Allegations against Luke Walton (split from new coach thread)

VF21 said:
I know I came at you strong - for that very reason. It didn't even occur to me you might also have personal reasons. I could have said this in a PM but I want you to know publicly that I'm sorry if I caused you any pain. Sometimes it's too easy to forget there are real people behind our screen names.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that. Now hopefully we can get on with the business of building a winning team.
 
VF21 said:
No attorney worth a plugged nickel would answer that question, nor could they be required to.
Click to expand...
Actually I can think of two very good reasons without trying very hard. depending of course how long the attorney has been engaged and the strength of the case they may choose to play nice with the Kings org in a triangulation move where the Kings help put pressure to settle quick and quiet rather than dealing with two adversarial sets of attorneys. A particularly aggressive attorney with a fairly thin case may well choose to threaten to just burn Luke's world to the ground if he doesn't settle this could/would include threatening to tell the Kings organization that Luke was well aware of the problem when he signed a contract with them. In any case as a wise man once told me it never hurts to ask.
 
Im
HndsmCelt said:
This is also something the organization can establish fairly quickly with one simple question to her attorney asking him on what date did he begin representing her in this matter. He doesn't have to answer but certainly gives up no meaningful information that could be used in court by doing so. It would be a good indicator of when Luke likey became aware there was a potential problem.
Click to expand...
When the lawyer took the case doesn't necessarily correlate to when Luke was informed. Waiting for him to take a new job actually serves to make things that much more difficult and uncomfortable for Luke.
They said they did the press conference because the story leaked out before they intended. If that is true, they may have hoped to settle things before anything ever became public. They would have had him over a barrel (wouldn't matter whether it was true or false.) It would've been easier to settle quietly to avoid scandal.
 
HndsmCelt said:
Actually I can think of two very good reasons without trying very hard. depending of course how long the attorney has been engaged and the strength of the case they may choose to play nice with the Kings org in a triangulation move where the Kings help put pressure to settle quick and quiet rather than dealing with two adversarial sets of attorneys. A particularly aggressive attorney with a fairly thin case may well choose to threaten to just burn Luke's world to the ground if he doesn't settle this could/would include threatening to tell the Kings organization that Luke was well aware of the problem when he signed a contract with them. In any case as a wise man once told me it never hurts to ask.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but at this point I'm just not gonna go down that rabbit hole. Have a good night, Celt.
 
Telemachus said:
Im
When the lawyer took the case doesn't necessarily correlate to when Luke was informed. Waiting for him to take a new job actually serves to make things that much more difficult and uncomfortable for Luke.
They said they did the press conference because the story leaked out before they intended. If that is true, they may have hoped to settle things before anything ever became public. They would have had him over a barrel (wouldn't matter whether it was true or false.) It would've been easier to settle quietly to avoid scandal.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I just pointed out one potential way to gain some idea what might or might not be going on much like wetting your finger and holding it up in the air; it's not a weather report it's quick easy and sometimes will tell you what you need to know. Can't say I disagree with your analysis on the story coming out premature either.
 
According to a Sports Illustrated report, Ms. Tennant also added "unnamed" or "John Does" as defendants to her lawsuit. The other names in the lawsuits have not been revealed yet.

https://www.si.com/nba/2019/04/28/l...-sexual-assault-lawsuit-lakers-warriors-kings

They are theorizing that she may be including the Warriors, the Lakers and possibly the NBA in her lawsuits. They would be the big fish in her lawsuits in trying to get a big money settlement. The teams and the NBA would have much deeper pockets than Walton.
 
ockingsfan said:
According to a Sports Illustrated report, Ms. Tennant also added "unnamed" or "John Does" as defendants to her lawsuit. The other names in the lawsuits have not been revealed yet.

https://www.si.com/nba/2019/04/28/l...-sexual-assault-lawsuit-lakers-warriors-kings

