Pablo Torre: Kawhi/Clippers/Ballmer/Aspiration Thread (part 2)

[JayMKE]

Ballmer, Kawhi, Uncle Dennis, and Clippers need the NBA equivalent of the death penalty. It’s cheating and probably should be a real crime on Ballmer’s part for his part in a fraudulent company. The NBA doesn’t need Ballmer, stop swinging from his nuts

[TheSeeker]

None of this will happen. It's just not realistic. I get that Ballmer was caught operating a scam but the damage done is nowhere near the punishment you keep pushing. The Joe Smith issue helped Minnesota field a stronger team. The Kawhi issue is just that Kawhi got some free money without doing anything to deserve it. If he made a couple of adverts, the issue may disappear. The Clippers did not improve their strength as Kawhi had already signed a max by the time he engaged in this deal. Even if there was foreknowledge (likely but not yet proven), the punishment will be half of the Minnesota punishment. Kawhi was going to either the Clippers or Lakers. Had the deal not involved any BS, Kawhi would likely still be a Clipper.

There will be no lifetime bans for anybody - it won't even be proposed. No owner will risk his own rights in order to punish Ballmer.

I have seen absolutely zero about this outside of specific Basketball forums. Most casual fans don't even know what is going on. This is going to get buried and resolved internally. If Kawhi took a deal at less than max, the issue would be much bigger, but not this time.

Couple of things you do not understand.
1. The damage is far more severe than the Joe Smith situation. Joe Smith's punishment isn't the ceiling, it's the floor. It's not even comparable which is why this is an unprecedented situation that ultimately sets the baseline on how future circumvention will be ruled. As many in the media and here have pointed out, this is a cardinal sin.
2. Kawhi just got free money is also downplaying the severity. The issue stretches back to when the Clippers didn't hold the bird rights to Kawhi. Which mean the benefits the Clippers gained was a superstar for cap space below the max. If there was no need for circumvention, then there's no need for payment.
3. Unless you're a mind reader, you can't say Kawhi would've gone to the Clippers or Lakers and not the team that held his bird rights. Saying everyone knew isn't evidence as it was his own camp putting that narrative out. Reality was, Kawhi left Toronto and ended up with a team that paid him under the table. All evidence points to Kawhi's camp being greedy over homesick.
4. If Kawhi would have made a couple of ads, the scandal would have been exposed even sooner. Do you think Kawhi's deal could be kept secret? There's a reason why everything was surrounded in secrecy as to not invite scrutiny
5. You have no rights to speak on behalf of the owners. You think the owners won't risk their own rights but you think they'll let owners like Ballmer break the league? Zach Lowe according to his podcast has spoken with many sources around the league and everyone is furious right now. You want to send a message ? Lifetime ban is the punishment you choose. Think Pete Rose in baseball's cardinal sin.

If you don't understand how big of a deal the salary cap is, look back at what happened in the last several CBA negotiations. You think no owners will give up their rights (nonsense), but you think they'll relinquish their power to the players?

It is reported that Uncle Dennis asked the Lakers and Toronto for the same type of agreements. Toronto even arranged for "legitimate" arrangements at market rates and were surprised that Kawhi left. What the Clippers did was put together a package that induced Kahwi to leave Toronto. Not sure how this is any different than the Joe Smith thing.

[MAMBAEMD]

As Chick Hearn used to say, Ballmer and Kawhi and uncle Dennis got "caught with their hands in the cookie jar".

It would cause very long term damage to the league's reputation if they don't come down very hard on the team and the player.

[tamaraw08]

As Chick Hearn used to say, Ballmer and Kawhi and uncle Dennis got "caught with their hands in the cookie jar".

It would cause very long term damage to the league's reputation if they don't come down very hard on the team and the player.

I really thought, you are going to say,
"This case is in the refrigerator, the door's closed, the Cuban's out,
Ballmer's eggs are cooking,
the Kawhi's butt getting hard and
the Pablo's podcast is jiggling".

[ConSarnit]

None of this will happen. It's just not realistic. I get that Ballmer was caught operating a scam but the damage done is nowhere near the punishment you keep pushing. The Joe Smith issue helped Minnesota field a stronger team. The Kawhi issue is just that Kawhi got some free money without doing anything to deserve it. If he made a couple of adverts, the issue may disappear. The Clippers did not improve their strength as Kawhi had already signed a max by the time he engaged in this deal. Even if there was foreknowledge (likely but not yet proven), the punishment will be half of the Minnesota punishment. Kawhi was going to either the Clippers or Lakers. Had the deal not involved any BS, Kawhi would likely still be a Clipper.

There will be no lifetime bans for anybody - it won't even be proposed. No owner will risk his own rights in order to punish Ballmer.

I have seen absolutely zero about this outside of specific Basketball forums. Most casual fans don't even know what is going on. This is going to get buried and resolved internally. If Kawhi took a deal at less than max, the issue would be much bigger, but not this time.

