Arenas's Gift To The Wizards?

[Three34]

Oh and Chris Andersen's was voided too, but for completely differing reasons, so that doesn't really help.

[Dunkenstein]

From Wikipedia: "Sprewell was suspended for 10 days without pay. The next day, in the wake of a public uproar, the Warriors voided the remainder of his contract, which included $23.7 million over three years, and the NBA suspended him from the league for 82 games. Sprewell took the case to arbitration, and, as a result, the contract voiding was overturned and the league suspension was reduced to the remaining 68 games of the season."

Andersen's contract was never terminated (or voided) by his team. He was suspended by the league for violating the league's anti-drug policy by testing positive for a banned substance, which was grounds for expulsion from the NBA under rules of the CBA.

So it looks like Spreewell may have been the only player to have his contract terminated by his team, even that termination proved unsuccessful.

[FGump]

As I recall, the Sprewell voiding (a) was multiple CBA's ago, and (b) was unsuccessful because the CBA at the time did not provide for such a possibility on such a situation. But as I understand it, later CBA language has been inserted to broaden the options and now allow for such a possibility, in egregious situations, and I'm fairly certain if we could turn back the clock on Sprewell using today's CBA, he could be successfully voided for what he did.

But I'm less certain as to whether Arenas rises to that extent (since no one was actually harmed in any way), nor whether anyone in power wants it to. While I think he was going to get punished to some degree regardless, I think he'd still be playing if he had shown any sensitivity to the situation - instead, he chose to tug on Superman's cap, spit into the wind, and try to pull the mask off the Lone Ranger: you don't mess around with Stern.

[Dunkenstein]

instead, he chose to tug on Superman's cap, spit into the wind, and try to pull the mask off the Lone Ranger: you don't mess around with Stern.

God, I miss Jim Croce. He wrote such wonderful songs, and died way too young.

[rugby-hook]

A couple of points:

1. WDC has very differnt gun laws than Indiana. Jax was in trouble with the fans for going to a strip club, not for having a gun. WDC has very tight laws, like NY, which makes a felony indictment very likely for both players.

2. Criminal trials happen quickly. Someone guessed that it will take 2-3 years, which is not correct. Criminal justice has a right to a speedy trial which means this matter could be over by the begining of next season. Expect Arenas and Critt to be suspended for the remainder of the season. Critt will be out of the sport and WDC will not have to pay Arenas almost $9.0mm in salary, reducing his tax hit by $4.5m and changing the economics of this team.

[killbuckner]

You have the right to a speedy trial, you also have the ability to waive that right which is why things often drag out.

[Scoot McGroot]

A couple of points:

1. WDC has very differnt gun laws than Indiana. Jax was in trouble with the fans for going to a strip club, not for having a gun. WDC has very tight laws, like NY, which makes a felony indictment very likely for both players.

2. Criminal trials happen quickly. Someone guessed that it will take 2-3 years, which is not correct. Criminal justice has a right to a speedy trial which means this matter could be over by the begining of next season. Expect Arenas and Critt to be suspended for the remainder of the season. Critt will be out of the sport and WDC will not have to pay Arenas almost $9.0mm in salary, reducing his tax hit by $4.5m and changing the economics of this team.

Yes, but the right to a speedy trial lies with the accused, not the accuser. Only Gil can request a speedy trial. DC cannot.

What would Arenas have to gain from speeding this thing up if it could only allow the Wiz to try voiding his contract sooner? Seriously, he could lose $20 million or more (if the Wiz can and do successfully void his contract with a conviction or guilty plea to a felony) for a speedy trial. I'm sure his lawyer will drag it out so long that he might even play out his entire contract before this case is over.


But no, Jackson wasn't in trouble with the fans for going to a strip club. He was in trouble with the fans for firing a gun outside of a strip club at 3 in the morning. Firing a gun. Gil didn't fire the gun. Jackson did.