They are theorizing that she may be including the Warriors, the Lakers and possibly the NBA in her lawsuits. They would be the big fish in her lawsuits in trying to get a big money settlement. The teams and the NBA would have much deeper pockets than Walton.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out that on top of the new detail regarding the "John Does" named in Tennant's lawsuit, this article is easily the most thorough article I have seen and it considers the allegations and probable future actions on all sides without any particular bias. Highly, highly recommended for those who want an in-depth look at the situation as it stands right now.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
I would like to point out that on top of the new detail regarding the "John Does" named in Tennant's lawsuit, this article is easily the most thorough article I have seen and it considers the allegations and probable future actions on all sides without any particular bias. Highly, highly recommended for those who want an in-depth look at the situation as it stands right now.
Click to expand...


Yes, a great article about the state of the case against Walton. Looks like the investigations are going to drag on for a while as there is so much to look at and so many people to interview possibly.

I'm still curious as to when the lawsuit was actually filed and did Tennant's attorneys contact Luke prior to him taking the job with the Kings. It could very well be a coincidence but the timing is so close that you have to think, did Walton take this job knowing he has this lawsuit hanging in the background.
 
Here's a thought. Magic suddenly stepped down April 9th. Maybe he got word this was coming down and his name was party to the lawsuit. Could have been a last straw thing or he resigned hoping to remove himself from the situation.
 
Magic supposedly stepped down abruptly because he was CC'ed emails between Rob Pelinka and Jeanie Buss discussing his poor performance. LA media had previously said that Magic never shows up for work and wasn't willing to put in the effort required to do a good job in this business.

Basically Magic thought he was getting paid $10 million a year to show up to games and shake hands with celebs in the front row and be the face of the franchise. When he found out how people really felt about him, he acted like a child and resigned right before the last game of the season without telling anyone first to give a "F-you" back at Rob and Jeanie.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
I would like to point out that on top of the new detail regarding the "John Does" named in Tennant's lawsuit, this article is easily the most thorough article I have seen and it considers the allegations and probable future actions on all sides without any particular bias. Highly, highly recommended for those who want an in-depth look at the situation as it stands right now.
Click to expand...

IMO Michael McCann always does a great job outlining and breaking down cases such as these. Stellar work.
 
Peter_Gibbons said:
Magic supposedly stepped down abruptly because he was CC'ed emails between Rob Pelinka and Jeanie Buss discussing his poor performance. LA media had previously said that Magic never shows up for work and wasn't willing to put in the effort required to do a good job in this business.

Basically Magic thought he was getting paid $10 million a year to show up to games and shake hands with celebs in the front row and be the face of the franchise. When he found out how people really felt about him, he acted like a child and resigned right before the last game of the season without telling anyone first to give a "F-you" back at Rob and Jeanie.
Click to expand...

Magic holds himself as greater than the Lakers. He is showtime in his eyes.

I'll miss him on the Lakers trainwreck. It really is a loss for us because it gives them a chance to bring in someone competent. That being said they are looking to hire a coach before a GM so as long as Buss continues to meddle and work as if she knows and understands the business, we may be right.
 
John Galt said:
It is really eerie how this has quieted down so abruptly. I don't like not knowing who the coach will be :(
Click to expand...
It would appear that the team is behind Luke on this pending investigation by their team and the NBA. That investigation is expected to take months so I would expect that Walton is making plans, coaching decisions etc in preparation for next season until and unless something changes. The lawsuit itself is expected to take more than a year. So I guess the short answer is he's the coach for better or worse until otherwise. Let's move forward and hope for the best.
 
HndsmCelt said:
It would appear that the team is behind Luke on this pending investigation by their team and the NBA. That investigation is expected to take months so I would expect that Walton is making plans, coaching decisions etc in preparation for next season until and unless something changes. The lawsuit itself is expected to take more than a year. So I guess the short answer is he's the coach for better or worse until otherwise. Let's move forward and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

I would go as far as to venture a guess that the NBA and the Kings investigations into Luke will be the most important outcome of this situation.

