Jim Alexander: With everything else we’ve got going on in SoCal sports these days – the process of finding a coach willing to take on the mess that is UCLA football, or the Dumpster fire the Dodgers’ bullpen has been over the past two months, and trust me, we’ll get to those – the bombshell that dropped Wednesday on ESPN.com calls into question the entire relationship between the Clippers and Kawhi Leonard.
In fact, a long story by Baxter Holmes about the internal issues of the last few years probably could be summed up in this sentence: “They’re done building around him.”
The gist of the story – and Mirjam, you probably have a better grasp of this as a Clippers beat writer during much of that era – is that Leonard and his uncle/agent/facilitator Dennis Robertson basically orchestrated anything involving Leonard with the Clippers, who were so anxious to get him (and keep him out of the clutches of the Lakers) that they not only moved heaven and earth (and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, future NBA MVP and champion) to acquire Paul George as Leonard’s wingman, but seem to have allowed Leonard to write his own rules in a lot of ways.
Kawhi decided when he would come back from injury (and this is something that dates to his final year with San Antonio and the disagreement involving the seriousness of an injury that kept him out of the lineup and eventually led to his trade to Toronto). Kawhi decided when he would engage with the outside world (not much) and the media (ditto). And given history, and the demands that Robertson made when Leonard was a free agent – part ownership? Really??? – now I’m not so incredulous at the allegation that a no-work endorsement contract was structured to evade salary cap regulations.
Mirjam, what was your reaction while reading Holmes’ lengthy, fascinating and in some ways aggravating account?
Mirjam Swanson: Yeah, the ESPN piece was a good primer for folks who haven’t really followed the Clippers during the Kawhi Era … which, to be fair, is a lot of people.
Otherwise, it was a reminder to the Clippers’ loyal and beleaguered fan base of how uncooperative and opaque everything has been around Kawhi and the team since he’s been aboard.
Tyronn Lue’s go-to line in news conferences is literally “I don’t remember.” Usually delivered with a chuckle and a shrug.
It’s his tongue-in-cheek Congressional hearing of a response to basic basketball questions, because he was always trying to avoid saying something wrong regarding Kawhi, especially in regard to injury or availability. It’s why covering the Clippers was so frustrating – there were some utterly delightful guys on those teams and cool people behind the scenes, but the Clippers’ company policy was to treat basic information like government secrets in a way that the Lakers, say, would not.
That’s why the reporting that podcaster Pablo Torre is doing right now into whether the Clippers subverted the salary cap is so fascinating.
In what’s become something a serialized true-crime NBA style pod, Torre has a new episode out today of “Pablo Torre Finds Out,” detailing more alleged funding from Ballmer and the Clippers into Aspiration – the now-bankrupt company that is accused of signing Leonard to a $28 million no-show endorsement deal as a way for the team allegedly to circumvent the cap – even after it was already clear the company was faltering,
Now, of course, it’s only fair to point out that the Clippers have denied any wrongdoing and continue to deny any wrongdoing, calling the allegations “absurd” before Ballmer went on ESPN and told the world that he’d been duped.
But an investigation by the league – concurrent to Torre’s reporting – is ongoing. So, we’ll see.
Jim: I do have a sizable history with Kawhi, dating to his high school successes at Riverside’s Martin Luther King Jr. High, through his college days at San Diego State and frequent interviews – such as they were – when he would come into town with the Spurs or Raptors. To stipulate: He didn’t resist interviews, but he never surrendered much, either.
So the secrecy with which the Clippers surrounded Kawhi didn’t surprise me, especially after his rift with the Spurs. And it seemed the Clippers feared his leverage even as it waned over the years. If they truly have decided that Uncle Dennis’ bluster doesn’t scare them any more … well, I’ll still believe it when I see it.
So let’s discuss the other bombshell this week: Sunday morning, I’m at the mall with my wife when I see the notification on my phone: DeShaun Foster out as UCLA’s coach. And I hate to say I called it, but a couple of weeks ago in the Coliseum press box I noted that if they started 0-3, I was afraid Foster wouldn’t make it to Week 4. I’m not happy to be right, but I wasn’t surprised, either.
There are any number of names being floated as the permanent replacement (and there is one surprise suggestion, one that’s pretty far out there, that I’m saving for this week’s notes column). Considering that Job One for the next coach is to get UCLA’s fan base interested and engaged again, I don’t really get that vibe from any of the listed candidates.
And I guess D’Anton Lynn, who was Chip Kelly’s last defensive coordinator at UCLA and is now doing the same for Lincoln Riley at USC, is at the front of most of the speculation lists. He says he hasn’t been contacted and hadn’t considered the position, as our USC beat writer Haley Sawyer wrote. But consider: Even if he were interested, you don’t say it, especially during the season and especially when you’re working for the rival.
As an aside: If Lynn did become the head coach, I’d hope that he’d bring his dad with him. Anthony Lynn was pretty successful in the first two of his four seasons as Chargers coach, coinciding with the franchise’s first two years in L.A., but what impressed me most about him was his bluntness. He wasn’t afraid to tell his players what they needed to hear, be it at the postgame podium or (presumably) in the meeting room.
Our own Benjamin Royer’s list of potential UCLA candidates includes Jonathan Smith, former Oregon State and current Michigan State head coach (who, irony of ironies, is in town with the Spartans to face USC tomorrow night); Oregon offensive coordinator Will Stein; Florida State defensive coordinator Tony White; Arizona head coach Brent Brennan; Vanderbilt’s Clark Lea; and Sacramento State head coach Brennan Marion. He also mentions Washington’s Jedd Fisch, Minnesota head coach PJ Fleck, Georgia defensive coordinator Glenn Schumann and UNLV head coach Dan Mullen.