And, while DC has strict gun control laws, I'm sure the DA also would like to clear cases off the books for cheap investigation costs, and quickly, meaning he'll probably be willing to plea this down to a misdemeanor type charge, meaning there's no felony there. At that point, I would think the Wiz wouldn't even consider trying to void it.

[Dunkenstein]

And, while DC has strict gun control laws, I'm sure the DA also would like to clear cases off the books for cheap investigation costs, and quickly, meaning he'll probably be willing to plea this down to a misdemeanor type charge, meaning there's no felony there.

I asked a friend of mine who is a criminal attorney in DC why he thought the prosecutor convened a Grand Jury in the Arenas case. That seemed to me to be a pretty drastic step. More than a simple police investigation.

He pointed out that in the summer of 2008 the Supreme Court overturned the District's ban on owning hand guns. City laws still prohibit carrying guns, both openly and concealed. He thought that it might be possible that the prosecutor could be using an Arenas trial as a high profile way of reinforcing the carry prohibition to the large portion of DC residents who own guns.

[arenas809]

Arenas has plead guilty to felony gun possession.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4826597

[Dunkenstein]

Arenas has plead guilty to felony gun possession.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4826597

Unless you know something I don't, all that has been reported is that he was charged with felony gun possession and that he has reached a plea deal. For all we know the charges might be plead down to a misdemeanor. You may be right, but we won't know until he appears in court on Friday afternoon.

If he plead to a felony, it should not be difficult for the Wizards to terminate his contract. If he only plead to a misdemeanor, his punishment is basically up to the commissioner.

[HammJ]

Latest news from ESPN says that Arenas is likely to serve 30 to 90 days in jail. Obviously it's all speculation until the actual results are reported later today, but yes... if Arenas pleads guilty to a felony AND gets jail time, I agree that Gil might as well take a match to his contract.

[Dunkenstein]

So it looks like Arenas plead guilty to the felony gun possession charges. The plea agreement has prosecutors recommending the low end of guidelines, which have a maximum sentence of six months. Arenas's lawyers asked for an immediate sentence, but the judge set the sentencing for March 26.

[Dunkenstein]

From NBA.com:

The language in the NBA's standard contract with players allows teams to void existing contracts if players engage in prohibited offseason activities, such as hang gliding and the like that are viewed as dangerous by the league, if players are convicted of or plead guilty to a felony crime, or if they engage in acts of "moral turpitude," generally defined as behavior that would be viewed as embarrassing for a company or employer if disclosed publicly

I, like many others, have come to believe the above quote from an article on NBA.com by David Aldridge means that if Arenas was convicted of a felony, the Wizards would have the right to terminate his contract.

However, I can't find any language in the CBA or in the UPC to back up that claim. In fact, the only reference to "felony" in the CBA states, "When a player is convicted of (including a plea of guilty, no contest, or nolo contendere to) a violent felony, he shall immediately be suspended by the NBA for a minimum of ten (10) games."

If a violent felony only warrants a suspension, I don't see where a minor felony of gun possession would allow a team to terminate a contract.

[casey]

However, I can't find any language in the CBA or in the UPC to back up that claim. In fact, the only reference to "felony" in the CBA states, "When a player is convicted of (including a plea of guilty, no contest, or nolo contendere to) a violent felony, he shall immediately be suspended by the NBA for a minimum of ten (10) games."

If a violent felony only warrants a suspension, I don't see where a minor felony of gun possession would allow a team to terminate a contract.

That doesn't only warrant a suspension. It just says that he's automatically suspended for at least 10 games. It doesn't say that on top of that the player can't have his contract terminated, be thrown out of league, and be exiled to South Korea.


And I'm not sure that the felony part would really be that big of a deal in terms of terminating his contract. From espn.com:

16. TERMINATION

a) The Team may terminate this Contract upon written notice to the Player if the Player shall:

(i) at any time, fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to standards of good citizenship, good moral character (defined here to mean not engaging in acts of moral turpitude, whether or not such acts would constitute a crime), and good sportsmanship, to keep himself in first class physical condition, or to obey the Team's training rules.