So, once that report comes out in a few months, I think we will know one way or the other the fate of Luke.

If the NBA and the Kings clear Luke of any wrong doing, regardless of what happens in the civil lawsuit in 2 or 3 years, I think that Luke will be safe, as far as his career as an NBA coach.
 
John Galt said:
It is really eerie how this has quieted down so abruptly. I don't like not knowing who the coach will be :(
Click to expand...
Luke Walton will be the coach. I think that much is pretty clear. This investigation will take months if not years to complete. The Kings or the NBA will not fire/suspend Walton until he is proven guilty otherwise there will be an unfair dismissal claim hanging over their heads if Walton is never found guilty. Its the look that the NBA or the Kings do not want. Especially if that leads to Walton not being able to land a job back in the NBA because of this. The lawsuit would be pretty messy and the sort of negative PR that NBA wants to avoid.

At the moment, they are doing their investigation and are treating Walton as innocent until proven guilty which is a reasonable way to go about it.

There is more chance that Walton gets sacked at some point in the future due to not meeting expectations or disagreements with the front office or players not liking him than there is him getting fired before the start of next season.

I laugh at calls to just sack Walton. It's such a knee jerk reaction. I am in no way saying he is innocent or guilty for that matter. I don't know. No one really does. Kings or the NBA cannot fire an employee until there is evidence that he is guilty. People looking for action are not really thinking clearly here.

While we should always treat these allegations very seriously, we can't just treat the accused as guilty because we want to be or need to be compassionate to the victim. Its unfair, but so would sacking Walton if he is found to be innocent. Ask yourself this, if you were accused of something you thought you were innocent of and your employer sacked you, how would that make you feel and what impact would that have on your career going forward? There are always two sides to the story and I am willing to wait for what the investigation uncovers before any moves are made.

Now this does not mean that the Kings should not be looking for a very experienced 2IC for Walton who can be or has been a good NBA coach in his own right. Jeff Hornacek is intriguing from that perspective. IF there is a need to make a coaching move mid-season, then you have a capable coach on the bench who can take over if required.
 
I would enjoy knowing where the Kings are at with Jeff Hornacek. It seems to me he would be a good lead assistant or contingency plan if need be while everything plays itself out.
I imagine Vlade is very familiar with Hornacec, he reminded me of an assassin choir boy as a player not a fan then, but respected him. Thinking some coaching certainty might go a ways as we approach free agency.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the article, the NBA should be investigating Tennant as well as Walton. Specifically, what has been her history with respect to her male acquaintances? I would imagine the NBA's investigation will first try to interview those individuals with first hand knowledge of the public interaction that Tennant alleges.

I am so sick and tired of having editorial remarks contained within so-called news articles. If you want to have an opinion piece, then include your characterization of "disturbing accusations." If you want to write a news article, leave your editorial comments out of it. Just give the facts, please. Such discipline seems to be far out of reach for the average journalist these days; they apparently have to opine in order to be be considered morally acceptable to the reading public. And you don't have to have contain within the article a zillion hypotheticals - if this, then that, if, if, if. If the world ends today, we won't have to be concerned about this story one way or another. The news has turned into "the conjecture." If you don't have the facts, just conjecture for a few pages to fill the space is now the norm.
 
Kingster said:
I am so sick and tired of having editorial remarks contained within so-called news articles. If you want to have an opinion piece, then include your characterization of "disturbing accusations." If you want to write a news article, leave your editorial comments out of it. Just give the facts, please. Such discipline seems to be far out of reach for the average journalist these days; they apparently have to opine in order to be be considered morally acceptable to the reading public. And you don't have to have contain within the article a zillion hypotheticals - if this, then that, if, if, if. If the world ends today, we won't have to be concerned about this story one way or another. The news has turned into "the conjecture." If you don't have the facts, just conjecture for a few pages to fill the space is now the norm.
Click to expand...

