Blake Griffin calls out Clippers for handling of Chris Paul situation
Blake Griffin has reopened an old wound in Clippers history, publicly criticizing how the franchise handled Chris Paul’s departure and the fallout that followed. Without reliving every detail, Griffin made it clear he believes the organization failed to properly manage both the relationship with its star point guard and the messaging to the locker room and fan base.
The comments shine a fresh light on one of the defining breakups of the Lob City era. Paul’s exit did not just end a chapter; it effectively reset the franchise’s trajectory. At the time, the Clippers framed the split as a natural parting and leaned into a new identity. Griffin’s recent remarks suggest that, from a player’s perspective, it felt more like a mishandled transition that left lingering resentment.
For veterans in that Clippers locker room, Paul was more than a ball-dominant guard. He was the engine of their half-court offense, the emotional tone-setter, and the player most trusted in late-game situations. When a figure like that moves on, organizations typically work to preserve relationships, clarify the vision, and stabilize the culture. Griffin’s critique implies the Clippers fell short in at least one of those areas.
Around the league, this kind of retrospective honesty matters. Stars pay attention to how teams treat other stars, especially during messy or politically sensitive exits. If a franchise is perceived as tilting narratives against a departing player or failing to communicate with those who remain, it can subtly influence future free-agency decisions.
It also reframes how that era is remembered. The Lob City Clippers are often viewed as talented but combustible, with internal friction blamed on personalities as much as tactics. Griffin’s comments introduce a counterpoint: that organizational choices and communication may have amplified those tensions rather than easing them.
For the current Clippers, who are still chasing their first championship, the takeaway is obvious. Managing star relationships is not just about contracts and roles; it is about trust, transparency, and how a franchise handles the most difficult conversations when a core piece is on the way out.
The comments shine a fresh light on one of the defining breakups of the Lob City era. Paul’s exit did not just end a chapter; it effectively reset the franchise’s trajectory. At the time, the Clippers framed the split as a natural parting and leaned into a new identity. Griffin’s recent remarks suggest that, from a player’s perspective, it felt more like a mishandled transition that left lingering resentment.
For veterans in that Clippers locker room, Paul was more than a ball-dominant guard. He was the engine of their half-court offense, the emotional tone-setter, and the player most trusted in late-game situations. When a figure like that moves on, organizations typically work to preserve relationships, clarify the vision, and stabilize the culture. Griffin’s critique implies the Clippers fell short in at least one of those areas.
Around the league, this kind of retrospective honesty matters. Stars pay attention to how teams treat other stars, especially during messy or politically sensitive exits. If a franchise is perceived as tilting narratives against a departing player or failing to communicate with those who remain, it can subtly influence future free-agency decisions.
It also reframes how that era is remembered. The Lob City Clippers are often viewed as talented but combustible, with internal friction blamed on personalities as much as tactics. Griffin’s comments introduce a counterpoint: that organizational choices and communication may have amplified those tensions rather than easing them.
For the current Clippers, who are still chasing their first championship, the takeaway is obvious. Managing star relationships is not just about contracts and roles; it is about trust, transparency, and how a franchise handles the most difficult conversations when a core piece is on the way out.
