Rumors, Random Thoughts, and Non-threadworthy Posts The 19th Hole

[gswhoops]

Mid market owners are going to riot over this and Silver needs to drop a hammer at least as painful as the one the Wolves got for the off-the-books Joe Smith deal.

Agreed. The punishment needs to be severe. If the Clippers get away with a slap on the wrist there's no reason why every big market team wouldn't offer Jokic/Giannis/whoever the next elite FA is off-the-books money to sign with them.

OTOH, let Lacob get one of his Silicon Valley VC buddies to offer Jokic a $50M no-show "consulting" gig and bring him to the Bay...

[Jojothewhale]

In a situation where a 1st rounder does get docked, how exactly would that work with swaps? Would they be allowed to occur and then the end result is taken away? If you have an answer to this, are you using logic or quoting a section of the CBA?

[Godaddycurse]

In a situation where a 1st rounder does get docked, how exactly would that work with swaps? Would they be allowed to occur and then the end result is taken away? If you have an answer to this, are you using logic or quoting a section of the CBA?

im curious if they are allowed to dock picks beyond stepien rules' 7 years out

[gswhoops]

In a situation where a 1st rounder does get docked, how exactly would that work with swaps? Would they be allowed to occur and then the end result is taken away? If you have an answer to this, are you using logic or quoting a section of the CBA?

My guess is that the league would take away their next [X] unencumbered picks, even if they have to go farther out into the future than would be ideal.

Source: vibes

[enzino]

valid from spet-7th on

[parsnips33]

Based off absolute nothing, don't think anything that bad happens to the Clippers. Ballmer is a golden goose

[HornetJail]

In a situation where a 1st rounder does get docked, how exactly would that work with swaps? Would they be allowed to occur and then the end result is taken away? If you have an answer to this, are you using logic or quoting a section of the CBA?

yeah the swaps still happen.

2027: OKC has the right to swap their own or DEN 1st (whichever is worse) for LAC 1st. So OKC can choose to execute the swap, and then whatever LAC would've been left with (presumably OKC's late 1st in 2027) gets forfeited.

2029: PHI has the right to swap their pick for LAC 1st (1-3 prot). Philly gets the higher pick, the lower pick gets forfeited.

And if I remember the Minnesota situation correctly, the Stepien Rule doesn't even apply, and the league can force forfeit whatever picks are deemed necessary here.

Hope they don't take the easy way out and just make them forfeit the swapped picks

[gswhoops]

Based off absolute nothing, don't think anything that bad happens to the Clippers. Ballmer is a golden goose

So when the T'Wolves circumvented the cap to sign Joe Smith:

-they lost 5 first-round picks (two were later returned)
-the owner was suspended for a year
-the GM was forced to take a "leave of absence" for a year
-current and past contracts with Smith were voided, stripping the team of his Bird rights
-the team was fined $3.5 million (approx. $6.7 million in 2025 dollars)

I think that unless the punishment is at least in the ballpark of this, there are a lot of owners who are going to be VERY unhappy with Silver.

[MoneyTalks41890]

In a situation where a 1st rounder does get docked, how exactly would that work with swaps? Would they be allowed to occur and then the end result is taken away? If you have an answer to this, are you using logic or quoting a section of the CBA?

yeah the swaps still happen.

2027: OKC has the right to swap their own or DEN 1st (whichever is worse) for LAC 1st. So OKC can choose to execute the swap, and then whatever LAC would've been left with (presumably OKC's late 1st in 2027) gets forfeited.

2029: PHI has the right to swap their pick for LAC 1st (1-3 prot). Philly gets the higher pick, the lower pick gets forfeited.

And if I remember the Minnesota situation correctly, the Stepien Rule doesn't even apply, and the league can force forfeit whatever picks are deemed necessary here.

Hope they don't take the easy way out and just make them forfeit the swapped picks

They should be able to take those picks without respect to Stepien.

And they should take 2030, 2031, and 2032 as well.

The league should be able to go beyond the tradable years too if they want.

The tougher part to me is what to do with Kawhi. Does he get suspended? He obviously knew about the deal and knew he wasn’t doing any work under the agreement.

Not sure voiding this contract does a lot necessarily.

[parsnips33]

Based off absolute nothing, don't think anything that bad happens to the Clippers. Ballmer is a golden goose

So when the T'Wolves circumvented the cap to sign Joe Smith:

-they lost 5 first-round picks (two were later returned)
-the owner was suspended for a year
-the GM was forced to take a "leave of absence" for a year
-current and past contracts with Smith were voided, stripping the team of his Bird rights
-the team was fined $3.5 million (approx. $6.7 million in 2025 dollars)

I think that unless the punishment is at least in the ballpark of this, there are a lot of owners who are going to be VERY unhappy with Silver.

Can it be proven that this was explicitly done to circumvent the cap versus just an extremely strange sponsorship deal? That's the million dollar question, and I think the league has more incentive to make this go away quietly than open up a can of worms. Now will the league be able to hold strong in the face of a bevy of rightfully pissed owners? who knows

[gswhoops]

Based off absolute nothing, don't think anything that bad happens to the Clippers. Ballmer is a golden goose

So when the T'Wolves circumvented the cap to sign Joe Smith:

-they lost 5 first-round picks (two were later returned)
-the owner was suspended for a year
-the GM was forced to take a "leave of absence" for a year
-current and past contracts with Smith were voided, stripping the team of his Bird rights
-the team was fined $3.5 million (approx. $6.7 million in 2025 dollars)

I think that unless the punishment is at least in the ballpark of this, there are a lot of owners who are going to be VERY unhappy with Silver.

