2025-26 NBA Thread: Adam Silver suggests fans just watch NBA highlights except for Wizards fans who shouldn’t watch anything at all (3 Viewers)

[Dr. Octopus]

half court heaves at the end of quarters will no longer count as shot attempts for the player, but instead will count as "team shots"

reportedly because players are concerned about these shots impacting their shooting percentages

Do they get the points if the basket is made or does that go to the “team”.

I think I know the answer.

 

[rockaction]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Do we believe that Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, hadn’t heard the Pablo/Ballmer/Leonard story before that press conference? Hadn’t the story been around for at least two days?

eta* The story aired on 9/3 and was clearly about Ballmer/Leonard/Aspiration and that press conference where he said he’d never heard of Aspiration was 9/10. It had been a week of being the biggest NBA story in the country. Was he off the grid?

Wow. My sneering email was probably right and Torre should hire some protection and make sure they do protective detail wherever he goes.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Do we believe that Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, hadn’t heard the Pablo/Ballmer/Leonard story before that press conference? Hadn’t the story been around for at least two days?

He heard about the allegations after Pablo’s podcast was released. Not before though.

 

[rockaction]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Do we believe that Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, hadn’t heard the Pablo/Ballmer/Leonard story before that press conference? Hadn’t the story been around for at least two days?

He heard about the allegations after Pablo’s podcast was released. Not before though.

Ah, okay. I guess I can see that. Silver seems nervous and a little weird—like he’s very smart but would assume that you would know he knew about Aspiration but didn’t know about them in that way.

Weird situation. It seems incredibly odd he’d lay out this high bar for punishment right away when first asked. I’m not sure about anything to do with this and it seems extraordinarily strange that he’d lay out these stringent evidentiary requirements when it makes the league look like it’s protecting Ballmer and itself. Why do that?

Is it to make sure the public understands the standard? Is it so journalists do? I get he might be playing the role of the judge here, but it’s a weird conflict of interest because he’s essentially hiring the prosecutor yet by all accounts is sympathetic to the defense for myriad reasons.

Plus, he’s no disinterested judge. He’s the head of an organization that makes gobsmacking amounts of money and that money stream can change drastically depending upon the findings of this investigation that he is putting into motion, overseeing, and then judging. This is all really just PR. It’s to reassure the public (and the other owners, one assumes—or reverse that order if you wish) that things are on the up and up and the CBA is actually binding.

Which leads me to this question: what is the penalty for violating the CBA and what if the NBA has or had knowledge of a violation and it does or did nothing? Who are the injured parties? Could they potentially bring a civil suit and over what issue and whom would they sue??

Oof. Sounds like a bigger problem than I even first thought.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Do we believe that Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, hadn’t heard the Pablo/Ballmer/Leonard story before that press conference? Hadn’t the story been around for at least two days?

He heard about the allegations after Pablo’s podcast was released. Not before though.

Ah, okay. I guess I can see that. Silver seems nervous and a little weird—like he’s very smart but would assume that you would know he knew about Aspiration but didn’t know about them in that way.

Weird situation. It seems incredibly odd he’d lay out this high bar for punishment right away when first asked. I’m not sure about anything to do with this and it seems extraordinarily strange that he’d lay out these stringent evidentiary requirements when it makes the league look like it’s protecting Ballmer and itself. Why do that?

Is it to make sure the public understands the standard? Is it so journalists do? I get he might be playing the role of the judge here, but it’s a weird conflict of interest because he’s essentially hiring the prosecutor yet by all accounts is sympathetic to the defense for myriad reasons.

Plus, he’s no disinterested judge. He’s the head of an organization that makes gobsmacking amounts of money and that money stream can change drastically depending upon the findings of this investigation that he is putting into motion, overseeing, and then judging. This is all really just PR. It’s to reassure the public (and the other owners, one assumes—or reverse that order if you wish) that things are on the up and up and the CBA is actually binding.

Which leads me to this question: what is the penalty for violating the CBA and what if the NBA has or had knowledge of a violation and it does or did nothing? Who are the injured parties? Could they potentially bring a civil suit and over what issue and whom would they sue??

Oof. Sounds like a bigger problem than I even first thought.

For full disclosure, I'm one of the 1% who think Ballmer and the Clippers are likely innocent. I could be wrong, of course. We only know what has been reported. I might change my mind later as information continues to trickle out.

I think Silver answered the question the way he did to try to slow things down and allow for the investigation to be completed. So many people are presuming Ballmer is guilty based on the circumstantial evidence so far. Maybe Silver is doing preemptive damage control in case Ballmer is cleared. I don't think he needs to do the opposite based on the response from Pablo's reporting. I also take him at his word when he mentions the presumption of innocence just being the right thing to do.

For what it's worth, John Hollinger from The Athletic has written some articles about the CBA aspects of this recently that are very good. Since they are behind a paywall, I won't post them here, but he mentioned that in order for Silver to dole out the strongest punishments, the case would have to be decided by an arbitrator. I have no idea who this arbitrator would be although I guess that could be good to protect Silver from people who don't accept the decision.

I don't know the answers to your last paragraph of questions other than the punishments available to Silver under the CBA to assess on Ballmer, Kawhi and the Clippers. Those include any combination of monetary fines, loss of future draft picks, suspension of Ballmer and other executives for up to one year, voiding Kawhi's contract, and forcing repayment of money Kawhi received from Aspiration back to the bankruptcy trustee.

 

[Yo Mama]

Are the Clippers starting (continuing) to distance themselves from Kawhi?

This was an interesting piece from Baxter Holmes with all the issues Clippers have had with him over the years and all the ways they bent over backwards to give him and Robertson whatever they wanted. Lots of current and prior team and league sources quoted here.

Also there was some interesting info from a trainer who is suing the Clippers (he was fired by them) who claims when he was working for the Spurs in 2017 that the Clippers contacted him multiple times for medical info on Kawhi. Some serious tampering allegations there.

'They're done building around him': Inside the tumultuous Kawhi Leonard era in Los Angeles

Just weeks after the Clippers shocked the NBA world by signing the 2019 NBA MVP, a feeling percolated across the organization: fear.

www.espn.com

 

[rockaction]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Do we believe that Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, hadn’t heard the Pablo/Ballmer/Leonard story before that press conference? Hadn’t the story been around for at least two days?

He heard about the allegations after Pablo’s podcast was released. Not before though.

Ah, okay. I guess I can see that. Silver seems nervous and a little weird—like he’s very smart but would assume that you would know he knew about Aspiration but didn’t know about them in that way.

Weird situation. It seems incredibly odd he’d lay out this high bar for punishment right away when first asked. I’m not sure about anything to do with this and it seems extraordinarily strange that he’d lay out these stringent evidentiary requirements when it makes the league look like it’s protecting Ballmer and itself. Why do that?

Is it to make sure the public understands the standard? Is it so journalists do? I get he might be playing the role of the judge here, but it’s a weird conflict of interest because he’s essentially hiring the prosecutor yet by all accounts is sympathetic to the defense for myriad reasons.

Plus, he’s no disinterested judge. He’s the head of an organization that makes gobsmacking amounts of money and that money stream can change drastically depending upon the findings of this investigation that he is putting into motion, overseeing, and then judging. This is all really just PR. It’s to reassure the public (and the other owners, one assumes—or reverse that order if you wish) that things are on the up and up and the CBA is actually binding.

Which leads me to this question: what is the penalty for violating the CBA and what if the NBA has or had knowledge of a violation and it does or did nothing? Who are the injured parties? Could they potentially bring a civil suit and over what issue and whom would they sue??

Oof. Sounds like a bigger problem than I even first thought.

For full disclosure, I'm one of the 1% who think Ballmer and the Clippers are likely innocent. I could be wrong, of course. We only know what has been reported. I might change my mind later as information continues to trickle out.

I think Silver answered the question the way he did to try to slow things down and allow for the investigation to be completed. So many people are presuming Ballmer is guilty based on the circumstantial evidence so far. Maybe Silver is doing preemptive damage control in case Ballmer is cleared. I don't think he needs to do the opposite based on the response from Pablo's reporting. I also take him at his word when he mentions the presumption of innocence just being the right thing to do.

For what it's worth, John Hollinger from The Athletic has written some articles about the CBA aspects of this recently that are very good. Since they are behind a paywall, I won't post them here, but he mentioned that in order for Silver to dole out the strongest punishments, the case would have to be decided by an arbitrator. I have no idea who this arbitrator would be although I guess that could be good to protect Silver from people who don't accept the decision.

I don't know the answers to your last paragraph of questions other than the punishments available to Silver under the CBA to assess on Ballmer, Kawhi and the Clippers. Those include any combination of monetary fines, loss of future draft picks, suspension of Ballmer and other executives for up to one year, voiding Kawhi's contract, and forcing repayment of money Kawhi received from Aspiration back to the bankruptcy trustee.

Ooh. I admit when I know **** about ****. The entire Reddit commentariat that seems to know **** about the NBA and Law is saying that hiring the firm they hired means the Clippers and Ballmer are actually “cooked.”

I would have thought that hiring a firm you retained and that has repped Microsoft in anti-trust cases would present a conflict of interest, but the Reddit folks seem to think that it means they’ve hired people who will find something even if there is only a shred to find.