Felony or no felony what Arenas did certainly seems to fall under the category of bad moral character.

[FGump]

Dunk, the way I read things (which also seems to have been reflected in the nuances of the statements that have emanated from league offices on this issue), there's a technicality here that I think has gone unnoticed.

If I read things correctly, the NBA itself CANNOT void the contract. The part of the CBA that talks about league discipline mentions penalties such as fines and suspensions - but does not include termination of contract. They can suspend him indefinitely, it would seem, but even then he'd still have a contract and cap/tax hits.

If that's the case, then it's all going to be up to the Wizards' (who do have the theoretical ability to void under certain circumstances) ..and we have to limit our analysis to that portion of the CBA that deals with a team and its rights in regards to player misconduct. The following appears to be the entire pertinent portion dealing with a team's right to terminate, and I've bolded the only part that could be relevant in this situation:

(a) The Team may terminate this Contract upon written notice to the Player if the Player shall:

(i) at any time, fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to standards of good citizenship, good moral character (defined here to mean not engaging in acts of moral turpitude, whether or not such acts would constitute a crime), and good sportsmanship, to keep himself in first class physical condition, or to obey the Team’s training rules;

(ii) at any time commit a significant and inexcusable physical attack against any official or employee of the Team or the NBA (other than another player), or any person in attendance at any NBA game or event, considering the totality of the circumstances, including (but not limited to) the degree of provocation (if any) that may have led to the attack, the nature and scope of the attack, the Player’s state of mind at the time of the attack, and the extent of any injury resulting from the attack;

(iii) at any time, fail, in the sole opinion of the Team’s management, to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability to qualify to continue as a member of the Team; provided, however, (A) that if this Contract is terminated by the Team, in accordance with the provisions of this subparagraph, prior to January 10 of any Season, and the Player, at the time of such termination, is unfit to play skilled basketball as the result of an injury resulting directly from his playing for the Team, the Player shall (subject to the provisions set forth in Exhibit 3) continue to receive his full Base Compensation, less all workers’ compensation benefits (which, to the extent permitted by law, and if not deducted from the Player’s Compensation by the Team, the Player hereby assigns to the Team) and any insurance provided for by the Team paid or payable to the Player by reason of said injury, until such time as the Player is fit to play skilled basketball, but not beyond the Season during which such termination occurred; and provided, further, (B) that if this Contract is terminated by the Team, in accordance with the provisions of this subparagraph, during the period from the January 10 of any Season through the end of such Season, the Player shall be entitled to receive his full Base Compensation for said Season; or

(iv) at any time, fail, refuse, or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this Contract.

That leaves the application here to what constitutes a violation of "at any time, fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to standards of good citizenship, good moral character (defined here to mean not engaging in acts of moral turpitude, whether or not such acts would constitute a crime)" ....which is extremely vague.

BUT there's still one other important issue that has to be in the mix here, which you noted. Billy Hunter was right on point when he said you have to proportion the penalty to the misdeed. The WIzards won't have a blank check to do whatever they want here despite the vagueness of the CBA. While bringing a gun to a locker room has to be squelched, since no one was harmed and the gun wasn't even fired (and may not have even been used in a threatening manner), a $100M penalty for such a misdeed fits almost every definition of Draconian and I can't imagine it would have a prayer of surviving a verrrrrrry expensive legal challenge.

[Dunkenstein]

Felony or no felony what Arenas did certainly seems to fall under the category of bad moral character.

From Wikipedia: The concept of moral turpitude escapes precise definition but has been described as an "act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man." [Chadwick v. State Bar, 49 Cal. 3d 103, 110, 776 P.2d 240, 260 Cal.Rptr. 538 (1989); Sosa-Martinez v. United States AG, 420 F.3d 1338, 1341 (11th Cir. 2005)]

I don't believe that simple gun possession can be described as an act of baseness, vileness or depravity. It is after all protected by the second amendment to the Constitution.