Couple of things you do not understand.
1. The damage is far more severe than the Joe Smith situation. Joe Smith's punishment isn't the ceiling, it's the floor. It's not even comparable which is why this is an unprecedented situation that ultimately sets the baseline on how future circumvention will be ruled. As many in the media and here have pointed out, this is a cardinal sin.
2. Kawhi just got free money is also downplaying the severity. The issue stretches back to when the Clippers didn't hold the bird rights to Kawhi. Which mean the benefits the Clippers gained was a superstar for cap space below the max. If there was no need for circumvention, then there's no need for payment.
3. Unless you're a mind reader, you can't say Kawhi would've gone to the Clippers or Lakers and not the team that held his bird rights. Saying everyone knew isn't evidence as it was his own camp putting that narrative out. Reality was, Kawhi left Toronto and ended up with a team that paid him under the table. All evidence points to Kawhi's camp being greedy over homesick.
4. If Kawhi would have made a couple of ads, the scandal would have been exposed even sooner. Do you think Kawhi's deal could be kept secret? There's a reason why everything was surrounded in secrecy as to not invite scrutiny
5. You have no rights to speak on behalf of the owners. You think the owners won't risk their own rights but you think they'll let owners like Ballmer break the league? Zach Lowe according to his podcast has spoken with many sources around the league and everyone is furious right now. You want to send a message ? Lifetime ban is the punishment you choose. Think Pete Rose in baseball's cardinal sin.

If you don't understand how big of a deal the salary cap is, look back at what happened in the last several CBA negotiations. You think no owners will give up their rights (nonsense), but you think they'll relinquish their power to the players?

It is reported that Uncle Dennis asked the Lakers and Toronto for the same type of agreements. Toronto even arranged for "legitimate" arrangements at market rates and were surprised that Kawhi left. What the Clippers did was put together a package that induced Kahwi to leave Toronto. Not sure how this is any different than the Joe Smith thing.

While it is probably worse than the Joe Smith thing I think the NBA is going to get hung up on the lack of an actual smoking gun. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but it feels like this will get tied up in arbitration and that probably reduces the punishment compared to the Smith debacle. The Joe Smith case was open and shut as those dummies actually put it in writing. Ballmer did a lot of stupid things but he was probably smart enough not to put it in writing.

My bet is they won’t give Ballmer a lifetime ban unless they find the smoking gun (and even then he probably only gets suspended). They had Glen Taylor dead to rights on the Joe Smith contract and they didn’t force him out of the league.

[clippertown]

Couple of things you do not understand.
1. The damage is far more severe than the Joe Smith situation. Joe Smith's punishment isn't the ceiling, it's the floor. It's not even comparable which is why this is an unprecedented situation that ultimately sets the baseline on how future circumvention will be ruled. As many in the media and here have pointed out, this is a cardinal sin.
2. Kawhi just got free money is also downplaying the severity. The issue stretches back to when the Clippers didn't hold the bird rights to Kawhi. Which mean the benefits the Clippers gained was a superstar for cap space below the max. If there was no need for circumvention, then there's no need for payment.
3. Unless you're a mind reader, you can't say Kawhi would've gone to the Clippers or Lakers and not the team that held his bird rights. Saying everyone knew isn't evidence as it was his own camp putting that narrative out. Reality was, Kawhi left Toronto and ended up with a team that paid him under the table. All evidence points to Kawhi's camp being greedy over homesick.
4. If Kawhi would have made a couple of ads, the scandal would have been exposed even sooner. Do you think Kawhi's deal could be kept secret? There's a reason why everything was surrounded in secrecy as to not invite scrutiny
5. You have no rights to speak on behalf of the owners. You think the owners won't risk their own rights but you think they'll let owners like Ballmer break the league? Zach Lowe according to his podcast has spoken with many sources around the league and everyone is furious right now. You want to send a message ? Lifetime ban is the punishment you choose. Think Pete Rose in baseball's cardinal sin.

If you don't understand how big of a deal the salary cap is, look back at what happened in the last several CBA negotiations. You think no owners will give up their rights (nonsense), but you think they'll relinquish their power to the players?

It is reported that Uncle Dennis asked the Lakers and Toronto for the same type of agreements. Toronto even arranged for "legitimate" arrangements at market rates and were surprised that Kawhi left. What the Clippers did was put together a package that induced Kahwi to leave Toronto. Not sure how this is any different than the Joe Smith thing.

While it is probably worse than the Joe Smith thing I think the NBA is going to get hung up on the lack of an actual smoking gun. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but it feels like this will get tied up in arbitration and that probably reduces the punishment compared to the Smith debacle. The Joe Smith case was open and shut as those dummies actually put it in writing. Ballmer did a lot of stupid things but he was probably smart enough not to put it in writing.

My bet is they won’t give Ballmer a lifetime ban unless they find the smoking gun (and even then he probably only gets suspended). They had Glen Taylor dead to rights on the Joe Smith contract and they didn’t force him out of the league.