I guess we will see.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Do we believe that Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, hadn’t heard the Pablo/Ballmer/Leonard story before that press conference? Hadn’t the story been around for at least two days?

He heard about the allegations after Pablo’s podcast was released. Not before though.

Ah, okay. I guess I can see that. Silver seems nervous and a little weird—like he’s very smart but would assume that you would know he knew about Aspiration but didn’t know about them in that way.

Weird situation. It seems incredibly odd he’d lay out this high bar for punishment right away when first asked. I’m not sure about anything to do with this and it seems extraordinarily strange that he’d lay out these stringent evidentiary requirements when it makes the league look like it’s protecting Ballmer and itself. Why do that?

Is it to make sure the public understands the standard? Is it so journalists do? I get he might be playing the role of the judge here, but it’s a weird conflict of interest because he’s essentially hiring the prosecutor yet by all accounts is sympathetic to the defense for myriad reasons.

Plus, he’s no disinterested judge. He’s the head of an organization that makes gobsmacking amounts of money and that money stream can change drastically depending upon the findings of this investigation that he is putting into motion, overseeing, and then judging. This is all really just PR. It’s to reassure the public (and the other owners, one assumes—or reverse that order if you wish) that things are on the up and up and the CBA is actually binding.

Which leads me to this question: what is the penalty for violating the CBA and what if the NBA has or had knowledge of a violation and it does or did nothing? Who are the injured parties? Could they potentially bring a civil suit and over what issue and whom would they sue??

Oof. Sounds like a bigger problem than I even first thought.

For full disclosure, I'm one of the 1% who think Ballmer and the Clippers are likely innocent. I could be wrong, of course. We only know what has been reported. I might change my mind later as information continues to trickle out.

I think Silver answered the question the way he did to try to slow things down and allow for the investigation to be completed. So many people are presuming Ballmer is guilty based on the circumstantial evidence so far. Maybe Silver is doing preemptive damage control in case Ballmer is cleared. I don't think he needs to do the opposite based on the response from Pablo's reporting. I also take him at his word when he mentions the presumption of innocence just being the right thing to do.

For what it's worth, John Hollinger from The Athletic has written some articles about the CBA aspects of this recently that are very good. Since they are behind a paywall, I won't post them here, but he mentioned that in order for Silver to dole out the strongest punishments, the case would have to be decided by an arbitrator. I have no idea who this arbitrator would be although I guess that could be good to protect Silver from people who don't accept the decision.

I don't know the answers to your last paragraph of questions other than the punishments available to Silver under the CBA to assess on Ballmer, Kawhi and the Clippers. Those include any combination of monetary fines, loss of future draft picks, suspension of Ballmer and other executives for up to one year, voiding Kawhi's contract, and forcing repayment of money Kawhi received from Aspiration back to the bankruptcy trustee.

Ooh. I admit when I know **** about ****. The entire Reddit commentariat that seems to know **** about the NBA and Law is saying that hiring the firm they hired means the Clippers and Ballmer are actually “cooked.”

I would have thought that hiring a firm you retained and that has repped Microsoft in anti-trust cases would present a conflict of interest, but the Reddit folks seem to think that it means they’ve hired people who will find something even if there is only a shred to find.

I guess we will see.

They used this firm for other league investigations. I have no reason to believe they won’t do a thorough job. I suspect the NBA is a kick *** client to have.

The problem with Reddit is the up/down voting causes those with unpopular opinions to be silenced. I’m sure you’ve seen that happen in the political threads.

 

[rockaction]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Do we believe that Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, hadn’t heard the Pablo/Ballmer/Leonard story before that press conference? Hadn’t the story been around for at least two days?

He heard about the allegations after Pablo’s podcast was released. Not before though.

Ah, okay. I guess I can see that. Silver seems nervous and a little weird—like he’s very smart but would assume that you would know he knew about Aspiration but didn’t know about them in that way.

Weird situation. It seems incredibly odd he’d lay out this high bar for punishment right away when first asked. I’m not sure about anything to do with this and it seems extraordinarily strange that he’d lay out these stringent evidentiary requirements when it makes the league look like it’s protecting Ballmer and itself. Why do that?

Is it to make sure the public understands the standard? Is it so journalists do? I get he might be playing the role of the judge here, but it’s a weird conflict of interest because he’s essentially hiring the prosecutor yet by all accounts is sympathetic to the defense for myriad reasons.

Plus, he’s no disinterested judge. He’s the head of an organization that makes gobsmacking amounts of money and that money stream can change drastically depending upon the findings of this investigation that he is putting into motion, overseeing, and then judging. This is all really just PR. It’s to reassure the public (and the other owners, one assumes—or reverse that order if you wish) that things are on the up and up and the CBA is actually binding.

Which leads me to this question: what is the penalty for violating the CBA and what if the NBA has or had knowledge of a violation and it does or did nothing? Who are the injured parties? Could they potentially bring a civil suit and over what issue and whom would they sue??

Oof. Sounds like a bigger problem than I even first thought.

For full disclosure, I'm one of the 1% who think Ballmer and the Clippers are likely innocent. I could be wrong, of course. We only know what has been reported. I might change my mind later as information continues to trickle out.

I think Silver answered the question the way he did to try to slow things down and allow for the investigation to be completed. So many people are presuming Ballmer is guilty based on the circumstantial evidence so far. Maybe Silver is doing preemptive damage control in case Ballmer is cleared. I don't think he needs to do the opposite based on the response from Pablo's reporting. I also take him at his word when he mentions the presumption of innocence just being the right thing to do.

For what it's worth, John Hollinger from The Athletic has written some articles about the CBA aspects of this recently that are very good. Since they are behind a paywall, I won't post them here, but he mentioned that in order for Silver to dole out the strongest punishments, the case would have to be decided by an arbitrator. I have no idea who this arbitrator would be although I guess that could be good to protect Silver from people who don't accept the decision.

I don't know the answers to your last paragraph of questions other than the punishments available to Silver under the CBA to assess on Ballmer, Kawhi and the Clippers. Those include any combination of monetary fines, loss of future draft picks, suspension of Ballmer and other executives for up to one year, voiding Kawhi's contract, and forcing repayment of money Kawhi received from Aspiration back to the bankruptcy trustee.

Ooh. I admit when I know **** about ****. The entire Reddit commentariat that seems to know **** about the NBA and Law is saying that hiring the firm they hired means the Clippers and Ballmer are actually “cooked.”

I would have thought that hiring a firm you retained and that has repped Microsoft in anti-trust cases would present a conflict of interest, but the Reddit folks seem to think that it means they’ve hired people who will find something even if there is only a shred to find.

I guess we will see.

They used this firm for other league investigations. I have no reason to believe they won’t do a thorough job. I suspect the NBA is a kick *** client to have.

The problem with Reddit is the up/down voting causes those with unpopular opinions to be silenced. I’m sure you’ve seen that happen in the political threads.

Oh, I actually kind of forgot that up/down thing. I’m not a power user, and as you can probably guess, I’m not going to do politics on Reddit.

I actually don’t know what to think about this case because every explanation seems plausible besides Ballmer and the Clippers being innocent. Where it goes from there is what I have no idea about.

Your 1%’er stance is certainly a testament to your lack of cynicism. What brings you to that belief or conclusion and please refuse any and all Kool-Aid for a few months, okay? (I’m teasing.)

 

[Juxtatarot]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Do we believe that Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, hadn’t heard the Pablo/Ballmer/Leonard story before that press conference? Hadn’t the story been around for at least two days?

He heard about the allegations after Pablo’s podcast was released. Not before though.

Ah, okay. I guess I can see that. Silver seems nervous and a little weird—like he’s very smart but would assume that you would know he knew about Aspiration but didn’t know about them in that way.

Weird situation. It seems incredibly odd he’d lay out this high bar for punishment right away when first asked. I’m not sure about anything to do with this and it seems extraordinarily strange that he’d lay out these stringent evidentiary requirements when it makes the league look like it’s protecting Ballmer and itself. Why do that?

Is it to make sure the public understands the standard? Is it so journalists do? I get he might be playing the role of the judge here, but it’s a weird conflict of interest because he’s essentially hiring the prosecutor yet by all accounts is sympathetic to the defense for myriad reasons.

Plus, he’s no disinterested judge. He’s the head of an organization that makes gobsmacking amounts of money and that money stream can change drastically depending upon the findings of this investigation that he is putting into motion, overseeing, and then judging. This is all really just PR. It’s to reassure the public (and the other owners, one assumes—or reverse that order if you wish) that things are on the up and up and the CBA is actually binding.

Which leads me to this question: what is the penalty for violating the CBA and what if the NBA has or had knowledge of a violation and it does or did nothing? Who are the injured parties? Could they potentially bring a civil suit and over what issue and whom would they sue??

Oof. Sounds like a bigger problem than I even first thought.

For full disclosure, I'm one of the 1% who think Ballmer and the Clippers are likely innocent. I could be wrong, of course. We only know what has been reported. I might change my mind later as information continues to trickle out.

I think Silver answered the question the way he did to try to slow things down and allow for the investigation to be completed. So many people are presuming Ballmer is guilty based on the circumstantial evidence so far. Maybe Silver is doing preemptive damage control in case Ballmer is cleared. I don't think he needs to do the opposite based on the response from Pablo's reporting. I also take him at his word when he mentions the presumption of innocence just being the right thing to do.

