RealGM

From RealGM wiretap (off a tweet from Woj):

The NBA has opened an investigation into a possible tampering violation committed by the Philadelphia 76ers centered on their signings of James Harden, P.J. Tucker and Danuel House.

Harden declined his $47 million player option to sign a one-plus-one contract with the 76ers at $33 million in Year 1 to give the team flexibility to sign Tucker and House.

Some have wondered if another deal with Harden is in place for the future, which would be a violation of league rules.

Tucker joined the Sixers from the Miami Heat on a three-year, $33.2 million deal.

In 2010, Nowitzki was eligible for a $96 maximum contract but instead signed for only $80 million to allow the Mavs to sign other players. (Which they did, winning the NBA championship the next year). And in 2014, Dirk Nowitzki again negotiated down with the Mavs--and rejected $92 mill from Lakers and Rockets--to take a team friendly 3yr/$25m deal to help sign other players.

At the time, Mavs president of basketball operations Donnie Nelson said, "You can count guys like Dirk on one or two fingers. We're so lucky to have him." So, when Dirk does it, he's a hero...but when Harden does it, he's a villain?

More to the point, this is what Forbes said when the Dirk deal was announced:

The "hometown discount" has a long tradition in salary-capped sports, in which owners and fans expect superstars to take a less lucrative contract in free agency so that teams can use that extra spending money to recruit better role players. It's an unfair expectation—made even more unfair by the fact that NBA stars' salaries are already massively deflated due to the league's maximum salary restriction—and Dallas Mavericks power forward Dirk Nowitzki may have taken that discount to new levels Tuesday after signing a shockingly small $25 million, three-year contract to stay in Dallas for his 17th-19th NBA seasons.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpagels/2014/07/16/dirk-nowitzki-passes-up-most-money-in-nba-history/?sh=34d5f237023d

A lot of us fans want our stars to take less money than the (super)max to enable our favorite teams to have more flexibility moving forward. Few stars do--not criticizing them, just stating fact. Why are the 76ers/Harden being potentially penalized for doing such a deal? (And don't give me any of that "they've agreed to pay Harden more later in his next contract" crap --I'm very sure Dirk had a similar promise/expectation in 2010 that he'd be retained for additional money later...and he was.)

I don't get it either. Since when is a star taking a discount worthy of an investigation?

The tampering rules need to be adjusted because it seems like the NBA enforces them at their leisure when it's obvious most teams do it considering how many deals get announced within 10 mins of FA beginning

Unless we're missing something, this this silly.

I would think it’s not about this contract, but rather the promise for his next contract.

Kordic27 wrote:I would think it’s not about this contract, but rather the promise for his next contract.

Right, but why should this matter? If anything, we should be encouraging stars to take discounts for the hometown teams--too many teams get so capped out signing super maxes that they get stuck in treadmill land for the rest of that player's career. Allow teams/players flexibility in negotiations--and stop arbitrarily enforcing tampering rules to penalize certain teams (but reward others)!!!

Oh no NBA player becomes a UFA and signs a deal he wants..Miami is just upset they couldn’t retain PJ Tucker

Weren’t they investigated too for the Kyle Lowry signing last season?

taikibansei wrote:

Kordic27 wrote:I would think it’s not about this contract, but rather the promise for his next contract.

Right, but why would this matter? If anything, we should be encouraging stars to take discounts for the hometown teams--too many teams get so capped out signing super maxes that they get stuck in treadmill land for the rest of that player's career. Allow teams/players flexibility in negotiations--and stop arbitrarily enforcing tampering rules to penalize certain teams (but reward others)!!!

Right, but if Harden plays like 50 games, putting up 18/5/5 on decent but not great efficiency, and with typical Harden defense (ie if he continues to diminish), and then the Sixers give him a super high contract… that’s when things look fishy. Everyone knows and is fine with him taking a discount. But a discount with a promise to be made whole later is the problem, I’d say…

Kordic27 wrote:

taikibansei wrote:

Kordic27 wrote:I would think it’s not about this contract, but rather the promise for his next contract.

Right, but why would this matter? If anything, we should be encouraging stars to take discounts for the hometown teams--too many teams get so capped out signing super maxes that they get stuck in treadmill land for the rest of that player's career. Allow teams/players flexibility in negotiations--and stop arbitrarily enforcing tampering rules to penalize certain teams (but reward others)!!!

Right, but if Harden plays like 50 games, putting up 18/5/5 on decent but not great efficiency, and with typical Harden defense (ie if he continues to diminish), and then the Sixers give him a super high contract… that’s when things look fishy. Everyone knows and is fine with him taking a discount. But a discount with a promise to be made whole later is the problem, I’d say…

So 2-way loyalty between the team and the star player--e.g., "take a little less money now than you're worth (so that we can use the surplus to compete for a championship) and we'll make it up to you later (by paying you a little more than you're worth to reward you for this current sacrifice)"--is the problem? (Not attacking you personally Kordic, just commenting on the NBA's position.) And then people here complain about the lack of player/team loyalty "these days."

taikibansei wrote:Right, but why should this matter? If anything, we should be encouraging stars to take discounts for the hometown teams--too many teams get so capped out signing super maxes that they get stuck in treadmill land for the rest of that player's career. Allow teams/players flexibility in negotiations--and stop arbitrarily enforcing tampering rules to penalize certain teams (but reward others)!!!