I also agree with what FGump has to say about the punishment being in proportion to the misdeed. As Ken Berger wrote yesterday on CBSSports.com "There is no disputing that Arenas violated league and team rules, possibly broke the law, and acted like a fool after the fact. But if that were the threshold for letting teams weasel out of bad contracts, half the contracts in the NBA wouldn't be worth the PDFs they're emblazoned upon. . . As a matter of law, if Latrell Sprewell couldn't be suspended and have his contract voided for choking P.J. Carlesimo, what possibly could be the justification in this case?"

[FGump]

I suspect that wording in the CBA was deliberately vague to allow wiggle room for cases like Sprewell's which under that CBA had no provision allowing them to void his deal.

But to support further the concept that the punishment has to fit the crime, notice the part that says the following:

The Team may terminate this Contract upon written notice to the Player if the Player shall: (i) at any time, fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to standards of ... good sportsmanship ...

A lack of good sportsmanship can void a contract? It's obvious no team would ever try to void even the most overpaid contract because a player was taunting another player or threw a cheap-shot elbow, although such actions are clearly a failure to "conform personal conduct to standards of good sportsmanship." So there's a line in there somewhere, it's not really given, but you gotta think it has to be something really bad to qualify under these vague clauses.

PS - I'd say the Sprewell case isn't really a helpful precedent, since it was 2 CBAs ago when it occurred and the wording we're considering was not in the CBA/contracts then. In fact, I believe this wording was added in the next CBA to close that exact loophole and that Sprewell COULD successfully be voided under today's contract.

[casey]

I don't believe that simple gun possession can be described as an act of baseness, vileness or depravity. It is after all protected by the second amendment to the Constitution.

You make it sound like he didn't commit a felony. He did. What he did isn't protected by any amendment. And at the beginning of that wikipedia article it says, "Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to 'conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals'." I would say his actions are without question contract to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.

While bringing a gun to a locker room has to be squelched, since no one was harmed and the gun wasn't even fired (and may not have even been used in a threatening manner), a $100M penalty for such a misdeed fits almost every definition of Draconian and I can't imagine it would have a prayer of surviving a verrrrrrry expensive legal challenge.

I don't think it makes a difference what he is getting paid. Is it any worse for a guy who's getting $1Mil a year to do this than a guy who's getting $20Mil a year?

[Twinkie defense]

Very interesting...

Sprewell doesn't matter.

It seems clear that Washington could attempt to void, and that there are a lot of non-Glock related reasons for them to consider that. I doubt they would though... it will be messy with no certain result, except to perhaps alienate players.

If Plaxico Burress is any indication, cities like DC are not fooling around with gun laws.

And of course there's the irony of the Bullets, changing their name as a gesture to nonviolence.

[FGump]

1 I would say his actions are without question contract to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals

2 I don't think it makes a difference what he is getting paid. Is it any worse for a guy who's getting $1Mil a year to do this than a guy who's getting $20Mil a year?

1 Of course it is was an act generally contrary to those items. But every step across that line isn't the same ...it also says you can terminate for acts of bad sportsmanship, but if you void a contract for taunting, it's not gonna hold up either even though that's bad sportsmanship.

2 It's the size of the PENALTY that has to fit the crime. We can call it a "voiding" but when it's over it's a financial penalty, taking money out of his pocket.

So if the Wiz propose a penalty that costs Arenas 100M, the "crime" better be something more severe than "he took a gun where he wasn't supposed to." They'll get into Arenas pocket pretty deeply in real-people terms anyhow, by the time the suspension is over, but there's a concept of fairness in decisions that will be in play here, where the severity of the penalty has to somehow be on the same level as the wrong. "Gun possession" on one side - $100M fine on the other? Nah, those scales of justice wouldn't be balanced at all.