While I agree in sentiment on what should and should not be included in hard news stories, if you are talking about the Sports Illustrated piece (it seems you are) there are a few mitigating factors. First, it's in Sports Illustrated (i.e., not a "hard" news source). Second, it is titled "Analyzing Kelli Tennant's Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against Kings Coach Luke Walton", which would seem to place it firmly outside of the realm of straight news. It's designed to start from the known facts and go into hypotheticals.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
While I agree in sentiment on what should and should not be included in hard news stories, if you are talking about the Sports Illustrated piece (it seems you are) there are a few mitigating factors. First, it's in Sports Illustrated (i.e., not a "hard" news source). Second, it is titled "Analyzing Kelli Tennant's Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against Kings Coach Luke Walton", which would seem to place it firmly outside of the realm of straight news. It's designed to start from the known facts and go into hypotheticals.
Click to expand...

Good point about "analyzing." Conjecture and hypotheticals fall within the purview of analyzing. However, the analysis is not of whether the claim is "disturbing" or not. If it were, I would welcome that "analysis." Let's plumb the depths of what the author finds disturbing in these charges. Instead, the author's lack of follow-up to his characterization of "disturbing" marks it as a gratuitous add-on intended to show his moral legitimacy to the reader.

One of the many things that I do find very disturbing in charges of this kind that we are hearing more and more of in today's society is that we are turning the private, subtle and intimate relations between the sexes into contractual relations. I'm waiting for the day when "pre-date" agreements are signed by the parties before they go to first, second, and third base. Of course, there should be a recording of such documents at the local hall of records to protect all parties. Before reaching 4th base two witnesses and a notary public will be required.
 
So here is an interesting scenario. What if the Lakers did know about it while he was still coaching the Lakers? Could the league give the Kings compensation from the Lakers for not telling them?
 
Section 101 said:
So here is an interesting scenario. What if the Lakers did know about it while he was still coaching the Lakers? Could the league give the Kings compensation from the Lakers for not telling them?
Click to expand...

That's getting pretty deep into the weeds at this point. My thought is if he did do something wrong (which has yet to be determined) and the Lakers knew about it, you'd think she would have hit the Lakers in the beginning. It just seems like there are a whole bunch of questions that will need to be addressed before they get anywhere close to a Kings v. Lakers legal battle of some kind.
 
Section 101 said:
So here is an interesting scenario. What if the Lakers did know about it while he was still coaching the Lakers? Could the league give the Kings compensation from the Lakers for not telling them?
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer, but isn't that the genius of negligence, you didn't know but you should have kind of thing??? Basically a way to stick bigger money bags with a bill. Regardless of Luke's guilt or innocence here, it's pretty shady legal maneuvering in this type of case and many others.
 
VF21 said:
That's getting pretty deep into the weeds at this point. My thought is if he did do something wrong (which has yet to be determined) and the Lakers knew about it, you'd think she would have hit the Lakers in the beginning. It just seems like there are a whole bunch of questions that will need to be addressed before they get anywhere close to a Kings v. Lakers legal battle of some kind.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do whether Luke did or didn't do anything. It's about whether the Lakers knew and withheld the information from another team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sactowndog
An at-length discussion about... um, length (split from the [Game] thread)
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
dude12
D
Capt. Factorial
Expansion Talk (Split from Domas Thread)
Replies
12
Views
878
KingsFanSince85
KingsFanSince85
hrdboild
Can We Show Some Love for Davion?
2 3 4
Replies
112
Views
9K
midtowner
M
N
Kings GM Monte McNair explains decision to fire coach Luke Walton (Moved from News Links folder)
Replies
11
Views
929
funkykingston
funkykingston
Y
Report: Kings fire coach Luke Walton after losing seven of eight, including last three
Replies
0
Views
268
Yahoo Sports
Y
Back
Top