Monta Ellis Question

[Tommy Udo 6]

If Warriors void Ellis' contract based on the fact that he engaged in an activity which was forbidden - what is then Monta's status.

using logic, I would think that voiding the contract would return Ellis to the status that he was before - a RFA. It's as if the contract never happened - like an annulled marriage.

Some people think he would become a UFA. I dont think so because the warriors would not be renouncing rights to Monta - just voiding a contract due to violation.

This is untested territory. In Jay williams case, the Bulls did not void the contract. They just bought out Jay, which made him a RFA.

What do you guys think?

[FGump]

1. I think the answer to this exists only in the league by-laws and memos, which are closed to outsiders
2. ...so unless some league exec does the research and spills his guts, the guesses here are going to be purely random ...
2. ...and I don't think the Ellis situation will give us a clue, because his deal is almost assuredly NOT going to be voided

[LarryCoon]

I think I made this point here just recently, but it may have been somewhere else. The only other "voiding" situation I can remember is Joe Smith with the T-Wolves. I tried to make the case that with all Minny contracts voided, Philly gained Smith's Bird rights.

My logic was that Stern voided not just Smith's current contract, but also his previous, already-completed contract. The only reason I could see for doing that was to reset Smith's Bird clock completely -- i.e., Smith no longer even had the one year with Minny necessary to be Non-Bird. But the only reason that would be necessary is if the status DOES return to what it was before the voided contract was signed.

So -- there is some precedent that would seem to indicate that your logic is correct, but this line of thinking relies on a lot of assumptions.

I actually talked to the Philly GM at the time to point out that he may have gained Bird rights. He wasn't sure if I was right, but considered it a moot point since he had no interest in signing Smith, even for a sign-and-trade.

[Sleepy51]

Wasn't the Smith case as a result of tampering? That makes for a situation where voiding the deal is the appropriate response for the protection of the other members of the league. In Monta's case, we're not talking about voiding a deal. We're talking about TERMINATING a deal. The standard contract refers to termination of a deal due to prohibited activites. Termination and Void are not synonyms. The two concepts are different in significant ways. A termination implies that a contract has been ended with cause. A void implies that a contract has been deemed non-existant, including it's past. Monta breached his contract, and as such, the Warriors potentially have cause for termination if he's not going to be able to play skilled basketball again. But terminating a deal that has been violated for the team's protection wouldn't be the same circumstance as the league voiding a deal that should not have been approved do to tampering.

Would it?

[Dunkenstein]

From Janny Hu in the SF Chronicle:
"Ellis isn't appealing to have his 30-game suspension reduced. He's appealing to make sure that the Warriors can't punish him again for the same offense.

Think of double jeopardy. The Warriors had the option of terminating his contract or suspending/fining him. They made their choice. They suspended him. His camp is arguing that the Warriors can't go back and tack on another penalty if Ellis doesn't get back to his old playing form. And legally, that's a pretty sound argument."

[FGump]

"Think of double jeopardy. The Warriors had the option of terminating his contract or suspending/fining him. They made their choice. They suspended him. His camp is arguing that the Warriors can't go back and tack on another penalty if Ellis doesn't get back to his old playing form. And legally, that's a pretty sound argument."

In a criminal case, she's right. You can't be punished twice for the same offense. But in a civil case - which is the category here - the concepts and limits change completely, and Hu's reference to the criminal standard merely confuses things because it's apples and oranges.

For the Warriors, there are ongoing and still-to-be-determined damages arising from Ellis' willful and deliberate breach of contract. Legally, they have the right to get remedy for all of those damages all at once, or they can instead seek recovery as they are discovered. So far, they know he will miss 30 games at least and have accordingly imposed a 30-games'-pay penalty. But the big issue is if at a later time it appears he is permanently impaired - a determination that is unknowable at present. If so, they clearly have the legal right to recover those damages WHEN THEY ARE DETERMINED, and recovering prior damages before that point shouldn't impact their rights at all.

The Warriors case is easily argued and in my opinion quite compelling. The only way I can see Ellis winning is if he is demonstrably the same caliber of player after he recovers as he was before the injury - but in that case, I can't see the Warriors coming back again to impose more penalties anyhow.