That's fine. But the problem is when there's *wink wink* deals being made, those are explicitly illegal in the CBA.

taikibansei wrote:

Kordic27 wrote:

taikibansei wrote:
Right, but why would this matter? If anything, we should be encouraging stars to take discounts for the hometown teams--too many teams get so capped out signing super maxes that they get stuck in treadmill land for the rest of that player's career. Allow teams/players flexibility in negotiations--and stop arbitrarily enforcing tampering rules to penalize certain teams (but reward others)!!!

Right, but if Harden plays like 50 games, putting up 18/5/5 on decent but not great efficiency, and with typical Harden defense (ie if he continues to diminish), and then the Sixers give him a super high contract… that’s when things look fishy. Everyone knows and is fine with him taking a discount. But a discount with a promise to be made whole later is the problem, I’d say…

So 2-way loyalty between the team and the star player--e.g., "take a little less money now than you're worth (so that we can use the surplus to compete for a championship) and we'll make it up to you later (by paying you a little more than you're worth to reward you for this current sacrifice)"--is the problem? (Not attacking you personally Kordic, just commenting on the NBA's position.) And then people here complain about the lack of player/team loyalty "these days."

Well yeah. I think this would be the problem exactly. It think what you’re saying is contravening the CBA.

-Michael Rubin, the CEO of Fanatics was part owner of the 76ers who just recently sold part of his ownership 1 month ago.
-James Harden took a huge discount to stay with the Sixers.
-James Harden then signed a deal with Fanatics for an undisclosed amount, some believe it is to make up the difference of how much Harden would've received on the open market vs. how much he signed with the Sixers.


This is a huge conflict of interest and there is more than likely a lot of money being paid under the table. However, there was proof last year that the Nets owner was doing shady business to keep Harden/KD/Kyrie and nothing came of it. Nothing will happen, at worst they will lose a 2nd round pick but I doubt that happens.


This is not to be compared to players like Dirk or Duncan who spent their entire career with one organization and gave a hometown discount because that was their home.

I get that it's potentially in violation of a (vaguely worded) clause in the CBA. I am arguing that the clause is both wrongheaded and arbitrarily enforced. (See the OP for an example of the latter.) I mean, what's next...penalizing conversations between a doting father and his beloved, only son?

Profound23 wrote:-Michael Rubin, the CEO of Fanatics was part owner of the 76ers who just recently sold part of his ownership 1 month ago.
-James Harden took a huge discount to stay with the Sixers.
-James Harden then signed a deal with Fanatics for an undisclosed amount, some believe it is to make up the difference of how much Harden would've received on the open market vs. how much he signed with the Sixers.

If true, this would be a problem. (The mere taking of a discount itself...not so much.)

Almost like the nba picks and chooses what deals to investigate. So bush league

I'm not certain but I think it may be a situation where if one team complains (Miami?) the league is obligated to do at least a cursory investigation.

Meh. I don't know who, but sounds like someone is jealous. Could be Klutch Sports, Nets, Silver, who cares. If the cost at most is a pick, it's worth it. It's stupid to think a contender wouldn't cough up a pick in order to arrange a good cap situation like this.

On the plus side Sixers fans this is going to create an incredibly powerful environment in the locker room. The team is going to feel like everyone is conspiring against them out of jealousy. In sports great coaches often try to simulate and dramatize that effect, but it could never be more convincing than the real thing.

Things seem to be lining up really well for the Sixers. Harden in shape, locker room united, Tucker to add some championship experience and toughness. It's shaping up to be a great story.

I don’t think it’s bogus at all. The tampering allegations aren’t a big deal and should be be a minor punishment. But the Harden situation seems very questionable. Were the Sixers able to make signings by promising to compensate Harden at a later date, or through sponsors?

I don’t know why Sixer fans are so upset about this. If the organization did nothing wrong, they’ll carry on. But if they did something that affects the integrity of the game, they should be rightly punished.

taikibansei wrote:

Profound23 wrote:-Michael Rubin, the CEO of Fanatics was part owner of the 76ers who just recently sold part of his ownership 1 month ago.
-James Harden took a huge discount to stay with the Sixers.
-James Harden then signed a deal with Fanatics for an undisclosed amount, some believe it is to make up the difference of how much Harden would've received on the open market vs. how much he signed with the Sixers.

If true, this would be a problem. (The mere taking of a discount itself...not so much.)

Profound23 is on the money. The NBA wouldn't just open an investigation if it was a pretty open and shut case that he just took a discount to stay with the Sixers and then might have some verbal agreement that the team will pay him on the backend.

The investigation is to see if the Sixers would be using alternate means to give him the amount he wants while circumventing the CBA.

Eh... It's the combination of transgressions, there's a pretty strongly held belief that the Sixers we're actively recruiting Harden while he was on the Nets and really poisoning the well so to speak so this backlash is likely partially because of that...