously as a sign they’re on the right track.
