Good Thing Everybody Else is Mediocre ...

[Diesel]

8 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Not if they fired him with cause / breach of contract.  There are usually vague judgement clauses and other gray legal areas worked in that aren't normally used because it leads to legal battles.  Speaking generally here because I have never seen a head coaching employment agreement.

I don't want Udoka to run our team.  We don't need spoiled goods, not that desperate.  I don't care if he's a good coach or not -- you can't trust his judgement and that can have a big impact on team culture.

Logically, it doesn't make sense. 

Now that they are winning, they could just outright fire Udoka.   (could have done when it first happened) if they don't have to be penalized with paying him for doing nothing.   Because now, they are paying him for doing nothing. 

I have to believe that there wasn't enough "cause" to fire him for breach of contract... even though they cited contract breaches.

 

[kg01]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

But if he was fired outright, they would still have to pay him.. right?

otherwise.....

What's the suspension about?

 

No, it would be for cause which would be the reason it would draw a legal challenge from him.

[terrell]

8 hours ago, kg01 said:

... 'Cause that's the only thing saving our season so far.

Think about it.  All these teams are underperforming w.r.t. expectations:

MIA

PHI

TOR

BKN

CHI

Shiiii, even WAS is below what some thought they'd be.

We're very fortunate the only team surpassing expectations is IND.  We're also lucky we played MIL so many times early.

Hopefully the players will figure it out on the fly because they're getting no help from their coaches.

Heyul, just play solid ball and we'll be fine considering the number of teams that aren't even doing that every night.  And pray to the sweet baby jeebus that none of the teams listed above figures it out before we do.

#SaveUsBogd!

#'CauseYouMayBeOurOnlyHope

Dre and Collins out will be a huge plus for us. The passing, ball movement, and overall activity should go way up. Those 2 guys give us 10 rebounds and 2 assists in over 60 minutes a game. Beyond terrible.

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by terrell

[terrell]

5 hours ago, macdaddy said:

As much as i hate Boston this is very true.   Right now we aren't on the level of these two teams.  In the playoffs we may only have to face one and injuries happen but right now we can't pretend that we can get to the finals without some changes and a lot of luck. 

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

Logically, it doesn't make sense. 

Now that they are winning, they could just outright fire Udoka.   (could have done when it first happened) if they don't have to be penalized with paying him for doing nothing.   Because now, they are paying him for doing nothing. 

I have to believe that there wasn't enough "cause" to fire him for breach of contract... even though they cited contract breaches.

 

This isn't unique to coaching.  Executive contracts that only permit an employer to avoid paying promised salary when there is "good cause" are very vague and outcome of litigation over their interpretation is inherently uncertain.  I suspect all parties decided that the suspension was something everyone could live with.  He would be removed from power for the team, docked some part of his pay, and free to sign on with another club.

I've seen a Georgia judge decide that there isn't "cause" when a CEO was fired for telling a subordinate he wanted to bend her over a table and [redacted].  There were lots of other things as well like sending porn on the company email, making similar comments to other women, etc.  His rationale was that none of the female employees ended up suing the company over it so the company didn't suffer any harm and if the company didn't suffer any harm there must not have been "cause" under the contract.  Guess he thought they should have kept this guy then had her sue and then it would be a firing for cause.  

A different judge could have decided it very differently.  Those clauses are typically pretty vague and leave a lot of room for judge or jury to step in with their own judgment which creates inherent uncertainty and a motive for both sides to settle.

If they were to fire him, he might be able to make a claim for whatever "penalty" he took as part of the deal and if they are not going to take the position that he can fired with no pay (which they apparently didn't land on previously) then they don't have much motive to fire  him at this point.