For what it's worth, John Hollinger from The Athletic has written some articles about the CBA aspects of this recently that are very good. Since they are behind a paywall, I won't post them here, but he mentioned that in order for Silver to dole out the strongest punishments, the case would have to be decided by an arbitrator. I have no idea who this arbitrator would be although I guess that could be good to protect Silver from people who don't accept the decision.

I don't know the answers to your last paragraph of questions other than the punishments available to Silver under the CBA to assess on Ballmer, Kawhi and the Clippers. Those include any combination of monetary fines, loss of future draft picks, suspension of Ballmer and other executives for up to one year, voiding Kawhi's contract, and forcing repayment of money Kawhi received from Aspiration back to the bankruptcy trustee.

Ooh. I admit when I know **** about ****. The entire Reddit commentariat that seems to know **** about the NBA and Law is saying that hiring the firm they hired means the Clippers and Ballmer are actually “cooked.”

I would have thought that hiring a firm you retained and that has repped Microsoft in anti-trust cases would present a conflict of interest, but the Reddit folks seem to think that it means they’ve hired people who will find something even if there is only a shred to find.

I guess we will see.

They used this firm for other league investigations. I have no reason to believe they won’t do a thorough job. I suspect the NBA is a kick *** client to have.

The problem with Reddit is the up/down voting causes those with unpopular opinions to be silenced. I’m sure you’ve seen that happen in the political threads.

Oh, I actually kind of forgot that up/down thing. I’m not a power user, and as you can probably guess, I’m not going to do politics on Reddit.

I actually don’t know what to think about this case because every explanation seems plausible besides Ballmer and the Clippers being innocent. Where it goes from there is what I have no idea about.

Your 1%’er stance is certainly a testament to your lack of cynicism. What brings you to that belief or conclusion and please refuse any and all Kool-Aid for a few months, okay? (I’m teasing.)

My main reasoning is as follows:

• It made little sense for the Clippers to give him this side deal in the first place. Kawhi re-signed a max contract at the time while he was rehabbing a torn ACL. Other teams weren't jumping to sign him. It doesn't make sense from a risk-reward or financial perspective.
• Kawhi's marketing deal appears to have been negotiated directly by this Joe Sanberg guy who was the one who plead guilty to fraud. His decision-making was highly suspect as he was desperately trying to get more funding while fraudulently managing fictitious revenue streams.
• I don't buy the claim that this was intended to be a no-show contract. There were deliverables in the contract and the marketing people had discussions on how to use him.
• The Clippers didn't introduce Kawhi to Aspiration until after Kawhi was signed and after Ballmer announced his initial $50 investment.
• We have seen no direct evidence that the purpose of the investments were for cap circumvention.
• Ballmer and Wong being frauded seems plausible.

There is more but these are some of the main things.

 

[rockaction]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Do we believe that Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, hadn’t heard the Pablo/Ballmer/Leonard story before that press conference? Hadn’t the story been around for at least two days?

He heard about the allegations after Pablo’s podcast was released. Not before though.

Ah, okay. I guess I can see that. Silver seems nervous and a little weird—like he’s very smart but would assume that you would know he knew about Aspiration but didn’t know about them in that way.

Weird situation. It seems incredibly odd he’d lay out this high bar for punishment right away when first asked. I’m not sure about anything to do with this and it seems extraordinarily strange that he’d lay out these stringent evidentiary requirements when it makes the league look like it’s protecting Ballmer and itself. Why do that?

Is it to make sure the public understands the standard? Is it so journalists do? I get he might be playing the role of the judge here, but it’s a weird conflict of interest because he’s essentially hiring the prosecutor yet by all accounts is sympathetic to the defense for myriad reasons.

Plus, he’s no disinterested judge. He’s the head of an organization that makes gobsmacking amounts of money and that money stream can change drastically depending upon the findings of this investigation that he is putting into motion, overseeing, and then judging. This is all really just PR. It’s to reassure the public (and the other owners, one assumes—or reverse that order if you wish) that things are on the up and up and the CBA is actually binding.

Which leads me to this question: what is the penalty for violating the CBA and what if the NBA has or had knowledge of a violation and it does or did nothing? Who are the injured parties? Could they potentially bring a civil suit and over what issue and whom would they sue??

Oof. Sounds like a bigger problem than I even first thought.

For full disclosure, I'm one of the 1% who think Ballmer and the Clippers are likely innocent. I could be wrong, of course. We only know what has been reported. I might change my mind later as information continues to trickle out.

I think Silver answered the question the way he did to try to slow things down and allow for the investigation to be completed. So many people are presuming Ballmer is guilty based on the circumstantial evidence so far. Maybe Silver is doing preemptive damage control in case Ballmer is cleared. I don't think he needs to do the opposite based on the response from Pablo's reporting. I also take him at his word when he mentions the presumption of innocence just being the right thing to do.

For what it's worth, John Hollinger from The Athletic has written some articles about the CBA aspects of this recently that are very good. Since they are behind a paywall, I won't post them here, but he mentioned that in order for Silver to dole out the strongest punishments, the case would have to be decided by an arbitrator. I have no idea who this arbitrator would be although I guess that could be good to protect Silver from people who don't accept the decision.

I don't know the answers to your last paragraph of questions other than the punishments available to Silver under the CBA to assess on Ballmer, Kawhi and the Clippers. Those include any combination of monetary fines, loss of future draft picks, suspension of Ballmer and other executives for up to one year, voiding Kawhi's contract, and forcing repayment of money Kawhi received from Aspiration back to the bankruptcy trustee.

Ooh. I admit when I know **** about ****. The entire Reddit commentariat that seems to know **** about the NBA and Law is saying that hiring the firm they hired means the Clippers and Ballmer are actually “cooked.”

I would have thought that hiring a firm you retained and that has repped Microsoft in anti-trust cases would present a conflict of interest, but the Reddit folks seem to think that it means they’ve hired people who will find something even if there is only a shred to find.

I guess we will see.

They used this firm for other league investigations. I have no reason to believe they won’t do a thorough job. I suspect the NBA is a kick *** client to have.

The problem with Reddit is the up/down voting causes those with unpopular opinions to be silenced. I’m sure you’ve seen that happen in the political threads.

Oh, I actually kind of forgot that up/down thing. I’m not a power user, and as you can probably guess, I’m not going to do politics on Reddit.

I actually don’t know what to think about this case because every explanation seems plausible besides Ballmer and the Clippers being innocent. Where it goes from there is what I have no idea about.

Your 1%’er stance is certainly a testament to your lack of cynicism. What brings you to that belief or conclusion and please refuse any and all Kool-Aid for a few months, okay? (I’m teasing.)

My main reasoning is as follows:

• It made little sense for the Clippers to give him this side deal in the first place. Kawhi re-signed a max contract at the time while he was rehabbing a torn ACL. Other teams weren't jumping to sign him. It doesn't make sense from a risk-reward or financial perspective.
• Kawhi's marketing deal appears to have been negotiated directly by this Joe Sanberg guy who was the one who plead guilty to fraud. His decision-making was highly suspect as he was desperately trying to get more funding while fraudulently managing fictitious revenue streams.
• I don't buy the claim that this was intended to be a no-show contract. There were deliverables in the contract and the marketing people had discussions on how to use him.
• The Clippers didn't introduce Kawhi to Aspiration until after Kawhi was signed and after Ballmer announced his initial $50 investment.
• We have seen no direct evidence that the purpose of the investments were for cap circumvention.
• Ballmer and Wong being frauded seems plausible.

There is more but these are some of the main things.

Cool. You seem to have actually studied and looked at it. Ballmer seems very confident. I have no problem waiting for the evidence and investigation; I just need to be cooled off at times with reason when things look bad or especially when they look rigged and deceitful. Things might not be what Pablo’s narrative purports to show. Let’s see.

 

[Navin Johnson]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Do we believe that Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, hadn’t heard the Pablo/Ballmer/Leonard story before that press conference? Hadn’t the story been around for at least two days?

He heard about the allegations after Pablo’s podcast was released. Not before though.

Ah, okay. I guess I can see that. Silver seems nervous and a little weird—like he’s very smart but would assume that you would know he knew about Aspiration but didn’t know about them in that way.

Weird situation. It seems incredibly odd he’d lay out this high bar for punishment right away when first asked. I’m not sure about anything to do with this and it seems extraordinarily strange that he’d lay out these stringent evidentiary requirements when it makes the league look like it’s protecting Ballmer and itself. Why do that?

Is it to make sure the public understands the standard? Is it so journalists do? I get he might be playing the role of the judge here, but it’s a weird conflict of interest because he’s essentially hiring the prosecutor yet by all accounts is sympathetic to the defense for myriad reasons.

Plus, he’s no disinterested judge. He’s the head of an organization that makes gobsmacking amounts of money and that money stream can change drastically depending upon the findings of this investigation that he is putting into motion, overseeing, and then judging. This is all really just PR. It’s to reassure the public (and the other owners, one assumes—or reverse that order if you wish) that things are on the up and up and the CBA is actually binding.

Which leads me to this question: what is the penalty for violating the CBA and what if the NBA has or had knowledge of a violation and it does or did nothing? Who are the injured parties? Could they potentially bring a civil suit and over what issue and whom would they sue??

