It makes sense if you think about it from the auspices of the WNBA writ large:
Caitlin Clark is a single point of failure in the sense that Caitlin Clark has, by almost every analysis and estimation conducted, single-handedly grown the WNBA. In whatever metric you want to look at (e.g. eyeballs, ad spend, revenue, attendance, viewership, sponsorships, household name/normalization, non-fringe zeitgeist). She is akin to the celebrity CEO of a company who, if he/she gets hit buy a bus, the stock would tank 40% overnight.
So the WNBA needs to diversify and hedge against the single point of failure (aka Caitlin Clark being catastrophically injured, leaving for a Saudi basketball team, or getting caught doing something morally egregious at a massage parlor) even if these things are wildly far-feteched and unlikely. You use the good times to plan for the worst case scenario and start putting contingency strategies into place for when/if they are needed.
100% the ex-Deloitte partner who runs the WNBA gets this and is thinking about this strategically.
The problem is that it takes time to build off the Caitlin Clark catalyst to create an ecosystem of mini-Caitlin Clarks (and eventually, the "next" Caitlin Clark). The existing "legacy" WNBA'ers are bemoaning that they are chopped liver (except for the aforementioned exceptions over the last couple of pages and which @SarkAfterDark name checked previously) and instead of taking the hard swallow of (mostly) reality, are over-indexing on having a grudge on the white girl taking the women's basketball world by storm. And, to be fair, there is probably SOME truth to the idea that being mostly black and queer was not doing them any favors when trying to be the Patrick Mahomes of WNBA (complete with State Farm ads every 7 minutes) versus the straight white girl. This is America, after all (cue Donald Glover meme)....