This is an old script. "We've made the decision to eliminate your position. That decision has been made and it is not going to change. But it is up to you how gracefully it will happen.".
The most graceful way possible is to pay out fair severance thru payroll (for a year at least in Pete's case), with a new phony "consultant" title - and off you go to play golf or whatever. You get benefits, you accrue time off - it's very .... graceful.
But I would bet a decent bunch of change that he was "let go".
A long time employee does not "decide to take a new title"... no, a company decides to "give you a new title".
Sure Pete could say "take this job and shove it" but why should he? Why not play ball?
He was fired.
The most graceful way possible is to pay out fair severance thru payroll (for a year at least in Pete's case), with a new phony "consultant" title - and off you go to play golf or whatever. You get benefits, you accrue time off - it's very .... graceful.
But I would bet a decent bunch of change that he was "let go".
A long time employee does not "decide to take a new title"... no, a company decides to "give you a new title".
Sure Pete could say "take this job and shove it" but why should he? Why not play ball?
He was fired.
I have not heard or read of any issues among the Kings staff in quite a while, in fact I have read the opposite about everyone generally being on the same page. His statement was very positive and it's clear that he will still be involved. Perhaps he has other interests that he would like to pursue or has issues of his own to take care of, but this definitely seems like it was his choice. There is no evidence of it being anything else other than Pete choosing to step down.
I don't know why people choose to ignore the obvious or try to spin a narrative that isn't even there, but I think your doom and gloom approach is unwarranted in this particular case. Seems pretty clear cut to me. A ton of staff all over the NBA have done that over the years, it really isn't anything new.