Oof. Sounds like a bigger problem than I even first thought.

For full disclosure, I'm one of the 1% who think Ballmer and the Clippers are likely innocent. I could be wrong, of course. We only know what has been reported. I might change my mind later as information continues to trickle out.

I think Silver answered the question the way he did to try to slow things down and allow for the investigation to be completed. So many people are presuming Ballmer is guilty based on the circumstantial evidence so far. Maybe Silver is doing preemptive damage control in case Ballmer is cleared. I don't think he needs to do the opposite based on the response from Pablo's reporting. I also take him at his word when he mentions the presumption of innocence just being the right thing to do.

For what it's worth, John Hollinger from The Athletic has written some articles about the CBA aspects of this recently that are very good. Since they are behind a paywall, I won't post them here, but he mentioned that in order for Silver to dole out the strongest punishments, the case would have to be decided by an arbitrator. I have no idea who this arbitrator would be although I guess that could be good to protect Silver from people who don't accept the decision.

I don't know the answers to your last paragraph of questions other than the punishments available to Silver under the CBA to assess on Ballmer, Kawhi and the Clippers. Those include any combination of monetary fines, loss of future draft picks, suspension of Ballmer and other executives for up to one year, voiding Kawhi's contract, and forcing repayment of money Kawhi received from Aspiration back to the bankruptcy trustee.

Ooh. I admit when I know **** about ****. The entire Reddit commentariat that seems to know **** about the NBA and Law is saying that hiring the firm they hired means the Clippers and Ballmer are actually “cooked.”

I would have thought that hiring a firm you retained and that has repped Microsoft in anti-trust cases would present a conflict of interest, but the Reddit folks seem to think that it means they’ve hired people who will find something even if there is only a shred to find.

I guess we will see.

They used this firm for other league investigations. I have no reason to believe they won’t do a thorough job. I suspect the NBA is a kick *** client to have.

The problem with Reddit is the up/down voting causes those with unpopular opinions to be silenced. I’m sure you’ve seen that happen in the political threads.

Oh, I actually kind of forgot that up/down thing. I’m not a power user, and as you can probably guess, I’m not going to do politics on Reddit.

I actually don’t know what to think about this case because every explanation seems plausible besides Ballmer and the Clippers being innocent. Where it goes from there is what I have no idea about.

Your 1%’er stance is certainly a testament to your lack of cynicism. What brings you to that belief or conclusion and please refuse any and all Kool-Aid for a few months, okay? (I’m teasing.)

My main reasoning is as follows:

• It made little sense for the Clippers to give him this side deal in the first place. Kawhi re-signed a max contract at the time while he was rehabbing a torn ACL. Other teams weren't jumping to sign him. It doesn't make sense from a risk-reward or financial perspective.
• Kawhi's marketing deal appears to have been negotiated directly by this Joe Sanberg guy who was the one who plead guilty to fraud. His decision-making was highly suspect as he was desperately trying to get more funding while fraudulently managing fictitious revenue streams.
• I don't buy the claim that this was intended to be a no-show contract. There were deliverables in the contract and the marketing people had discussions on how to use him.
• The Clippers didn't introduce Kawhi to Aspiration until after Kawhi was signed and after Ballmer announced his initial $50 investment.
• We have seen no direct evidence that the purpose of the investments were for cap circumvention.
• Ballmer and Wong being frauded seems plausible.

There is more but these are some of the main things.

Cool. You seem to have actually studied and looked at it. Ballmer seems very confident. I have no problem waiting for the evidence and investigation; I just need to be cooled off at times with reason when things look bad or especially when they look rigged and deceitful. Things might not be what Pablo’s narrative purports to show. Let’s see.

He's always confident. Have you seen him dance?

 

[rockaction]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Do we believe that Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, hadn’t heard the Pablo/Ballmer/Leonard story before that press conference? Hadn’t the story been around for at least two days?

He heard about the allegations after Pablo’s podcast was released. Not before though.

Ah, okay. I guess I can see that. Silver seems nervous and a little weird—like he’s very smart but would assume that you would know he knew about Aspiration but didn’t know about them in that way.

Weird situation. It seems incredibly odd he’d lay out this high bar for punishment right away when first asked. I’m not sure about anything to do with this and it seems extraordinarily strange that he’d lay out these stringent evidentiary requirements when it makes the league look like it’s protecting Ballmer and itself. Why do that?

Is it to make sure the public understands the standard? Is it so journalists do? I get he might be playing the role of the judge here, but it’s a weird conflict of interest because he’s essentially hiring the prosecutor yet by all accounts is sympathetic to the defense for myriad reasons.

Plus, he’s no disinterested judge. He’s the head of an organization that makes gobsmacking amounts of money and that money stream can change drastically depending upon the findings of this investigation that he is putting into motion, overseeing, and then judging. This is all really just PR. It’s to reassure the public (and the other owners, one assumes—or reverse that order if you wish) that things are on the up and up and the CBA is actually binding.

Which leads me to this question: what is the penalty for violating the CBA and what if the NBA has or had knowledge of a violation and it does or did nothing? Who are the injured parties? Could they potentially bring a civil suit and over what issue and whom would they sue??

Oof. Sounds like a bigger problem than I even first thought.

For full disclosure, I'm one of the 1% who think Ballmer and the Clippers are likely innocent. I could be wrong, of course. We only know what has been reported. I might change my mind later as information continues to trickle out.

I think Silver answered the question the way he did to try to slow things down and allow for the investigation to be completed. So many people are presuming Ballmer is guilty based on the circumstantial evidence so far. Maybe Silver is doing preemptive damage control in case Ballmer is cleared. I don't think he needs to do the opposite based on the response from Pablo's reporting. I also take him at his word when he mentions the presumption of innocence just being the right thing to do.

For what it's worth, John Hollinger from The Athletic has written some articles about the CBA aspects of this recently that are very good. Since they are behind a paywall, I won't post them here, but he mentioned that in order for Silver to dole out the strongest punishments, the case would have to be decided by an arbitrator. I have no idea who this arbitrator would be although I guess that could be good to protect Silver from people who don't accept the decision.

I don't know the answers to your last paragraph of questions other than the punishments available to Silver under the CBA to assess on Ballmer, Kawhi and the Clippers. Those include any combination of monetary fines, loss of future draft picks, suspension of Ballmer and other executives for up to one year, voiding Kawhi's contract, and forcing repayment of money Kawhi received from Aspiration back to the bankruptcy trustee.

Ooh. I admit when I know **** about ****. The entire Reddit commentariat that seems to know **** about the NBA and Law is saying that hiring the firm they hired means the Clippers and Ballmer are actually “cooked.”

I would have thought that hiring a firm you retained and that has repped Microsoft in anti-trust cases would present a conflict of interest, but the Reddit folks seem to think that it means they’ve hired people who will find something even if there is only a shred to find.

I guess we will see.

They used this firm for other league investigations. I have no reason to believe they won’t do a thorough job. I suspect the NBA is a kick *** client to have.

The problem with Reddit is the up/down voting causes those with unpopular opinions to be silenced. I’m sure you’ve seen that happen in the political threads.

Oh, I actually kind of forgot that up/down thing. I’m not a power user, and as you can probably guess, I’m not going to do politics on Reddit.

I actually don’t know what to think about this case because every explanation seems plausible besides Ballmer and the Clippers being innocent. Where it goes from there is what I have no idea about.

Your 1%’er stance is certainly a testament to your lack of cynicism. What brings you to that belief or conclusion and please refuse any and all Kool-Aid for a few months, okay? (I’m teasing.)

My main reasoning is as follows:

• It made little sense for the Clippers to give him this side deal in the first place. Kawhi re-signed a max contract at the time while he was rehabbing a torn ACL. Other teams weren't jumping to sign him. It doesn't make sense from a risk-reward or financial perspective.
• Kawhi's marketing deal appears to have been negotiated directly by this Joe Sanberg guy who was the one who plead guilty to fraud. His decision-making was highly suspect as he was desperately trying to get more funding while fraudulently managing fictitious revenue streams.
• I don't buy the claim that this was intended to be a no-show contract. There were deliverables in the contract and the marketing people had discussions on how to use him.
• The Clippers didn't introduce Kawhi to Aspiration until after Kawhi was signed and after Ballmer announced his initial $50 investment.
• We have seen no direct evidence that the purpose of the investments were for cap circumvention.
• Ballmer and Wong being frauded seems plausible.

There is more but these are some of the main things.

Cool. You seem to have actually studied and looked at it. Ballmer seems very confident. I have no problem waiting for the evidence and investigation; I just need to be cooled off at times with reason when things look bad or especially when they look rigged and deceitful. Things might not be what Pablo’s narrative purports to show. Let’s see.

He's always confident. Have you seen him dance?

No, but what is the reference? lol

 

[massraider]

Since 2019, the Clippers have faced two separate lawsuits alleging tampering violations involving Leonard, one of which remains ongoing. They've been fined at least twice by the NBA for violations of league rules involving Leonard. There have also been at least three NBA investigations -- the latest of which just began -- into the Clippers involving Leonard.

From that ESPN story.

Seems not good

 

[Kev4029]

I don't know about you all, but Silver already told you what was going to happen to the Clippers. ****ing. Nothing.