This is completely different to the Joe Smith saga. Back then, Smith signed with Minny at well below market rates in order to circumvent the cap and gain a direct advantage for the team. What is the point of a cap if the teams do not follow it? An example needed to be made and the punishment was given teeth because Minnesota was a below average team and had the potential for high draft picks, which they lost as punishment.

For the Kawhi situation, he did not sign at below market rates. The Clippers did not circumvent the cap and the other teams were not unfairly disadvantaged. Kawhi had publicly given the indication that he wanted to leave Canada (he never wanted to go there in the first place) and he was focused on teams with max cap space, of which the Clippers and Lakers had at the time. It makes sense that he chose the Clippers specifically for those California sponsorship opportunities. Kawhi may have received money illegally, but he could not have been paid more in official salary than he actually received so the Clippers did not get a direct cap-based advantage, just luxury tax circumvention which is different.

If Kawhi had been more like CP3 and actually worked for his sponsorship deals, this would not even be an issue today.

There is no comparison to the Smith situation. That was magnitudes worse than this one and the punishment will reflect that.

[mastermixer]

Let’s assume that Ballmer and Kawhi are 100% guilty (something that is not yet actually proven), my question relates to how the league’s rules and the US laws interact in this situation. If the standards of proof for the NBA are less than the standards of proof in California law, wouldn’t a severe adverse decision by the league get challenged in court? I get that the league has its own rules that everybody agreed too, but if for example Ballmer was forced to sell the team (lol), this would have many cascading impacts that do not land directly on the Clippers organization. Hundreds of vendors and advertisers could sue. These cases would drag the league into a legal battle outside of their ivory castle. Ballmer would definitely appeal in court and would be pretty public about it. Since only 5% of NBA fans even know about this situation, why would the league shine a light on it now?

I get the need for punishment, but the league mostly handles these embarrassing situations behind closed doors and between the owners. A protracted legal battle between a pissed off Ballmer and the NBA would be ugly for everybody, especially if Ballmer knows where some of the other skeletons are buried. I maintain that this is not the only circumvention going on, just the only one that was outed (due to the BK of Aspiration).

Ultimately, this will likely be dealt with by banning Ballmer from his own stadium for the season, giving up a couple of useless late picks (or swaps) and issuing a hefty fine that Ballmer will pay with petty cash – likely limited to the max penalty of $7.5M. This was not technically cap-circumvention btw – it was a bribe to get Kawhi to sign with the Clippers. Even if Ballmer wanted to, he could not have paid Kawhi a penny more than he actually paid him. Any additional monies were separate to the max player contract. These are similar concepts but not identical in a court of actual law.

The lack of media and any real announcements from Silver indicate which way the league is thinking. It’s likely Silver will be travelling in a brand-new Gulfstream G800 next season, and the league will write additional rules to counter this kind of activity in the future.

my guess is all the NBA contracts and agreements have language in them states that "you" agree to arbitration that allows the Commissioner to be the decision maker in these types of circumstances.

I believe there have been legal challenges in the past that substantiate that. Most serious legal challenges against any league usually end up getting settled outside of court because when push comes to shove the league doesn't want either the negative publicity or have to make private docs public in discovery.

Ballmer is SOOO rich that he would actually have the ability to really challenge the NBA in every avenue if he chose too. But in a situation like you're talking about it would probably end up going to state or even federal supreme court decision.

It depends on if the complaint is civil or criminal, in nature. If it's civil, there's little recourse in a court of law except to define the language or intricacies of the CBA. From a criminal perspective, if any criminal/tax laws were broken, the DOJ does not care about the CBA and can prosecute.

Good point on the difference between civil and criminal. I wasn’t even thinking about the criminal aspect.

[G R E Y]

None of this will happen. It's just not realistic. I get that Ballmer was caught operating a scam but the damage done is nowhere near the punishment you keep pushing. The Joe Smith issue helped Minnesota field a stronger team. The Kawhi issue is just that Kawhi got some free money without doing anything to deserve it. If he made a couple of adverts, the issue may disappear. The Clippers did not improve their strength as Kawhi had already signed a max by the time he engaged in this deal. Even if there was foreknowledge (likely but not yet proven), the punishment will be half of the Minnesota punishment. Kawhi was going to either the Clippers or Lakers. Had the deal not involved any BS, Kawhi would likely still be a Clipper.

There will be no lifetime bans for anybody - it won't even be proposed. No owner will risk his own rights in order to punish Ballmer.

I have seen absolutely zero about this outside of specific Basketball forums. Most casual fans don't even know what is going on. This is going to get buried and resolved internally. If Kawhi took a deal at less than max, the issue would be much bigger, but not this time.

