The best thing for the Los Angeles Clippers might be if they lose Game 6 and are eliminated by the Jazz on Friday night. It might kick-start real change, because winning this first-round NBA playoff series likely would be enough to convince the actors involved, from general manager/president Doc Rivers to upcoming free agents Chris Paul and Blake Griffin, that change might not be needed, and they should run it back. 

That's the direction we're headed. First, from Yahoo Sports, Adrian Wojnarowski reports that Clippers "management remains committed to signing [Griffin] to a long term deal this summer." Meanwhile, for Paul, there's this from ESPN:

Sources close to the Clippers say that they expect Paul to re-sign with the Clippers. He'll be eligible for a five-year contract in excess of $200 million. Griffin's return is less certain, sources say.

via The L.A. Clippers' last stand? 

These two pieces of information come from the team, not the players or their agents. The are three reasons for the Clippers to broadcast their desire to keep the pair:

  • Ticket sales -- next season's ticket values go through the floor if Griffin and Paul are gone.
  • Projecting strength. It does no good to project you're losing your top guys. 
  • They want them back. As complicated as the Clippers are, the alternative is worse. The Clippers cannot lose them and be as good or better for quite some time. Losing them means they risk becoming "the Clippers" again. Right now, "the Clippers" are a good team that's frustrating, hates one another on the court and never gets over the hump. "The Clippers" used to mean the league's worst team and they don't want a return to that, no matter how different ownership is from the previous trash heap. 

So L.A. is smartly broadcasting its intentions, just as the Thunder said they were confident in re-signing Kevin Durant last summer, the Heat were confident in bringing back LeBron James in 2014, and the Cavaliers were confident in keeping James in 2010. 

What actually happens could be at issue. For further consideration, read Kevin Arnovitz's entire ESPN piece because it's developed. Then, consider two pieces. First, this:

A former teammate affectionately characterized Paul as the friend in the back seat of the car on a night out who just doesn't know when to stop barking out plans -- smart, responsible, the guy you need running point, but lacking the self-awareness to know that this would all be a lot more fun for everyone if he'd table every third degree. Yet without him, you'd spend the night driving in circles.

"With Chris, everything is organized, then we're out there," says Griffin. "There's direction and a plan. It just makes sense. And you know how it does and why it does."

Then this:

There's a long-standing belief in the NBA, one that's been popularized again with the emergence of the Warriors and the endurance of the Spurs: An NBA team must play with joy to win big.

"I've always felt the best teams play with joy," Redick says. "For some teams, joy is evident just by watching their faces. But it doesn't always have to be outward, expressive joy in the form of laughing or smiling." 

See the issue?

The problem is this becomes about whether Paul is good or bad, which is not the way to frame it. It's about whether Paul is the best guy for the Clippers and vice versa. And the answer, as it has been, is no on both ends. When Paul was traded to the Clippers, Griffin was caught on video with the infamous "It's gonna be Lob City!" comment. But Paul felt like he had to "grow the kids up." So instead of embracing how much fun they could have, he worked to turn the Clippers into professionals, and for the most part, he has been successful. 

But that has come at a cost. The best situation for Paul is one where he can demand excellence, precision and professionalism yet isn't forced to feel like if he slips a bit there's chaos. Cleveland, honestly, would have been his best situation. He would have had LeBron James as the primary leader, could have been James' lieutenant, and his game and James' would have meshed. Kyrie Irving could have been the young, fun scorer to play with Griffin and DeAndre Jordan, building a super-fun, up-tempo team with a lights-out, score-first takeover player and a do-it-all power forward. The pick-and-roll with Irving and Griffin wouldn't have been as good, but you also don't think of Paul and Griffin as unstoppable. It would have been a better fit all around.

If Irving hadn't been friends with James since he was in middle school, that might have been how it went. Instead, Irving is the guy who hit the shot that won Cleveland the title, and the player to build around when James retires. 

So we look at this summer and there's another option that might make things better for all parties. Paul could go to the Spurs, who will want a point guard upgrade (even as Tony Parker scored 27 points in closing out the Grizzlies in Game 6 on Thursday) and Paul fits what they need. He can run the offense, doesn't demand a lot of shots, would be willing to defer to Kawhi Leonard, and has the respect of the organization. Paul wouldn't have to feel like he has to micromanage everything, because discipline is a Spurs staple. Paul could just play. 

As for Griffin, L.A. makes the most sense, but momentum seems to be swinging toward his departure. This seems surprising, given his outside interests; he genuinely loves producing comedy. He can do that from anywhere, but L.A. makes the most sense. But he also is from Oklahoma and he would look awful good on the Thunder if OKC could figure out a way to make the money work. 

One thing that seems almost certain is JJ Redick heading elsewhere, unless Steve Ballmer really is OK with paying millions in luxury tax. It should be noted that Redick has a home in Austin, an hour north of San Antonio. 

But the Clippers might win Friday, might beat the Jazz, could pull off a huge upset over the Warriors without Griffin. But the more likely scenario is the Clippers lose, in this round or the next, and everyone convinces themselves that staying together is best. The idea always has been to emulate the 2011 Mavericks, or as Rivers has suggested, the 1997 Utah Jazz who finally made the NBA Finals. But the Mavericks and Jazz switched surrounding pieces frequently; the Clippers are locked into at least Jordan and Austin Rivers. 

There's no good solution to the Clippers' problems, and no way to feel good about moving on entirely. They are stuck in every way.