They just signed a $76BN television deal. The only thing this has done is fling the door wide open for this stuff in the future. Have fun with your leeg. You can catch all the highlights on Tik Tok.

This was the league that said that 10,000 text messages that took place within the span of a month between Donaghy and another referee was because they were good friends on a traveling schedule. Ten thousand. Text messages. To a pal. Back when unlimited plans and by-the-message plans were neither cheap nor normal (although pro referees make a good salary). Let me ask you guys: do you have a friend that you send even 300 text messages a month to? I mean, not on these Apple or Android phones. On the ones where you had to hit the button three times to get the right letter?

LOLOLOL

Don't think I don't know that every league is going to go this way. Like I said in the baseball thread, I'm having a really hard time betting on our culture being intact after twenty more years without disaster or massive upheaval, so it probably won't matter too much in the long run, although I am a doom and gloom sort of guy and have been very wrong before about societal collapse while at other times way too hopeful about totally doomed ****, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who knows?

Silver’s comments were expected, and, in my opinion, reasonable. Apparently a lot of owners are pissed though. If the Clippers are found to be in violation, punishment will be more than a slap on the risk. Other owners have power. This has more in common with the Joe Smith scandal than the Donaghy scandal.

I thought what Silver said was fine for the most part. The big exception was his comment on never hearing of Aspiration (a $300m sponsor with their name on the Clippers jersey at one point). That made me think he was more on the side of the “defense” than the “prosecution”. He definitely should have left that part out.

For what it’s worth, Silver corrected this statement in an interview yesterday:

“If I said I never heard of it, I meant in the context of the accusations here. I mean, I certainly was aware of the brand,” Silver said Tuesday at the Front Office Sports Tuned In summit.

https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/silver-walks-back-aspiration-claim/

Yeeeeeaaaaah, I'm calling ******** on Silver.

 

[msudaisy26]

Did Adam Silver also say just watch the highlights for his own league?

 

[Juxtatarot]

Did Adam Silver also say just watch the highlights for his own league?

Here’s the question and his answer.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

m.youtube.com

 

[msudaisy26]

Did Adam Silver also say just watch the highlights for his own league?

Here’s the question and his answer.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

m.youtube.com

Not nearly as bad as social media made it seem, but he shouldn't have said the whole highlight and getting those for free on X and other platforms.

 

[Kev4029]

Did Adam Silver also say just watch the highlights for his own league?

Here’s the question and his answer.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

m.youtube.com

Not nearly as bad as social media made it seem, but he shouldn't have said the whole highlight and getting those for free on X and other platforms.

Seems like a totally appropriate answer to me. It sounded like he was just talking about how the NBA product will be consumed and I would actually give the NBA a ton of credit in allowing clips/highlights to be shared across tons of different platforms for free.

 

[Jayrod]

Did Adam Silver also say just watch the highlights for his own league?

Here’s the question and his answer.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

m.youtube.com

Not nearly as bad as social media made it seem, but he shouldn't have said the whole highlight and getting those for free on X and other platforms.

It's almost like people on social media like to clip short videos to paint the person speaking in the worst possible light rather than actually hear the full answer which is usually not that bad or a problem at all.

 

[scoobus]

I've heard enough, guilty!

 

[Major]

Did Adam Silver also say just watch the highlights for his own league?

Here’s the question and his answer.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

m.youtube.com

Not nearly as bad as social media made it seem, but he shouldn't have said the whole highlight and getting those for free on X and other platforms.

It's almost like people on social media like to clip short videos to paint the person speaking in the worst possible light rather than actually hear the full answer which is usually not that bad or a problem at all.

Welcome to the internet, Jayrod! Stay awhile

 

[Juxtatarot]

Another Pablo podcast is out:

Link

Others may disagree, but I don't think there is much here as far as noteworthy new information. The main thing is he has a more complete listing of money going from Ballmer, Wong and the Clippers to Aspiration. It is now as follows:

9/21 $50 million investment from Ballmer
4/22 $35 million from the Clippers for carbon credits (split into two parts ($3 million and $32 million)
6/22 $21 million from the Clippers for carbon credits
12/22 $2 million investment from Wong
3/23 $10 million investment from Ballmer

This should add up to $118 million.

 

[Frostillicus]

This should add up to $118 million.

It does!

 

[Sammy3469]

Another Pablo podcast is out:

Link

Others may disagree, but I don't think there is much here as far as noteworthy new information. The main thing is he has a more complete listing of money going from Ballmer, Wong and the Clippers to Aspiration. It is now as follows:

9/21 $50 million investment from Ballmer
4/22 $35 million from the Clippers for carbon credits (split into two parts ($3 million and $32 million)
6/22 $21 million from the Clippers for carbon credits
12/22 $2 million investment from Wong
3/23 $10 million investment from Ballmer

This should add up to $118 million.

I've said before that while I can see the "I was defrauded argument", these guys also seemingly didn't get many (if any) investment protections like other investors. I think the most likely explanation is both sides were using the other (at a minimum, its pretty clear that the only way Aspiration was going to make Clippers 2022 endorsement payments was with Ballmer's investment/carbon credit purchase).

 

[thecatch]

Another Pablo podcast is out:

Link

Others may disagree, but I don't think there is much here as far as noteworthy new information. The main thing is he has a more complete listing of money going from Ballmer, Wong and the Clippers to Aspiration. It is now as follows:

9/21 $50 million investment from Ballmer
4/22 $35 million from the Clippers for carbon credits (split into two parts ($3 million and $32 million)
6/22 $21 million from the Clippers for carbon credits
12/22 $2 million investment from Wong
3/23 $10 million investment from Ballmer

This should add up to $118 million.

I've said before that while I can see the "I was defrauded argument", these guys also seemingly didn't get many (if any) investment protections like other investors. I think the most likely explanation is both sides were using the other (at a minimum, its pretty clear that the only way Aspiration was going to make Clippers 2022 endorsement payments was with Ballmer's investment/carbon credit purchase).

The fact that Ballmer and friends keep funding the company on timelines that roughly align with payments to Kawhi, all while no other investors would touch the company is certainly interesting.

 

[Sammy3469]

Another Pablo podcast is out:

Link

Others may disagree, but I don't think there is much here as far as noteworthy new information. The main thing is he has a more complete listing of money going from Ballmer, Wong and the Clippers to Aspiration. It is now as follows:

9/21 $50 million investment from Ballmer
4/22 $35 million from the Clippers for carbon credits (split into two parts ($3 million and $32 million)
6/22 $21 million from the Clippers for carbon credits
12/22 $2 million investment from Wong
3/23 $10 million investment from Ballmer

This should add up to $118 million.

I've said before that while I can see the "I was defrauded argument", these guys also seemingly didn't get many (if any) investment protections like other investors. I think the most likely explanation is both sides were using the other (at a minimum, its pretty clear that the only way Aspiration was going to make Clippers 2022 endorsement payments was with Ballmer's investment/carbon credit purchase).

The fact that Ballmer and friends keep funding the company on timelines that roughly align with payments to Kawhi, all while no other investors would touch the company is certainly interesting.

Others would touch the company (Oakmark), but they got much better terms which is saying something given the SPAC presentation from August 2021 show the company was expected to burn through SPAC capital until 2024 (page 52). Edgar Link

I don't want to totally dimiss Ballmer here since a bunch of these pie in the sky companies did in fact make it to the public markets via SPAC back then where the institutional guys and PIPE investors made a killing on the bag holding retail investors, but I haven't seen anything thing that says Ballmer was actually part of the institutional group. For that type/level of investment he should have gotten warrants or converts or sponsor shares....something that gave him leveraged upside like Oakmark did (I think all he got were effectively $11 Newco/SPAC shares, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[thecatch]

Another Pablo podcast is out:

Link

Others may disagree, but I don't think there is much here as far as noteworthy new information. The main thing is he has a more complete listing of money going from Ballmer, Wong and the Clippers to Aspiration. It is now as follows:

9/21 $50 million investment from Ballmer
4/22 $35 million from the Clippers for carbon credits (split into two parts ($3 million and $32 million)
6/22 $21 million from the Clippers for carbon credits
12/22 $2 million investment from Wong
3/23 $10 million investment from Ballmer

This should add up to $118 million.

I've said before that while I can see the "I was defrauded argument", these guys also seemingly didn't get many (if any) investment protections like other investors. I think the most likely explanation is both sides were using the other (at a minimum, its pretty clear that the only way Aspiration was going to make Clippers 2022 endorsement payments was with Ballmer's investment/carbon credit purchase).

The fact that Ballmer and friends keep funding the company on timelines that roughly align with payments to Kawhi, all while no other investors would touch the company is certainly interesting.

Others would touch the company (Oakmark), but they got much better terms which is saying something given the SPAC presentation from August 2021 show the company was expected to burn through SPAC capital until 2024 (page 52). Edgar Link

I don't want to totally dimiss Ballmer here since a bunch of these pie in the sky companies did in fact make it to the public markets via SPAC back then where the institutional guys and PIPE investors made a killing on the bag holding retail investors, but I haven't seen anything thing that says Ballmer was actually part of the institutional group. For that type/level of investment he should have gotten warrants or converts or sponsor shares....something that gave him leveraged upside like Oakmark did (I think all he got were effectively $11 Newco/SPAC shares, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

I wasn't actively taking notes or anything during today's Pablo podcast, but IIRC there was a stretch where Aspiration reached out to like 19 investment firms and the only person/entity they could get to sink any more money into the company was Ballmer-affiliated.