Couple of things you do not understand.
1. The damage is far more severe than the Joe Smith situation. Joe Smith's punishment isn't the ceiling, it's the floor. It's not even comparable which is why this is an unprecedented situation that ultimately sets the baseline on how future circumvention will be ruled. As many in the media and here have pointed out, this is a cardinal sin.
2. Kawhi just got free money is also downplaying the severity. The issue stretches back to when the Clippers didn't hold the bird rights to Kawhi. Which mean the benefits the Clippers gained was a superstar for cap space below the max. If there was no need for circumvention, then there's no need for payment.
3. Unless you're a mind reader, you can't say Kawhi would've gone to the Clippers or Lakers and not the team that held his bird rights. Saying everyone knew isn't evidence as it was his own camp putting that narrative out. Reality was, Kawhi left Toronto and ended up with a team that paid him under the table. All evidence points to Kawhi's camp being greedy over homesick.
4. If Kawhi would have made a couple of ads, the scandal would have been exposed even sooner. Do you think Kawhi's deal could be kept secret? There's a reason why everything was surrounded in secrecy as to not invite scrutiny
5. You have no rights to speak on behalf of the owners. You think the owners won't risk their own rights but you think they'll let owners like Ballmer break the league? Zach Lowe according to his podcast has spoken with many sources around the league and everyone is furious right now. You want to send a message ? Lifetime ban is the punishment you choose. Think Pete Rose in baseball's cardinal sin.

If you don't understand how big of a deal the salary cap is, look back at what happened in the last several CBA negotiations. You think no owners will give up their rights (nonsense), but you think they'll relinquish their power to the players?

It is reported that Uncle Dennis asked the Lakers and Toronto for the same type of agreements. Toronto even arranged for "legitimate" arrangements at market rates and were surprised that Kawhi left. What the Clippers did was put together a package that induced Kahwi to leave Toronto. Not sure how this is any different than the Joe Smith thing.

And from us. Where it all started, where pattern originated, with outside influence (see timing of Ballmer serenading then trading Griffin vs. KL and group's discord with Spurs). Robertson wanted part of team ownership/input for roster decisions. All that dirty ****. Follow the pattern. Follow the money. For Ballmer and KL and DR all.

[inonba]

While it is probably worse than the Joe Smith thing I think the NBA is going to get hung up on the lack of an actual smoking gun. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but it feels like this will get tied up in arbitration and that probably reduces the punishment compared to the Smith debacle. The Joe Smith case was open and shut as those dummies actually put it in writing. Ballmer did a lot of stupid things but he was probably smart enough not to put it in writing.

My bet is they won’t give Ballmer a lifetime ban unless they find the smoking gun (and even then he probably only gets suspended). They had Glen Taylor dead to rights on the Joe Smith contract and they didn’t force him out of the league.

A "smoking gun" IS circumstantial evidence.

Punishment is not dependent on the amount of evidence, but the severity of the offense. It's either they did it, or they didn't. If they did, this is the penalty.

I'll add this. Commissioner Silver has broad powers to levy punishment deemed appropriate. What does appropriate punishment look like?

I used the term punitive because whatever the punishment is, it will need to scare others from trying the same type of scheme.

In terms of monetary penalty, the league caps the damage at 7.5 million for the first offense. Is there a number large enough that will deter an owner like Ballmer to not try again? Considering Ballmer spent $118 million that we know of so far, that number will need to be in the hundreds of millions which is probably larger than every single fine the NBA has levied since Ballmer bought the team combined.

In terms of draft picks or equivalent, teams were willing to pay 5 picks, 2 swaps + prospect for a player like Paul George. Mikal Bridges got like 5 picks, 1 swap. How many pick penalty is enough of a deterrent when the number of picks teams are willing to trade for a superstar player Kawhi's caliber is so high.

So what's left? Silver can get creative and add salary cap restrictions like voiding Kawhi's contract while keeping his cap hit on the books. Same with first round picks forfeited. Remove all their salary exceptions. Is that enough?

This is why I'm predicting lifetime ban. It's the only punishment strong enough to send a message throughout the league to not even try. Once again, think Pete Rose in baseball. Silver can reinstate Ballmer being the majority owner of the team when things die down. The others, the ban should stick.

[MAMBAEMD]

Couple of things you do not understand.
1. The damage is far more severe than the Joe Smith situation. Joe Smith's punishment isn't the ceiling, it's the floor. It's not even comparable which is why this is an unprecedented situation that ultimately sets the baseline on how future circumvention will be ruled. As many in the media and here have pointed out, this is a cardinal sin.
2. Kawhi just got free money is also downplaying the severity. The issue stretches back to when the Clippers didn't hold the bird rights to Kawhi. Which mean the benefits the Clippers gained was a superstar for cap space below the max. If there was no need for circumvention, then there's no need for payment.
3. Unless you're a mind reader, you can't say Kawhi would've gone to the Clippers or Lakers and not the team that held his bird rights. Saying everyone knew isn't evidence as it was his own camp putting that narrative out. Reality was, Kawhi left Toronto and ended up with a team that paid him under the table. All evidence points to Kawhi's camp being greedy over homesick.
4. If Kawhi would have made a couple of ads, the scandal would have been exposed even sooner. Do you think Kawhi's deal could be kept secret? There's a reason why everything was surrounded in secrecy as to not invite scrutiny
5. You have no rights to speak on behalf of the owners. You think the owners won't risk their own rights but you think they'll let owners like Ballmer break the league? Zach Lowe according to his podcast has spoken with many sources around the league and everyone is furious right now. You want to send a message ? Lifetime ban is the punishment you choose. Think Pete Rose in baseball's cardinal sin.