The Athletic’s Bruce Feldman had Lynn at the top of his list and also mentioned Baylor head coach Dave Aranda, BYU’s Kalani Sitake, Oregon defensive coordinator Tosh Lupoi, White and Cleveland Browns offensive coordinator Tommy Rees (whose dad, Bill, was on Terry Donahue’s staff).
This assumes that the primary goal is to find someone who can whip the program into shape well enough to win. That’s part of the priority, in my mind. As low as UCLA has fallen on the pecking order in the most diverse (and fickle) sports market on this continent, they’re going to need someone who can somehow capture people’s attention and imaginations.
Is that guy out there?
Mirjam: Sure, somewhere.
Another couple names, per BetOnline.ag has the first odds: Jon Gruden topped the list at 4-1, and Colorado’s Deion Sanders was next, at 5-1. I don’t think it’s actually going to be either of those guys (too pricey, probably), but if the Bruins wanted to make a splash?!
I think whoever it is has to be someone with a proven track record. D’Anton Lynn, say, is a great defensive mind and coach, but he hasn’t had to pull a program out of a tailspin before.
As I wrote when the news broke Sunday, this isn’t a position you gamble with. You need the surest thing you can find, especially after the Foster experiment – it would’ve been a great story if the former Bruin star running back turned it around – fell so flat.
Another possibility, in my mind: Jason Eck, New Mexico’s coach. The guy who ended the Foster era by leading his Lobos to the 35-10 victory – extra sweet on top of the $1.5 million payday they got to come and give UCLA a game – would a poetic replacement.
And he’s the kind of guy who’s been steadily traversing the coaching ranks, proving himself one step at a time. Now at New Mexico, previously he was at Idaho, where he led the Vandals to three consecutive FCS postseasons.
And as much as UCLA wants and needs to move the dial to grasp at relevancy in L.A., I think hiring someone with a strong résumé and the benefit of experience will do more than bringing in a big name or a hot new prospect. Because Foster was right: Winning is marketing.
Jim: At the same time, I’m convinced they need someone who can get UCLA fans to pay attention again, right away, especially with an athletic department (and a university) facing financial stress and potential crisis.
Meanwhile … I made this observation on social media Wednesday night after the Dodgers’ bullpen actually protected a lead for a change: “Three straight scoreless appearances for Tanner Scott. Not totally convinced yet, but it’s a start.”
It is amazing that Scott, whose nine blown saves tie him for the major-league lead with Ryan Helsley, is the only Dodger in the top 25 given the number of leads the staff has let get away. But consider: Since July 3, they’re 29-35 going into tonight’s game with the Giants. In that span relievers have been the losing pitchers in 19 of those 35 games. Five of those losses have come this month, one by Scott and four by Blake Treinen.
But, amazingly, the Dodgers are not among the major-league leaders in blown saves. The Angels are No. 1 with 31. The Dodgers are 10th with 23. Then again, when more is given, more is expected. (Those blown save stats, by the way, come from BetMGM. I guess knowing which bullpens are greater Dumpster fires would be good information to know before wagering.)
This may help explain why Dave Roberts went to the mound in the seventh inning last night ostensibly to take Blake Snell out, but wound up leaving him in to get out of his own jam. Roberts, of course, took heat for taking Shohei Ohtani out after five no-hit innings Tuesday night – but most of those fans who roasted him for it forgot or didn’t realize, as Roberts made clear a few weeks ago when the team was in Anaheim, that Ohtani wouldn’t go past five innings the rest of the regular season. When your best player – on, as they say, both sides of the ball – is coming off Tommy John surgery, you’re more cautious.
But I’ve determined that fandom has one simple rule: The relievers screw it up, the manager gets the blame. The front office, who put together that bullpen and didn’t reinforce it at the trading deadline, doesn’t hear a word.
Mirjam, do you think this team is capable of winning another World Series? Right now I don’t, barring a complete and unexpected 180 from its bullpen.
Mirjam: This whole season I’ve been looking at the Dodgers like a ballclub that’s treading water until the real season starts. Or I’ve been wanting to look at them like that.
The regular season that means so much to most teams remains but a foregone conclusion for the Dodgers – they’re going to make the playoffs, short of some monumental implosion. The idea is to be right and ready when the playoffs begin. And now, look! The Dodgers have six healthy, reliable starters.
So maybe the Dodgers’ pathway is by going old school?
Last season, when their title run was so contingent on bullpen success, that was largely because the starting pitchers were all banged up.
Now with a rotation that includes a healthy Clayton Kershaw, Shohei Ohtani, Tyler Glasnow, Blake Snell and Emmett Sheehan, what if the Dodgers ride their starters longer into games?
Save the bullpen’s energy so that when those relievers – taxed heavily earlier in the season when the starting rotation was thinned by injury – are called upon, it won’t be for as long, and, theoretically, the guys who haven’t been able to stop blowing saves will have some more wind back in their sails.
Imagine it! Winning a World Series in 2025 by leaning on your starters? The Washington Nationals proved it’s possible in 2019, remember? When Max Scherzer and Stephen Strasburg combined took on the bulk of the load in the postseason, throwing 36 and 30 innings apiece?
So, I guess, yes. I do think they’re still capable – even if they have to take a different route, one not often traveled anymore but appealing all the same, especially if you’re a traditionalist.