 

[Kev4029]

Another Pablo podcast is out:

Link

Others may disagree, but I don't think there is much here as far as noteworthy new information. The main thing is he has a more complete listing of money going from Ballmer, Wong and the Clippers to Aspiration. It is now as follows:

9/21 $50 million investment from Ballmer
4/22 $35 million from the Clippers for carbon credits (split into two parts ($3 million and $32 million)
6/22 $21 million from the Clippers for carbon credits
12/22 $2 million investment from Wong
3/23 $10 million investment from Ballmer

This should add up to $118 million.

I've said before that while I can see the "I was defrauded argument", these guys also seemingly didn't get many (if any) investment protections like other investors. I think the most likely explanation is both sides were using the other (at a minimum, its pretty clear that the only way Aspiration was going to make Clippers 2022 endorsement payments was with Ballmer's investment/carbon credit purchase).

The fact that Ballmer and friends keep funding the company on timelines that roughly align with payments to Kawhi, all while no other investors would touch the company is certainly interesting.

From Reddit:

September 14, 2021: Ballmer LLC invests $50m

September 27, 2021: Clippers announce Aspiration deal

April 1, 2022: Clippers fund $3m in carbon credits

April 4, 2022: Clippers fund $32m in carbon credits

April 4, 2022: Leonard signs $28m Aspiration deal

June 17, 2022: Clippers fund $21m in carbon credits

July 6, 2022: Leonard paid $1.75m

December 6, 2022: Wong LLC invests $2m

December 15, 2022: Leonard paid $1.75m

March 9, 2023: Ballmer LLC invests $10m

Late March 2023: Government investigation opens

 

[Juxtatarot]

Another Pablo podcast is out:

Link

Others may disagree, but I don't think there is much here as far as noteworthy new information. The main thing is he has a more complete listing of money going from Ballmer, Wong and the Clippers to Aspiration. It is now as follows:

9/21 $50 million investment from Ballmer
4/22 $35 million from the Clippers for carbon credits (split into two parts ($3 million and $32 million)
6/22 $21 million from the Clippers for carbon credits
12/22 $2 million investment from Wong
3/23 $10 million investment from Ballmer

This should add up to $118 million.

I've said before that while I can see the "I was defrauded argument", these guys also seemingly didn't get many (if any) investment protections like other investors. I think the most likely explanation is both sides were using the other (at a minimum, its pretty clear that the only way Aspiration was going to make Clippers 2022 endorsement payments was with Ballmer's investment/carbon credit purchase).

The fact that Ballmer and friends keep funding the company on timelines that roughly align with payments to Kawhi, all while no other investors would touch the company is certainly interesting.

From Reddit:

September 14, 2021: Ballmer LLC invests $50m

September 27, 2021: Clippers announce Aspiration deal

April 1, 2022: Clippers fund $3m in carbon credits

April 4, 2022: Clippers fund $32m in carbon credits

April 4, 2022: Leonard signs $28m Aspiration deal

June 17, 2022: Clippers fund $21m in carbon credits

July 6, 2022: Leonard paid $1.75m

December 6, 2022: Wong LLC invests $2m

December 15, 2022: Leonard paid $1.75m

March 9, 2023: Ballmer LLC invests $10m

Late March 2023: Government investigation opens

I’m curious about the timing of other possible payments to Kawhi. The deal was for $28 million and amount listed owed to Kawhi in the bankruptcy was $7 million so I have assumed he was paid $21 million. I wonder if Pablo will get or already knows this information.

 

[thecatch]

Another Pablo podcast is out:

Link

Others may disagree, but I don't think there is much here as far as noteworthy new information. The main thing is he has a more complete listing of money going from Ballmer, Wong and the Clippers to Aspiration. It is now as follows:

9/21 $50 million investment from Ballmer
4/22 $35 million from the Clippers for carbon credits (split into two parts ($3 million and $32 million)
6/22 $21 million from the Clippers for carbon credits
12/22 $2 million investment from Wong
3/23 $10 million investment from Ballmer

This should add up to $118 million.

I've said before that while I can see the "I was defrauded argument", these guys also seemingly didn't get many (if any) investment protections like other investors. I think the most likely explanation is both sides were using the other (at a minimum, its pretty clear that the only way Aspiration was going to make Clippers 2022 endorsement payments was with Ballmer's investment/carbon credit purchase).

The fact that Ballmer and friends keep funding the company on timelines that roughly align with payments to Kawhi, all while no other investors would touch the company is certainly interesting.

Others would touch the company (Oakmark), but they got much better terms which is saying something given the SPAC presentation from August 2021 show the company was expected to burn through SPAC capital until 2024 (page 52). Edgar Link

I don't want to totally dimiss Ballmer here since a bunch of these pie in the sky companies did in fact make it to the public markets via SPAC back then where the institutional guys and PIPE investors made a killing on the bag holding retail investors, but I haven't seen anything thing that says Ballmer was actually part of the institutional group. For that type/level of investment he should have gotten warrants or converts or sponsor shares....something that gave him leveraged upside like Oakmark did (I think all he got were effectively $11 Newco/SPAC shares, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

I wasn't actively taking notes or anything during today's Pablo podcast, but IIRC there was a stretch where Aspiration reached out to like 19 investment firms and the only person/entity they could get to sink any more money into the company was Ballmer-affiliated.

That section of the podcast is summarized in this clip. https://x.com/yahoosports/status/1968676595477991705?s=46

 

[Sammy3469]

Another Pablo podcast is out:

Link

Others may disagree, but I don't think there is much here as far as noteworthy new information. The main thing is he has a more complete listing of money going from Ballmer, Wong and the Clippers to Aspiration. It is now as follows:

9/21 $50 million investment from Ballmer
4/22 $35 million from the Clippers for carbon credits (split into two parts ($3 million and $32 million)
6/22 $21 million from the Clippers for carbon credits
12/22 $2 million investment from Wong
3/23 $10 million investment from Ballmer

This should add up to $118 million.

I've said before that while I can see the "I was defrauded argument", these guys also seemingly didn't get many (if any) investment protections like other investors. I think the most likely explanation is both sides were using the other (at a minimum, its pretty clear that the only way Aspiration was going to make Clippers 2022 endorsement payments was with Ballmer's investment/carbon credit purchase).

The fact that Ballmer and friends keep funding the company on timelines that roughly align with payments to Kawhi, all while no other investors would touch the company is certainly interesting.

From Reddit:

September 14, 2021: Ballmer LLC invests $50m

September 27, 2021: Clippers announce Aspiration deal

April 1, 2022: Clippers fund $3m in carbon credits

April 4, 2022: Clippers fund $32m in carbon credits

April 4, 2022: Leonard signs $28m Aspiration deal

June 17, 2022: Clippers fund $21m in carbon credits

July 6, 2022: Leonard paid $1.75m

December 6, 2022: Wong LLC invests $2m

December 15, 2022: Leonard paid $1.75m

March 9, 2023: Ballmer LLC invests $10m

Late March 2023: Government investigation opens

I’m curious about the timing of other possible payments to Kawhi. The deal was for $28 million and amount listed owed to Kawhi in the bankruptcy was $7 million so I have assumed he was paid $21 million. I wonder if Pablo will get or already knows this information.

I've been wondering that myself given that the filing was basically the end of March 2025. Maybe they made payments through then? It's also sort of interesting that the Clippers are listed as creditors for unsecured trade payables (presumably sponsorship money like the Red Sox), but also contracted carbon credits. The Forum (another entity Ballmer owns) is also owned 10 million for contracted carbon credits. Its interesting those are two entities with "Contracted Carbon Credits" listed.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Mark Cuban’s response to the latest Pablo podcast:

Twitter link

 

[rockaction]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

 

[Yo Mama]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

It’s been funny how Mark Cuban has been seemingly helping Pablo find more stuff out in his attempts to defend Balmer (to the point that some more conspiracy leaning individuals think he’s in cahoots with Pablo to take down a competitor).

Cuban: “Balmer’s not that dumb. If he really had a secret deal running through Aspiration, he’d do whatever he could to keep the company from going bankrupt.”

Pablo then finds out evidence of Balmer throwing in additional investments at much higher valuations after the struggles of the company are well known.


Cuban: “If Balmer was really circumventing the cap, it would have been much smarter for him to do it through carbon offsets. Especially prepaid offsets, since those are really sketchy.”

Pablo then finds out evidence of large carbon offsets payments from the Clippers to Aspiration, done before the Intuition Dome was even close to being completed.”


Next interview with Cuban on PTFO, he will be shadowed out with his voice modulated as he gives out more billionaire owner secrets.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

 

[Yo Mama]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

Where have you seen him shifting goalposts? I haven’t seen that at all. If anything, he continues to come out with more information that is more damning and supports his initial assertions.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

Where have you seen him shifting goalposts? I haven’t seen that at all. If anything, he continues to come out with more information that is more damning and supports his initial assertions.

A few things off the top of my head...

