Not all NBA players are selfish jerks, after all

Nice story here about four NBA players -- Corey Maggette, Elton Brand, Chris Kaman and Marko Jaric -- who chipped in to pay for cancer treatment for assistant coach Kim Hughes when they were all with the Clippers several years back. Total cost of the treatment was somewhere around $70,000 according to the story -- and the players only chipped in after the Clippers said it wasn't covered by the team's health insurance.

We always bash these guys for some of the stupid things they do and say. Nice to flip it and mention a good deed.

http://www.journaltimes.com/sports/bucks/article_efc79902-4ebd-11e0-8c1b-001cc4c002e0.html

 

But yet another billionaire team owner is a penny-pinching prick fucking employees out of health coverage whenever possible.

 

Adrian Wojnarowski mentions this while making a larger point:

1. Donald Sterling is an epic piece of shit.
2. So is David Stern for looking the other way.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-sternnba031511

 

Once again proving Sterling is not just one of the worts people in sports but also the world.
But back to the original post kudos to those players. Karma has rewarded Marko Jaric well.

 

Why Stern hasn't banned Sterling is one thing I've questioned for a long time. He has shown 100 times the racist behavior and attitude of Marge Schott and is the living embodiment of bad for the game.

 

Read the link I posted. It might shed at least a little light on the situation.

 

I found it interesting that the LA Times story on this focused on how much the players helped out rather than the fact that Donald T. Sterling is a cheap scumbag who wouldn't pay some loose change to help one of his team's assistant coaches. Certainly that's what Adrian Wojnarowski got out of it. Perhaps we're just so used to Donald T.'s slimy ways that it's not even worth pointing out.

Also, Donald T. apparently hadn't heard much about the basketball background of Elgin Baylor before he hired him.

Yup, that's the Clippers.

 

I read that link, and although it carried good information, it didn't shed light on the question I was asking. To amplify it, I will ask why a league that celebrates MLK Day and has one of the most progressive minority hiring records of any industry, let alone sports, would continue to allow Donald Sterling to conduct business as usual.

 

Because David Stern doesn't give a shit as long as an owner:

1. Turns a profit.
2. Keeps his mouth shut.

Sterling is in dead girl/live boy territory.

 

I don't think the tact of the LA Times article was bad - highlighting the players doing something good - but I do think it doesn't answer a basic "Why?" question that most readers would have: why didn't the Clippers or the owner offer to cover the bills? Maybe the fact that the paper just assumes we know the answer to that (the Clippers/Sterling are cheap), but still...

 

First off, kudos to Brand, Maggette, Kaman and Jaric for doing the right thing, as is the main point of the thread.

And big kudos to Woj for continuing to point out what epic scumbags Donald Sterling and David Stern are in the NBA and life as a whole.

I worked with a woman whose son is trying to break into sports management. Got an interview with the Clippers for a sales/marketing sort of opportunity. According to my colleague, her son was interviewed by people trying entirely too hard to sound and look cool, complete with leaving their feet up on the desk during the process. They offered him a gig, but it was at $8 an hour.

I told her, "That's Donald Sterling in a nutshell." Weeks later, the piece on him in ESPN The Magazine was published. Needless to say, I made sure she had a copy of that for herself and her son.

 

So who goes into the deeper Ring of Sports Owner Hell for overall scuminess: Donald T. Sterling or Marge Schott? As bad as Donald T.'s ownership of the Clippers is, it still can't hold a candle to the level of filth and vile coming from Schott and how much MLB put up with before they forced her out.