Well, the answer is, because of the Sonics’ publicly proclaimed policy of demanding immaculate social credentials, Schultz spends the rest of the day searching for a fast train out of town with two extra seats for the two fiends. Truth be told, there are some Sonics fans who would welcome this change, but the point of this hypothetical question is not to accuse either Desmond or Rashard of wrongdoing (imagine it were Payton and Radmanovic), but instead to question whether or not it is a sound idea to pass over talented players because of their off the court lives.

Last summer Ruben Patterson was the first Sonic to experience the backlash from new policy imposed by the Schultz regime. For many fans it was a mistake to let Ruben leave the Sonics after he had enjoyed his break out season, gaining recognition around the league as the “Kobe Stopper”, a high-energy, hard-nosed defensive specialist who could come off the bench and provide a spark to completely swing the momentum in a game.

Even among those who were not overly concerned about losing Patterson, the thought of losing him to free agency with nothing in return was appalling, as the void he left was a substantial one. Especially when it seemed that the general opinion around the league was that Ruben Patterson was a player with a great deal of potential and value in the 2000-2001 free agent pool. This value made it seem all the more ridiculous for the Sonics to weaken their bargaining position by publicizing the fact that they would not allow Patterson to stay with the franchise.

The reason I bring this up now is that many people are hoping the Sonics look into acquiring a tough inside player to help the Sonics with their rebounding woes and possibly provide some veteran leadership. However, some of the names brought up to fill this niche come also with their share of off the court luggage, again adding roadblocks to the progress of the team. This concept of stifling the team because of someone else’s past misdeeds seems misguided.

The idea of the Sonics’ “good Samaritan” aspirations being a hindrance to the success of the franchise was not brought up as that big of a concern when Patterson left because, although valuable, he was not part of the Sonics’ core. However, this is a policy that could cause the team some major problems should a key member of our core ever slip up and make a mistake, as humans are prone to do.

To get back to my hypothetical scenario at the beginning of this column, should something occur that would tarnish the reputations of some key Sonics, the franchise would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. No one is going to offer the Sonics a fair deal knowing that the Sonics will, at all cost, have to save face with the public by moving the offenders as quickly as possible. What scalper gets face value for a ticket after the first quarter is already over?

As far as I know personally, the current group of Supersonics are not likely cause trouble for Schultz and his good intentions. But it is the nature of celebrities to have a public face and a private life that could not be farther apart from each other. How many times have sports heroes fallen from pubic praise due to some scandal or another filled with drugs, sex, or spousal violence followed by slow speed chases involving half the L.A.P.D? The point is that you cannot predict these things and the Sonics, in publicizing how they will deal these possibilities, have forfeited the chance to spin or deflect turmoil for the best interest of the team.

But maybe forfeiting the opportunity to protect the team’s interest is the right thing to do. For some, the idea of accepting unlawful or immoral behaviour just because a player makes the team better is equally immoral in itself. It is possible that the Schultz declaration that improper behaviour will not be accepted has in some small way improved the greater Seattle community. After all, some have applauded this stance against the corruption of morality players seem to be increasingly experiencing throughout the NBA; someone must be applauding it, otherwise I am sure Schultz would have never introduced it.

That in and of itself is probably the hardest thing to swallow about the policy -- that it is in part a marketing ploy. I’m as sure as I can be that Howard Schultz himself is a honest and good human being. But this idea to cleanse the moral fibre of the franchise is clearly more than just his own personal taste, it is to get people to cheer for the Sonics and come out to the games. In the end it’s about putting people in the seats.

The odds of criminal or immoral events rapidly affecting the structure of the Sonics’ franchise is very unlikely, but it sets a bad precedent to deny the team the best opportunity to salvage what it can from a bad situation in order to fill a public obligation. And when Seattle does start losing opportunities because of this rule, it will be a marketing ploy that will quickly backfire. After all we have all seen it before when a talented player makes a mistake and the team sticks by him, they work things out to help the individual and down the road they are rewarded when that talent blossoms. The Sonics, on the other hand, are already duty-bound to make an example of the player.

It is easy to see why Schultz passed this new Sonics law. It is a nice sentiment, and in a perfect world, good community standing would go without saying as a necessity. But championships cannot be won by tying your hands behind your back, which is exactly what this policy does. The NBA game is a hard one -- to get to the top is the dream shared by everyone involved in the sport, and you can never get there by handicapping yourself right out of the starting blocks.

Back to the Clutch Corner Archive

All opinions expressed in this column are solely the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of other columnists or staff of Sonicscentral.com