The decision by the Clippers to part ways with Paul George during this offseason has been controversial, but from the perspective of long-term planning, financial flexibility, and team competitiveness, it may be a practical one. George's performance remained stable last season, but considering his age of 34 and injury history, coupled with his desire for a four-year, $212 million maximum contract, the Clippers' choice not to renew his contract was a wise move. Firstly, the Clippers' decision to let George go is a reasonable choice based on financial considerations. George's demands not only include high salaries but also come with a no-trade clause, which is a limitation for the Clippers. If the Clippers had accepted his demands, they would have faced greater salary pressure over the next four years. This would undoubtedly have been a huge burden on their future salary cap space. Despite the strong financial resources of the Clippers' owner, Steve Ballmer, even he must reassess spending due to the NBA's "second luxury tax threshold" system. The second luxury tax threshold is not just about high luxury tax penalties but also includes a series of operational restrictions, such as freezing draft picks, being unable to conduct multi-contract aggregation trades, having no mid-level exception or trade exception, etc., which limits the team's ability to operate flexibly. Secondly, the Clippers' choice also reflects their plans for the future. George's contract would have been one year longer than that of another core player, Kawhi Leonard, and the Clippers clearly do not want to invest too much energy in aging players. Instead,…