If you don't understand how big of a deal the salary cap is, look back at what happened in the last several CBA negotiations. You think no owners will give up their rights (nonsense), but you think they'll relinquish their power to the players?

It is reported that Uncle Dennis asked the Lakers and Toronto for the same type of agreements. Toronto even arranged for "legitimate" arrangements at market rates and were surprised that Kawhi left. What the Clippers did was put together a package that induced Kahwi to leave Toronto. Not sure how this is any different than the Joe Smith thing.

And from us. Where it all started, where pattern originated, with outside influence (see timing of Ballmer serenading then trading Griffin vs. KL and group's discord with Spurs). Robertson wanted part of team ownership/input for roster decisions. All that dirty ****. Follow the pattern. Follow the money. For Ballmer and KL and DR all.

x1000

[madmaxmedia]

While it is probably worse than the Joe Smith thing I think the NBA is going to get hung up on the lack of an actual smoking gun. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but it feels like this will get tied up in arbitration and that probably reduces the punishment compared to the Smith debacle. The Joe Smith case was open and shut as those dummies actually put it in writing. Ballmer did a lot of stupid things but he was probably smart enough not to put it in writing.

My bet is they won’t give Ballmer a lifetime ban unless they find the smoking gun (and even then he probably only gets suspended). They had Glen Taylor dead to rights on the Joe Smith contract and they didn’t force him out of the league.

The paper (and money) trail they do have is pretty incriminating though. Let's say Aspiration was actually semi-viable and the Clippers didn't need to pump in extra money into an already defunct company so they could make Kawhi payments while simultaneously laying off employees. Then the first Pablo dump is all anyone has, and I agree the evidence would have been a lot more iffy. Ballmer's claims on ESPN would have at least been plausible.

If this is worse than the Joe Smith saga, but the evidence is less (but still very compelling IMO), those factors counteract each other to some degree. We'll see where the NBA lands.

[tamaraw08]

It is reported that Uncle Dennis asked the Lakers and Toronto for the same type of agreements. Toronto even arranged for "legitimate" arrangements at market rates and were surprised that Kawhi left. What the Clippers did was put together a package that induced Kahwi to leave Toronto. Not sure how this is any different than the Joe Smith thing.

While it is probably worse than the Joe Smith thing I think the NBA is going to get hung up on the lack of an actual smoking gun. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but it feels like this will get tied up in arbitration and that probably reduces the punishment compared to the Smith debacle. The Joe Smith case was open and shut as those dummies actually put it in writing. Ballmer did a lot of stupid things but he was probably smart enough not to put it in writing.

My bet is they won’t give Ballmer a lifetime ban unless they find the smoking gun (and even then he probably only gets suspended). They had Glen Taylor dead to rights on the Joe Smith contract and they didn’t force him out of the league.

This is completely different to the Joe Smith saga. Back then, Smith signed with Minny at well below market rates in order to circumvent the cap and gain a direct advantage for the team. What is the point of a cap if the teams do not follow it? An example needed to be made and the punishment was given teeth because Minnesota was a below average team and had the potential for high draft picks, which they lost as punishment.

For the Kawhi situation, he did not sign at below market rates. The Clippers did not circumvent the cap and the other teams were not unfairly disadvantaged. Kawhi had publicly given the indication that he wanted to leave Canada (he never wanted to go there in the first place) and he was focused on teams with max cap space, of which the Clippers and Lakers had at the time. It makes sense that he chose the Clippers specifically for those California sponsorship opportunities. Kawhi may have received money illegally, but he could not have been paid more in official salary than he actually received so the Clippers did not get a direct cap-based advantage, just luxury tax circumvention which is different.

If Kawhi had been more like CP3 and actually worked for his sponsorship deals, this would not even be an issue today.

There is no comparison to the Smith situation. That was magnitudes worse than this one and the punishment will reflect that.

Completely different?, do you dispute the fact that Kawhi got paid an extra 48 Mil total as a form of endorsing a company for doing absolutely nothing?
That Ballmer funded 50 mil to that company so that company can pay Kawhi, is not an advantage over other teams? really?

[clippertown]

While it is probably worse than the Joe Smith thing I think the NBA is going to get hung up on the lack of an actual smoking gun. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but it feels like this will get tied up in arbitration and that probably reduces the punishment compared to the Smith debacle. The Joe Smith case was open and shut as those dummies actually put it in writing. Ballmer did a lot of stupid things but he was probably smart enough not to put it in writing.