He originally made the case that the initial $50 million investment was used to pay for Kawhi's marketing deal. He now seems to agree with Cuban that cap circumvention via carbon credits makes more sense.

In his last podcast he said it could be true that both Ballmer was frauded and this was for cap circumvention. I don't recall him mentioning this before.

There has been plenty of evidence contradicting that this was a no show contract but he isn't addressing this. (I guess that isn't technically "goalpost shifting".)

Assuming no smoking gun is found, this whole case seems to be coming down to two things, IMO. First, can Ballmer and Wong reasonably explain why they made their investments at the times they did. Cuban is helping explain this to the public but most people aren't following. Second, what will Kawhi's agent tell the NBA's law firm?

 

[mr. furley]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

Where have you seen him shifting goalposts? I haven’t seen that at all. If anything, he continues to come out with more information that is more damning and supports his initial assertions.

A few things off the top of my head...

He originally made the case that the initial $50 million investment was used to pay for Kawhi's marketing deal. He now seems to agree with Cuban that cap circumvention via carbon credits makes more sense.

In his last podcast he said it could be true that both Ballmer was frauded and this was for cap circumvention. I don't recall him mentioning this before.

There has been plenty of evidence contradicting that this was a no show contract but he isn't addressing this. (I guess that isn't technically "goalpost shifting".)

Assuming no smoking gun is found, this whole case seems to be coming down to two things, IMO. First, can Ballmer and Wong reasonably explain why they made their investments at the times they did. Cuban is helping explain this to the public but most people aren't following. Second, what will Kawhi's agent tell the NBA's law firm?

this is less "goalpost shifting" and more "learning new evidence and evolving understanding"

sort of like science, news reporting should not make an initial claim and stand by it regardless of any new evidence.

 

[mr. furley]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

google is easy:

Pablo Torre's credentials include graduating magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard University, where he won the Albert M. Fulton Prize for best thesis in sociology. He is an award-winning journalist, having won the Edward R. Murrow Award for Sports Reporting in 2024 for his podcast Pablo Torre Finds Out and another Murrow in 2022 for his work with ESPN. He worked as a senior writer at ESPN The Magazine and a staff writer at Sports Illustrated, and is a television host and analyst for ESPN, MSNBC, and NBC News.

Education

• Harvard University: Graduated magna cum laude with highest honors.
• Phi Beta Kappa: Inducted into the honor society.
• Sociology Thesis: Won the 2007 Albert M. Fulton Prize for his thesis on child homicide.
• Harvard Crimson: Served as an executive editor.

Journalism & Media

• Meadowlark Media: Host and executive producer of Pablo Torre Finds Out.
  
  
• Edward R. Murrow Award: Won in 2024 for Sports Reporting and in 2022 for work with ESPN.
  
  
• ESPN: Served as a TV host, commentator, and analyst for ESPN starting in 2012.
  
  
• Media Contributions: Has worked as an analyst for MSNBC and NBC News.
  
  
• Publications: A former senior writer at ESPN The Magazine and staff writer at Sports Illustrated.
  
  
• Other Awards: Recognized by the Society of Professional Journalists, the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, and others.

Other Accomplishments

• Celebrity Family Feud: Set the record for the biggest comeback in the show's history.
  
  
• 30 for 30: Wrote and produced the short film Friedman's Shoes in 2016 and appeared in the documentary Broke in 2012.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

Where have you seen him shifting goalposts? I haven’t seen that at all. If anything, he continues to come out with more information that is more damning and supports his initial assertions.

A few things off the top of my head...

He originally made the case that the initial $50 million investment was used to pay for Kawhi's marketing deal. He now seems to agree with Cuban that cap circumvention via carbon credits makes more sense.

In his last podcast he said it could be true that both Ballmer was frauded and this was for cap circumvention. I don't recall him mentioning this before.

There has been plenty of evidence contradicting that this was a no show contract but he isn't addressing this. (I guess that isn't technically "goalpost shifting".)

Assuming no smoking gun is found, this whole case seems to be coming down to two things, IMO. First, can Ballmer and Wong reasonably explain why they made their investments at the times they did. Cuban is helping explain this to the public but most people aren't following. Second, what will Kawhi's agent tell the NBA's law firm?

this is less "goalpost shifting" and more "learning new evidence and evolving understanding"

sort of like science, news reporting should not make an initial claim and stand by it regardless of any new evidence.

OK, I can buy that. He's doing this bolded part wrong.

 

[mr. furley]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

Where have you seen him shifting goalposts? I haven’t seen that at all. If anything, he continues to come out with more information that is more damning and supports his initial assertions.

A few things off the top of my head...

He originally made the case that the initial $50 million investment was used to pay for Kawhi's marketing deal. He now seems to agree with Cuban that cap circumvention via carbon credits makes more sense.

In his last podcast he said it could be true that both Ballmer was frauded and this was for cap circumvention. I don't recall him mentioning this before.

There has been plenty of evidence contradicting that this was a no show contract but he isn't addressing this. (I guess that isn't technically "goalpost shifting".)

Assuming no smoking gun is found, this whole case seems to be coming down to two things, IMO. First, can Ballmer and Wong reasonably explain why they made their investments at the times they did. Cuban is helping explain this to the public but most people aren't following. Second, what will Kawhi's agent tell the NBA's law firm?

this is less "goalpost shifting" and more "learning new evidence and evolving understanding"

sort of like science, news reporting should not make an initial claim and stand by it regardless of any new evidence.

OK, I can buy that. He's doing this bolded part wrong.

i'll trust that the Harvard educated journalist, with research and evidence, is doing it right

 

[thecatch]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

Where have you seen him shifting goalposts? I haven’t seen that at all. If anything, he continues to come out with more information that is more damning and supports his initial assertions.

A few things off the top of my head...

He originally made the case that the initial $50 million investment was used to pay for Kawhi's marketing deal. He now seems to agree with Cuban that cap circumvention via carbon credits makes more sense.

In his last podcast he said it could be true that both Ballmer was frauded and this was for cap circumvention. I don't recall him mentioning this before.

There has been plenty of evidence contradicting that this was a no show contract but he isn't addressing this. (I guess that isn't technically "goalpost shifting".)

Assuming no smoking gun is found, this whole case seems to be coming down to two things, IMO. First, can Ballmer and Wong reasonably explain why they made their investments at the times they did. Cuban is helping explain this to the public but most people aren't following. Second, what will Kawhi's agent tell the NBA's law firm?

this is less "goalpost shifting" and more "learning new evidence and evolving understanding"

sort of like science, news reporting should not make an initial claim and stand by it regardless of any new evidence.

It's not goalpost shifting at all.

 

[Yo Mama]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

Where have you seen him shifting goalposts? I haven’t seen that at all. If anything, he continues to come out with more information that is more damning and supports his initial assertions.

A few things off the top of my head...

He originally made the case that the initial $50 million investment was used to pay for Kawhi's marketing deal. He now seems to agree with Cuban that cap circumvention via carbon credits makes more sense.

In his last podcast he said it could be true that both Ballmer was frauded and this was for cap circumvention. I don't recall him mentioning this before.

There has been plenty of evidence contradicting that this was a no show contract but he isn't addressing this. (I guess that isn't technically "goalpost shifting".)

Assuming no smoking gun is found, this whole case seems to be coming down to two things, IMO. First, can Ballmer and Wong reasonably explain why they made their investments at the times they did. Cuban is helping explain this to the public but most people aren't following. Second, what will Kawhi's agent tell the NBA's law firm?

Pablo’s first assertion was that Kawhi signed a huge no-show deal with a company that had a large partnership with the Clippers and that Balmer was heavily invested in. Company insiders pointed out how unusual the deal was and that the implications were this was a direct deal involving the Clippers/Balmer which indicated cap circumvention.

Balmer’s main defense was that they were scammed and that they had no idea of the Kawhi deal.

Pablo then responded it’s possible that Balmer was scammed and he also had a side deal to funnel money to Kawhi. That’s not moving goalposts, it’s responding to what Balmer proclaimed. He also provided more evidence that Wong/Balmer continued to invest in the company after their financial issues were pretty well known and which seemed to align with when payments were due to Kawhi.

Pablo has addressed the claims (not evidence that you mention) that this wasn’t a no-show job multiple times and even has a signed document by the former CFO, CTO, and CLO stating how unusual this deal was and their objections to it from the start. The main evidence of the no-showiness of the deal is the contract stating he didn’t have to do anything they ask him to do, the fact that the company never publicly announced the deal, and the fact Kawhi never actually actually did anything since signing this deal (no trees planted, not public appearances, not even any retweets of company posts).

The carbon credits Pablo calls out now comes in response to Cuban offering these as a more reasonable way for cap circumvention - Cuban saying these would be better proof of wrongdoing than the investments Pablo was calling out (Pablo then proved Clippers were doing these too).


These aren’t Pablo changing his story, they are him finding new information to support his initial claim and/or counter the responses from Balmer, Cuban and other defenders.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

Where have you seen him shifting goalposts? I haven’t seen that at all. If anything, he continues to come out with more information that is more damning and supports his initial assertions.

A few things off the top of my head...

He originally made the case that the initial $50 million investment was used to pay for Kawhi's marketing deal. He now seems to agree with Cuban that cap circumvention via carbon credits makes more sense.