If I am Ellis agent, I am certainly going to raise the same issues he did, but other than spinning public perception a bit, I don't think his argument is winnable. Ellis really messed up, and legally the W's pretty much hold all the cards here. Barring some sort of bizarre legal anomaly (yes, they happen, but they are noteworthy because they are rare) Ellis is on the hook here and has put himself at ongoing risk if there isn't a full recovery.

[killbuckner]

I'd say that giving the warriors the ability to terminate the contract indefinitely is detrimental to Ellis. If he were made an unrestricted free agent then he could still likely get a significant amount of guaranteed money. I think it would be pretty ridiculous to basically give make his contract unguaranteed with no recourse from Ellis. If the Warriors want OUT of the contract thats a different matter- they should be entitled to do that because Ellis violated the terms of the deal. But locking Ellis into a non-guaranteed contract moving forward is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion.

[FGump]

I'd say that giving the warriors the ability to terminate the contract indefinitely is detrimental to Ellis.

Of course it is detrimental to Ellis. But why shouldn't it be?

Look at the detrimental things he has imposed on GS by his voluntary actions.
1 Their cap and talent base is absolutely screwed for this year at least, and perhaps for multiple years.
2 They don't know what they have with him talent-wise, and have to wait and see to what extent he recovers.
3 They don't know the time frame for his availability at any level, nor do they know his availability at 100% (if ever)

In my opinion, Ellis has no room to complain. He caused this. It shouldn't be GS's responsibility to clean up his mess for him, and the idea that he should somehow be coddled by giving him a free out on his contract, where GS is left holding the bag talent-wise because of his stupidity, is just wrong. GS will suffer for an indeterminate amount of time, and it's not at all unfair for him to be left twisting in the wind just like they are.

[killbuckner]

If they don't want him at his current (reduced with the suspension) cost then they can terminate his contract. If he were to have his contract terminated then he would be allowed to go out and seek guaranteed money from another team which would be far preferable to the nonguaranteed contract that you are trying to force on him. If they don't want the risk of his current deal then the Warriors don't have to take it on. For all the detrimental things you list- the remedy is that they are allowed to get out of his contract no questions asked.

I just have no clue why you think its more fair to let the team make his contract non-guaranteed instead of just having them waive the player and try and resign him at a lower number. If they don't like his current deal then no one is making them stick with it.

[FGump]

If they don't want him at his current (reduced with the suspension) cost then they can terminate his contract........ For all the detrimental things you list- the remedy is that they are allowed to get out of his contract no questions asked.

That is one solution. But does it have to be the only remedy? No. It's not the Warriors that violated the contract. And the penalty - written into the contract - is very open-ended in wording.

If they don't want the risk of his current deal then the Warriors don't have to take it on.

It's not like that. The deal is already signed. The roster has already been put together based on him being their PG and star player. They can't unwind things and turn back the clock to the summer.

I just have no clue why you think its more fair to let the team make his contract non-guaranteed instead of just having them waive the player and try and resign him at a lower number............If he were to have his contract terminated then he would be allowed to go out and seek guaranteed money from another team which would be far preferable to the nonguaranteed contract that you are trying to force on him.

If the W's did that, then yes he would have that opportunity to sign elsewhere and yes it would be advantageous for ELLIS.

But ...
1. Ellis has created the situation so GS has the right to be made as close to whole as possible.
2. A big key to being made whole is the ability to determine whether a full recovery is possible, and if so how long will it take.
3. They can't know that now.
4. So they have chosen to wait until he's back on the court, to decide whether or not they want to be obligated to pay him 66M.
5. Do they have the right to keep him for a far lesser number at that point? On a unilateral basis, I don't think so. But that's not being argued for or theorized.
6. While they are awaiting that determination, do they have the ability to refuse to pay him (or, suspend him) based on the fact he isn't performing in any way whatsoever and is unavailable because of actions in violation of his contract? Of course. That's just common sense.