My bet is they won’t give Ballmer a lifetime ban unless they find the smoking gun (and even then he probably only gets suspended). They had Glen Taylor dead to rights on the Joe Smith contract and they didn’t force him out of the league.

This is completely different to the Joe Smith saga. Back then, Smith signed with Minny at well below market rates in order to circumvent the cap and gain a direct advantage for the team. What is the point of a cap if the teams do not follow it? An example needed to be made and the punishment was given teeth because Minnesota was a below average team and had the potential for high draft picks, which they lost as punishment.

For the Kawhi situation, he did not sign at below market rates. The Clippers did not circumvent the cap and the other teams were not unfairly disadvantaged. Kawhi had publicly given the indication that he wanted to leave Canada (he never wanted to go there in the first place) and he was focused on teams with max cap space, of which the Clippers and Lakers had at the time. It makes sense that he chose the Clippers specifically for those California sponsorship opportunities. Kawhi may have received money illegally, but he could not have been paid more in official salary than he actually received so the Clippers did not get a direct cap-based advantage, just luxury tax circumvention which is different.

If Kawhi had been more like CP3 and actually worked for his sponsorship deals, this would not even be an issue today.

There is no comparison to the Smith situation. That was magnitudes worse than this one and the punishment will reflect that.

Completely different?, do you dispute the fact that Kawhi got paid an extra 48 Mil total as a form of endorsing a company for doing absolutely nothing?
That Ballmer funded 50 mil to that company so that company can pay Kawhi, is not an advantage over other teams? really?

No. I do not dispute that Kawhi was promised (not actually fully paid) a sum of $48M for a no-show job that was intentionally hidden due to its obvious breach of the current CBA. I never have disputed that fact (not yet proven, but we all know the truth).

I dispute that the Joe Smith saga and the Kawhi saga are the same beast. In the former, a team was able to sign additional players to the squad because of a hidden back-door deal for a player that signed well below his market value. In the latter, the team received zero cap benefit as the player signed was already being paid the max (his full market value). This is a situation where a team offered an illegal sponsorship deal to a player in order to incentivize them to sign but received no cap-benefit and could not sign any additional players with that illegally gained space.

They may sound like the same situation, but they are not.

[inonba]

No. I do not dispute that Kawhi was promised (not actually fully paid) a sum of $48M for a no-show job that was intentionally hidden due to its obvious breach of the current CBA. I never have disputed that fact (not yet proven, but we all know the truth).

I dispute that the Joe Smith saga and the Kawhi saga are the same beast. In the former, a team was able to sign additional players to the squad because of a hidden back-door deal for a player that signed well below his market value. In the latter, the team received zero cap benefit as the player signed was already being paid the max (his full market value). This is a situation where a team offered an illegal sponsorship deal to a player in order to incentivize them to sign but received no cap-benefit and could not sign any additional players with that illegally gained space.

They may sound like the same situation, but they are not.

You are correct. One was a scheme used to sign a role player while the other was a scheme designed to sign a superstar player. Why anyone would think the scheme to sign the role player should carry the heavier penalty is beyond me, so please enlighten us, but Clippers just decided to pay Kawhi extra when they didn't have to is the heart of the argument.

Again, what punishment do you think is enough of a deterrent so other teams don't start setting up shell companies ?

[Sixers in 4]

If you look at the CBA, it's actually a violation to even solicit these kinds of offers from teams. We know Kawhi via Uncle Dennis solicted offers that would be cap circumvention from both the Lakers and the Raptors.

In addition to the foregoing, it shall be a violation of this Section 2 for any Team (or Team Affiliate) or any player (or any person or entity controlled by, related to, or acting with authority on behalf of, such player) to attempt to enter into or to intentionally solicit any agreement, transaction, promise, undertaking, representation, commitment, inducement, assurance of intent, or understanding that would be prohibited by Section 2(a) above.

Furthermore, circumstantial evidence is all that is required:

A violation of Section 2(a) or 2(b) above may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, including, but not limited to, evidence that a Player Contract or any term or provision thereof cannot rationally be explained in the absence of conduct violative of Section 2(a) or 2(b).

Section 2 also leaves the punishment completely open-ended as it relates to picks:

Upon a finding of a violation of Section 2 above by the System Arbitrator, but only following the conclusion of any appeal to the Appeals Panel, the Commissioner shall be authorized to: impose a fine of up to $7,500,000 on any Team found to have committed such violation (fifty percent (50%) of which shall be payable to the NBA, and fifty percent (50%) of which shall be payable to the NBPA-Selected Charitable Organization);

direct the forfeiture of draft picks;

when both the player (or any person or entity acting with authority on behalf of such player) and the Team (or Team Affiliate) are found to have committed such violation, (A) void any Player Contract, or any Renegotiation, Extension, or amendment of a Player Contract, between such player and such Team, (B) impose a fine of up to $350,000, on any player (fifty percent (50%) of which shall be payable to the NBA, and fifty percent (50%) of which shall be payable to the NBPA-Selected Charitable Organization), and/or (C) prohibit any future Player Contract, or any Renegotiation, Extension, or amendment of a Player Contract, between such player and such Team;

suspend for up to one (1) year any Team personnel found to have willfully engaged in such violation; and/or

void any transaction or agreement found to have violated Section 2 above and direct the disgorgement by the player of anything of value received in connection with such transaction or agreement (except Compensation received for services already performed pursuant to a Player Contract), unless the player establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he was unaware of the violation.