Can it be proven that this was explicitly done to circumvent the cap versus just an extremely strange sponsorship deal? That's the million dollar question, and I think the league has more incentive to make this go away quietly than open up a can of worms. Now will the league be able to hold strong in the face of a bevy of rightfully pissed owners? who knows

Based on Torres' evidence, I'd need to see some pretty compelling counter-evidence that this wasn't an under-the-table payment to circumvent the cap. If you hear hooves think horses, not zebras

[Texas Chuck]

They can't let this be a straight sponsorship deal or all the rich clubs are going to start doing that while offering under market contracts and then the league could do nothing because they set precendent.

[gswhoops]

They can't let this be a straight sponsorship deal or all the rich clubs are going to start doing that while offering under market contracts and then the league could do nothing because they set precendent.

Bingo.

What's to stop the Warriors or Heat or Lakers or whoever with deep pockets from offering Jokic or Giannis a max and then an off-the-books no-show "side gig" that's nominally consulting or sponsorship or whatever but functionally is just an extra [X] million dollars per year in salary.

It's a slippery slope to the entire CBA being basically a polite suggestion.

[Texas Chuck]

And yeah I'm for the harshest of punishments. Even harsher than Minny got because there are no excuses. And don't care how rich Ballmer is or how he rescued them from an embarrassing owner either. Don't get the talk of a slap on the wrist because its him at all.

Not sure I'm for suspending Kawhi. Mixed feelings there. But if an agent is involved in this, they might should lose their standing.

[psman2]

In a situation where a 1st rounder does get docked, how exactly would that work with swaps? Would they be allowed to occur and then the end result is taken away? If you have an answer to this, are you using logic or quoting a section of the CBA?

yeah the swaps still happen.

2027: OKC has the right to swap their own or DEN 1st (whichever is worse) for LAC 1st. So OKC can choose to execute the swap, and then whatever LAC would've been left with (presumably OKC's late 1st in 2027) gets forfeited.

2029: PHI has the right to swap their pick for LAC 1st (1-3 prot). Philly gets the higher pick, the lower pick gets forfeited.

And if I remember the Minnesota situation correctly, the Stepien Rule doesn't even apply, and the league can force forfeit whatever picks are deemed necessary here.

Hope they don't take the easy way out and just make them forfeit the swapped picks

They should be able to take those picks without respect to Stepien.

And they should take 2030, 2031, and 2032 as well.

The league should be able to go beyond the tradable years too if they want.

The tougher part to me is what to do with Kawhi. Does he get suspended? He obviously knew about the deal and knew he wasn’t doing any work under the agreement.

Not sure voiding this contract does a lot necessarily.

Force Kawhi to play back to backs as punishment?

[Jojothewhale]

The tougher part to me is what to do with Kawhi. Does he get suspended? He obviously knew about the deal and knew he wasn’t doing any work under the agreement.

Unless I'm reading the CBA incorrectly (always possible), the league can't suspend Kawhi. They can suspend any "Team personnel found to have willfully engaged" for up to 1 year.

Page 341 starts the Penalties section if anyone wants to read it.

[ReggiesKnicks]

They can't let this be a straight sponsorship deal or all the rich clubs are going to start doing that while offering under market contracts and then the league could do nothing because they set precendent.

Bingo.

What's to stop the Warriors or Heat or Lakers or whoever with deep pockets from offering Jokic or Giannis a max and then an off-the-books no-show "side gig" that's nominally consulting or sponsorship or whatever but functionally is just an extra [X] million dollars per year in salary.

It's a slippery slope to the entire CBA being basically a polite suggestion.

The obvious slippery slope landing spot here is paying players an endorsement in the value of ownership.

[Jojothewhale]

But if an agent is involved in this, they might should lose their standing.

There is a mechanism for this in the CBA. It would be a PA decision that can only happen after Appeal. It carries a minimum penalty of a 1 year suspension from agent certification. There is no max specifically stated.

[gswhoops]

The tougher part to me is what to do with Kawhi. Does he get suspended? He obviously knew about the deal and knew he wasn’t doing any work under the agreement.

Unless I'm reading the CBA incorrectly (always possible), the league can't suspend Kawhi. They can suspend any "Team personnel found to have willfully engaged" for up to 1 year.

Page 341 starts the Penalties section if anyone wants to read it.

I haven't read the CBA in depth but I'm sure there's a generic "conduct detrimental to the league" clause that they could use to suspend him. If I were him though, I'd be more worried about the league voiding my contract.

[oldncreaky]

The tougher part to me is what to do with Kawhi. Does he get suspended? He obviously knew about the deal and knew he wasn’t doing any work under the agreement.

Unless I'm reading the CBA incorrectly (always possible), the league can't suspend Kawhi. They can suspend any "Team personnel found to have willfully engaged" for up to 1 year.

Page 341 starts the Penalties section if anyone wants to read it.

I haven't read the CBA in depth but I'm sure there's a generic "conduct detrimental to the league" clause that they could use to suspend him. If I were him though, I'd be more worried about the league voiding my contract.

Agree that it is "conduct detrimental to the league".

Given the lack of cap space right now, Kawhi would lose most of a year's salary if his contract is voided.

And I'm not that sympathetic to Leonard. There is no way this arrangement could be made without him knowing about it, and why it was being done i.e. to circumvent the salary cap. The precedent is important, and if Kawhi ends up profiting from this set up then others will try something similar (just with more plausible deniability).