Chandler Parsons' take on Jordan's return to the Clippers

One of the main dramatis personae of the DeAndre Jordan melodrama has given his first interview in the aftermath of a very strange turn of events. Chandler Parsons, the bizarro assistant GM/small forward for the Dallas Mavericks was a major element in the team's recruitment and by all accounts a major factor in Jordan's initial decision to commit to Dallas. Parsons is hurt by Jordan's decision, which is completely understandable. His interview with Tim McMahon of ESPN.com on the other hand, is pretty incoherent.

For one thing, he implies that the Mavs signing of Wesley Matthews occurred after they had Jordan, which simply is not true.

Then there's the blatant passive-aggressiveness of the whole thing. Some of it is "aggressive-aggressive" to be sure, but he finds lots of creative ways to diss Jordan as well. In addition to calling him "very unethical and disrespectful"  he calls him "complacent" and "confused" and  "nervous" and "scared". He deems the Clippers choice "safer". He says of DJ "Maybe he got nerves about being a franchise player and having the pressure of leading a team"  and "this decision was just way too big for him and he wasn't ready to be a franchise player." Yikes.

Hey Chans, is it possible that he decided the Clippers were the better place for him? He's your pal and you say you're close, right? How about "In the end, he had to make the decision that was right for him."

There's another NBA player who is friends with DeAndre Jordan and who, as it happens, found himself in a similar situation last week -- a guy named Blake Griffin. When Griffin was asked about Jordan choosing the Mavericks he said that if Jordan was happy, then he was happy for him. That's one way to go, I guess.

Heck, even Baron Davis, who was convinced by Elton Brand to opt out of his final year in Golden State and to take less money from the Clippers so that they could play together in L.A. never said a disparaging word to the press about Brand after EB instead left for Philadelphia leaving Davis in the lurch.

In particular, I'm not sure how Parsons can possibly reconcile some of the things he said which seem completely contradictory in the same interview. Is it possible to reconcile "He's a good dude; I don't think he's a bad person" with "it's very disrespectful and unethical"? I mean, I suppose you can like the "dude" but dislike the "behavior" but do good dudes behave unethically? It kind of needs to be one or the other.

Then there's the whole "tired of being in the shadows" thing. According to Parsons what he thought Jordan wanted was to be out of the shadows of Paul and Griffin. And how great that Parsons wanted the same thing when he left Houston for Dallas. "Yay, we can be direct sunlight buddies!" But um, wait a minute. You each cast shadows too! Isn't there going to be a shadow over one of you if you're both in Dallas? If Parsons wanted out of the shadows so badly, why would he want "franchise player" "MVP candidate" (his words) Jordan in Dallas in the first place? It turns out, those shadows cast by top 10 players aren't really so bad when you're NOT a top 10 player but you'd like to play for a championship.

As for ethics, I'm not sure it's a subject on which Parsons should be lecturing. NBA rules preclude teams from contacting free agents before July 1, but of course players can hang out with their "pals" -- nothing wrong with that.

But if you're going to circumvent the rules, don't flout it -- don't talk about how much fun you're having in your assistant GM role and how you did everything you could to get Jordan to Dallas. "We did develop a really good relationship and we got close over the last few weeks." Hmmm, "last few weeks" is imprecise, but if today is July 9, I'm pretty sure we're talking about hanging out before July 1. "I was just recruiting DeAndre Jordan to come to my team because I think that he's a really good player."

IF YOU STARTED RECRUITING BEFORE JULY 1, YOU WERE BREAKING THE RULES!

That specific rule is completely unenforceable when it comes to a player of course. But Chandler might want to lay low on the ethics discussion nonetheless.