Which means Kawhi would have to give up his ill-gotten gains. Look Silver has the complete authority to put the hammer down if he wants. If he doesn't it's because the other owners and Silver have decided not to.

https://atlhawksfanatic.github.io/NBA-CBA/circumvention.html

[ConSarnit]

It is reported that Uncle Dennis asked the Lakers and Toronto for the same type of agreements. Toronto even arranged for "legitimate" arrangements at market rates and were surprised that Kawhi left. What the Clippers did was put together a package that induced Kahwi to leave Toronto. Not sure how this is any different than the Joe Smith thing.

While it is probably worse than the Joe Smith thing I think the NBA is going to get hung up on the lack of an actual smoking gun. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but it feels like this will get tied up in arbitration and that probably reduces the punishment compared to the Smith debacle. The Joe Smith case was open and shut as those dummies actually put it in writing. Ballmer did a lot of stupid things but he was probably smart enough not to put it in writing.

My bet is they won’t give Ballmer a lifetime ban unless they find the smoking gun (and even then he probably only gets suspended). They had Glen Taylor dead to rights on the Joe Smith contract and they didn’t force him out of the league.

This is completely different to the Joe Smith saga. Back then, Smith signed with Minny at well below market rates in order to circumvent the cap and gain a direct advantage for the team. What is the point of a cap if the teams do not follow it? An example needed to be made and the punishment was given teeth because Minnesota was a below average team and had the potential for high draft picks, which they lost as punishment.

For the Kawhi situation, he did not sign at below market rates. The Clippers did not circumvent the cap and the other teams were not unfairly disadvantaged. Kawhi had publicly given the indication that he wanted to leave Canada (he never wanted to go there in the first place) and he was focused on teams with max cap space, of which the Clippers and Lakers had at the time. It makes sense that he chose the Clippers specifically for those California sponsorship opportunities. Kawhi may have received money illegally, but he could not have been paid more in official salary than he actually received so the Clippers did not get a direct cap-based advantage, just luxury tax circumvention which is different.

If Kawhi had been more like CP3 and actually worked for his sponsorship deals, this would not even be an issue today.

There is no comparison to the Smith situation. That was magnitudes worse than this one and the punishment will reflect that.

Absolutely delusional to say the Clippers did not circumvent the salary cap.

[Sixers in 4]

While it is probably worse than the Joe Smith thing I think the NBA is going to get hung up on the lack of an actual smoking gun. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but it feels like this will get tied up in arbitration and that probably reduces the punishment compared to the Smith debacle. The Joe Smith case was open and shut as those dummies actually put it in writing. Ballmer did a lot of stupid things but he was probably smart enough not to put it in writing.

My bet is they won’t give Ballmer a lifetime ban unless they find the smoking gun (and even then he probably only gets suspended). They had Glen Taylor dead to rights on the Joe Smith contract and they didn’t force him out of the league.

This is completely different to the Joe Smith saga. Back then, Smith signed with Minny at well below market rates in order to circumvent the cap and gain a direct advantage for the team. What is the point of a cap if the teams do not follow it? An example needed to be made and the punishment was given teeth because Minnesota was a below average team and had the potential for high draft picks, which they lost as punishment.

For the Kawhi situation, he did not sign at below market rates. The Clippers did not circumvent the cap and the other teams were not unfairly disadvantaged. Kawhi had publicly given the indication that he wanted to leave Canada (he never wanted to go there in the first place) and he was focused on teams with max cap space, of which the Clippers and Lakers had at the time. It makes sense that he chose the Clippers specifically for those California sponsorship opportunities. Kawhi may have received money illegally, but he could not have been paid more in official salary than he actually received so the Clippers did not get a direct cap-based advantage, just luxury tax circumvention which is different.

If Kawhi had been more like CP3 and actually worked for his sponsorship deals, this would not even be an issue today.

There is no comparison to the Smith situation. That was magnitudes worse than this one and the punishment will reflect that.

Absolutely delusional to say the Clippers did not circumvent the salary cap.

The rules make zero distinction between such circumstances; whether Kawhi was paid max at the time or not, if it was an inducement to sign with LA that isn't being accounted for in the salary cap, the net effect is the same.

[ConSarnit]

While it is probably worse than the Joe Smith thing I think the NBA is going to get hung up on the lack of an actual smoking gun. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but it feels like this will get tied up in arbitration and that probably reduces the punishment compared to the Smith debacle. The Joe Smith case was open and shut as those dummies actually put it in writing. Ballmer did a lot of stupid things but he was probably smart enough not to put it in writing.