The ramifications of the combination of those facts leave Ellis is a pretty undesirable position at the moment. But it's a situation created by his own actions, and in all of that sequence GS would only be acting to try to get back to where they were when Ellis violated his agreement. They aren't trying to get ahead - in fact, they will be irreparably damaged no matter what, even if they take all the actions being discussed. He's greatly effected the marketability of the team and also under NBA rules they now do not have the cap freedom to replace his talent. They will be far worse on the court. And it was Ellis not GS who caused the whole thing. So I can't find anything unreasonable in them pursuing such a course.

[killbuckner]

Ellis violated the terms of the contract- the Warriors shoudl have the ability to terminate that contract if they want to. But they shouldn't have the right to force Ellis into a non-guaranteed contrct. To me that would be pretty much the same as you saying you thought they should be able to just assign him a 3 million dollar salary for the length of the deal. If they don't want the current contract then they are entitled to get out of it. BUt they shouldn't be able to basically rewrite the contract to be non-guaranteed and force Ellis into it. The guarantee of the money was a key point for Ellis signing the deal- I simply can't see how it would be at all fair to let the Warriors out of key portions of the contract while still requiring Ellis to be bound by the new terms. If they want to renegotiate the key terms then they should terminate it and renegotiate a non-guaranteed deal.

[FGump]

Maybe you misunderstood me. Nowhere have I said that GS should or will get the right to rewrite the contract to a long-term deal that is non-guaranteed. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. The contract will eventually stand as is, or get terminated, one or the other.

But "the contract as is" does include very specific prohibitions that Ellis has violated. And they have yet to determine (through no fault of their own) the effect of those actions. When they know, yes they will have to act one way or the other as the extent of the damages is revealed. But not now, before it's known.

For now, they have suspended him - in other words, they won't have to pay - for the time he has made himself unavailable and has to rehab. That's reasonable because those damages are known. When he is again available to get on the court, they will have the added chance to then see if there are longer and more lasting damages that effect his ability to play basketball - and if so, they will have a choice to make at that point. I agree with you that their choice won't last forever - once he gets back on the court and plays a few games, where it's obvious what his ability level will be, they will have to decide one way or the other soon thereafter - but they don't have an obligation to act until the extent of the damage is known. And right now, they have no way to know.

[OptionZero]

While not "CBA analysis", it does bug me that many refer to the Warriors' response as "double punishment."

A far more accurate term would be "incomplete punishment." How can the appropriateness of a response be evaluated then the cause itself is indeterminate?

If Ellis misses 3 months without a beat, then a 30 day suspension is right on.

If Ellis ended his own career, then a total voiding would be right on (i'm sure there'd be a Duhonesque buyout)

Given that Ellis himself does not know the extent of his breach, I see no reason for anyone to be up in arms about the severity of the Warriors' actions.

[killbuckner]

OptionZero- because the extent to his breach won't be known for YEARS. And its ridiculous to think that the Warriors should be able to void that contract far off into the future if THEN they don't want it after they ahve already decided not to void it now. Thats what it comes down to me- if you don't think they should be required to make that decision now, at what point are you pulling out of thin air for when you think that they should be required to make it?

[OptionZero]

Aside from your own subjective opinion, why is the time gap between the injury and a possible future Warriors decision to void the deal "unfair"? I am unaware that the CBA requires punishment within a certain time frame; I believe the opposite is true: that the remedy is open ended and subject to team discretion.

If he wants to contest the extent to which he has recovered at the time of a hypothetical voiding, he is free to take that decision to arbitration when and if it occurs.

For all the hoopla and outrage about the Warriors retaining their right to void the deal in the future, little has been mentioned that Ellis equally retains the right to seek an arbitrator's review of that decision when it and if it occurs.

Seems like the Ellis is the unreasonable one here- he's effectively challenging a decision that hasn't even been made.

Hey, does that mean that if he loses on his challenge to the Warriors' reserving their rights ... Ellis has forfeited the right to challenge the decision to void in the future (when and if it occurs)? I mean, it'd be "unfair" for the Warriors to be subject to "double jeopardy" (laughs) for their decision, right?

Twisted Collateral estoppel ftw?