My bet is they won’t give Ballmer a lifetime ban unless they find the smoking gun (and even then he probably only gets suspended). They had Glen Taylor dead to rights on the Joe Smith contract and they didn’t force him out of the league.

A "smoking gun" IS circumstantial evidence.

Punishment is not dependent on the amount of evidence, but the severity of the offense. It's either they did it, or they didn't. If they did, this is the penalty.

I'll add this. Commissioner Silver has broad powers to levy punishment deemed appropriate. What does appropriate punishment look like?

I used the term punitive because whatever the punishment is, it will need to scare others from trying the same type of scheme.

In terms of monetary penalty, the league caps the damage at 7.5 million for the first offense. Is there a number large enough that will deter an owner like Ballmer to not try again? Considering Ballmer spent $118 million that we know of so far, that number will need to be in the hundreds of millions which is probably larger than every single fine the NBA has levied since Ballmer bought the team combined.

In terms of draft picks or equivalent, teams were willing to pay 5 picks, 2 swaps + prospect for a player like Paul George. Mikal Bridges got like 5 picks, 1 swap. How many pick penalty is enough of a deterrent when the number of picks teams are willing to trade for a superstar player Kawhi's caliber is so high.

So what's left? Silver can get creative and add salary cap restrictions like voiding Kawhi's contract while keeping his cap hit on the books. Same with first round picks forfeited. Remove all their salary exceptions. Is that enough?

This is why I'm predicting lifetime ban. It's the only punishment strong enough to send a message throughout the league to not even try. Once again, think Pete Rose in baseball. Silver can reinstate Ballmer being the majority owner of the team when things die down. The others, the ban should stick.

This ignores the precedence of the Joe Smith case. Taylor was not banned from the league even though there was direct evidence and the violation took place under a commissioner who was considered much harsher than Silver. Silver has already commented that he will operate under a “innocent until proven guilty” basis. Given the precedent, comments by Silver and the lack of direct evidence it seems highly unlikely Ballmer will receive a lifetime ban.

[The Master]

I dispute that the Joe Smith saga and the Kawhi saga are the same beast. In the former, a team was able to sign additional players to the squad because of a hidden back-door deal for a player that signed well below his market value. In the latter, the team received zero cap benefit as the player signed was already being paid the max (his full market value). This is a situation where a team offered an illegal sponsorship deal to a player in order to incentivize them to sign but received no cap-benefit and could not sign any additional players with that illegally gained space.

True. What the Clippers did was much worse - as there's high probability that there's direct connection between them signing the biggest star of the 2019 free agency and this Aspiration deal, as Kawhi camp demanded a very similar package from both the Raptors and the Lakers in 2019. So they didn't get any 'cap benefit' - they potentially got one of the best players in the world at that time while facilitating the deal with very obvious fraudulent scheme. Because...

This ignores the precedence of the Joe Smith case. Taylor was not banned from the league even though there was direct evidence and the violation took place under a commissioner who was considered much harsher than Silver. Silver has already commented that he will operate under a “innocent until proven guilty” basis. Given the precedent, comments by Silver and the lack of direct evidence it seems highly unlikely Ballmer will receive a lifetime ban.

While I generally agree - the whole Kawhi situation, if proven guilty, is much more serious on Ballmer's behalf than the Joe Smith scandal. It was a very dangerous case, but without that much of an impact on the league - with Kawhi, we're potentially talking about the Clippers rigging the free agency at the highest level.

You can realistically argue - if you can link the 2019 Kawhi decision and Aspiration deal - that it cost the Raptors another title shot (Kawhi was still pretty good in 2020 and they were great as a team). And I'm not saying that you have to prove that Kawhi would've signed with the Raptors - just the connection between the Aspiration deal and him signing the deal in 2019 with the Clippers. And even if not, that's still a very realistic question to ask. Consindering that Kawhi signed 103/3 deal at that time with the Clippers - 48 mil $ is ridiculous for the under the table payment if it was promised at that time.

[inonba]

This ignores the precedence of the Joe Smith case. Taylor was not banned from the league even though there was direct evidence and the violation took place under a commissioner who was considered much harsher than Silver. Silver has already commented that he will operate under a “innocent until proven guilty” basis. Given the precedent, comments by Silver and the lack of direct evidence it seems highly unlikely Ballmer will receive a lifetime ban.

Problem is, there is no precedent for salary cap circumvention at this scale. Joe Smith case is often cited for comparison because there's nothing else to compare it to.

Question remains the same. What do you think is a high enough penalty to deter owners from doing the same ? If the penalty is Joe Smith 5 picks, $3.5 million cash, I'd be arrogant enough to voluntarily surrender that to the league while the circumvention was taking place if I were Steve Ballmer. That's like a rich guy getting driving a Lamborghini getting a $30 parking ticket. When you factor in someone like Kawhi would be commanding 5 picks and multiple swaps if he was a player on the trading block at the time, the penalty is essentially a discount. Where is the deterrent?