In his last podcast he said it could be true that both Ballmer was frauded and this was for cap circumvention. I don't recall him mentioning this before.

There has been plenty of evidence contradicting that this was a no show contract but he isn't addressing this. (I guess that isn't technically "goalpost shifting".)

Assuming no smoking gun is found, this whole case seems to be coming down to two things, IMO. First, can Ballmer and Wong reasonably explain why they made their investments at the times they did. Cuban is helping explain this to the public but most people aren't following. Second, what will Kawhi's agent tell the NBA's law firm?

Pablo’s first assertion was that Kawhi signed a huge no-show deal with a company that had a large partnership with the Clippers and that Balmer was heavily invested in. Company insiders pointed out how unusual the deal was and that the implications were this was a direct deal involving the Clippers/Balmer which indicated cap circumvention.

Balmer’s main defense was that they were scammed and that they had no idea of the Kawhi deal.

Pablo then responded it’s possible that Balmer was scammed and he also had a side deal to funnel money to Kawhi. That’s not moving goalposts, it’s responding to what Balmer proclaimed. He also provided more evidence that Wong/Balmer continued to invest in the company after their financial issues were pretty well known and which seemed to align with when payments were due to Kawhi.

Pablo has addressed the claims (not evidence that you mention) that this wasn’t a no-show job multiple times and even has a signed document by the former CFO, CTO, and CLO stating how unusual this deal was and their objections to it from the start. The main evidence of the no-showiness of the deal is the contract stating he didn’t have to do anything they ask him to do, the fact that the company never publicly announced the deal, and the fact Kawhi never actually actually did anything since signing this deal (no trees planted, not public appearances, not even any retweets of company posts).

The carbon credits Pablo calls out now comes in response to Cuban offering these as a more reasonable way for cap circumvention - Cuban saying these would be better proof of wrongdoing than the investments Pablo was calling out (Pablo then proved Clippers were doing these too).


These aren’t Pablo changing his story, they are him finding new information to support his initial claim and/or counter the responses from Balmer, Cuban and other defenders.

Regarding the no show contract, here is what CEO Andrei Cherny (who signed the contract) had to say:

Twitter link

 

[Yo Mama]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

Where have you seen him shifting goalposts? I haven’t seen that at all. If anything, he continues to come out with more information that is more damning and supports his initial assertions.

A few things off the top of my head...

He originally made the case that the initial $50 million investment was used to pay for Kawhi's marketing deal. He now seems to agree with Cuban that cap circumvention via carbon credits makes more sense.

In his last podcast he said it could be true that both Ballmer was frauded and this was for cap circumvention. I don't recall him mentioning this before.

There has been plenty of evidence contradicting that this was a no show contract but he isn't addressing this. (I guess that isn't technically "goalpost shifting".)

Assuming no smoking gun is found, this whole case seems to be coming down to two things, IMO. First, can Ballmer and Wong reasonably explain why they made their investments at the times they did. Cuban is helping explain this to the public but most people aren't following. Second, what will Kawhi's agent tell the NBA's law firm?

Pablo’s first assertion was that Kawhi signed a huge no-show deal with a company that had a large partnership with the Clippers and that Balmer was heavily invested in. Company insiders pointed out how unusual the deal was and that the implications were this was a direct deal involving the Clippers/Balmer which indicated cap circumvention.

Balmer’s main defense was that they were scammed and that they had no idea of the Kawhi deal.

Pablo then responded it’s possible that Balmer was scammed and he also had a side deal to funnel money to Kawhi. That’s not moving goalposts, it’s responding to what Balmer proclaimed. He also provided more evidence that Wong/Balmer continued to invest in the company after their financial issues were pretty well known and which seemed to align with when payments were due to Kawhi.

Pablo has addressed the claims (not evidence that you mention) that this wasn’t a no-show job multiple times and even has a signed document by the former CFO, CTO, and CLO stating how unusual this deal was and their objections to it from the start. The main evidence of the no-showiness of the deal is the contract stating he didn’t have to do anything they ask him to do, the fact that the company never publicly announced the deal, and the fact Kawhi never actually actually did anything since signing this deal (no trees planted, not public appearances, not even any retweets of company posts).

The carbon credits Pablo calls out now comes in response to Cuban offering these as a more reasonable way for cap circumvention - Cuban saying these would be better proof of wrongdoing than the investments Pablo was calling out (Pablo then proved Clippers were doing these too).


These aren’t Pablo changing his story, they are him finding new information to support his initial claim and/or counter the responses from Balmer, Cuban and other defenders.

Regarding the no show contract, here is what CEO Andrei Cherny (who signed the contract) had to say:

Twitter link

Yeah I saw that. This was what Pablo was responding to when he released the signed letter from the former CFO, CTO, and CLO. So he definitely addressed those comments.

The contract lays out all the things Kawhi was supposed to do, but it also says he doesn’t have to do them if he doesn’t want to. And the basic fact is, he never did anything at all and the company never went after him to terminate the deal and went out of their way to keep paying him.

 

[thecatch]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

Where have you seen him shifting goalposts? I haven’t seen that at all. If anything, he continues to come out with more information that is more damning and supports his initial assertions.

A few things off the top of my head...

He originally made the case that the initial $50 million investment was used to pay for Kawhi's marketing deal. He now seems to agree with Cuban that cap circumvention via carbon credits makes more sense.

In his last podcast he said it could be true that both Ballmer was frauded and this was for cap circumvention. I don't recall him mentioning this before.

There has been plenty of evidence contradicting that this was a no show contract but he isn't addressing this. (I guess that isn't technically "goalpost shifting".)

Assuming no smoking gun is found, this whole case seems to be coming down to two things, IMO. First, can Ballmer and Wong reasonably explain why they made their investments at the times they did. Cuban is helping explain this to the public but most people aren't following. Second, what will Kawhi's agent tell the NBA's law firm?

Pablo’s first assertion was that Kawhi signed a huge no-show deal with a company that had a large partnership with the Clippers and that Balmer was heavily invested in. Company insiders pointed out how unusual the deal was and that the implications were this was a direct deal involving the Clippers/Balmer which indicated cap circumvention.

Balmer’s main defense was that they were scammed and that they had no idea of the Kawhi deal.

Pablo then responded it’s possible that Balmer was scammed and he also had a side deal to funnel money to Kawhi. That’s not moving goalposts, it’s responding to what Balmer proclaimed. He also provided more evidence that Wong/Balmer continued to invest in the company after their financial issues were pretty well known and which seemed to align with when payments were due to Kawhi.

Pablo has addressed the claims (not evidence that you mention) that this wasn’t a no-show job multiple times and even has a signed document by the former CFO, CTO, and CLO stating how unusual this deal was and their objections to it from the start. The main evidence of the no-showiness of the deal is the contract stating he didn’t have to do anything they ask him to do, the fact that the company never publicly announced the deal, and the fact Kawhi never actually actually did anything since signing this deal (no trees planted, not public appearances, not even any retweets of company posts).

The carbon credits Pablo calls out now comes in response to Cuban offering these as a more reasonable way for cap circumvention - Cuban saying these would be better proof of wrongdoing than the investments Pablo was calling out (Pablo then proved Clippers were doing these too).


These aren’t Pablo changing his story, they are him finding new information to support his initial claim and/or counter the responses from Balmer, Cuban and other defenders.

Regarding the no show contract, here is what CEO Andrei Cherny (who signed the contract) had to say:

Twitter link

Yeah I saw that. This was what Pablo was responding to when he released the signed letter from the former CFO, CTO, and CLO. So he definitely addressed those comments.

The contract lays out all the things Kawhi was supposed to do, but it also says he doesn’t have to do them if he doesn’t want to. And the basic fact is, he never did anything at all and the company never went after him to terminate the deal and went out of their way to keep paying him.

Exactly. And this was a contract that paid him a multiple of what they were paying Iron Man who was actually doing work. If one doesn't think this was a no-show contract, it's really hard to have a good faith discussion about the situation.

 

[Yo Mama]

By the way @Juxtatarot i appreciate the discussion. I admit I’m coming at this as someone who believes Clippers are 100% in the wrong here and have been doing shady stuff for years now (among many other teams like Warriors and Knicks). Everything I’m seeing backs up my assumptions, but I admit that confirmation is what I’m mainly looking for so I’m definitely biased.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Getting this weird feeling that Pablo Torre is about to find something out, and it might not be good for Pablo Torre's career.

I don't recall ever hearing of Pablo Torre before. I have conflicting opinions. On the one hand, we need people to do this investigative journalism (if we can call it that) with the demise of newspapers. I give him props for that. And this is an appropriate situation for the NBA to investigate. However, he has made mistakes by declaring conclusions with sketchy evidence and now has shifted the goalposts multiple times. In that way, I think he has been irresponsible and now is biased and defensive.

Where have you seen him shifting goalposts? I haven’t seen that at all. If anything, he continues to come out with more information that is more damning and supports his initial assertions.

A few things off the top of my head...

He originally made the case that the initial $50 million investment was used to pay for Kawhi's marketing deal. He now seems to agree with Cuban that cap circumvention via carbon credits makes more sense.

In his last podcast he said it could be true that both Ballmer was frauded and this was for cap circumvention. I don't recall him mentioning this before.

There has been plenty of evidence contradicting that this was a no show contract but he isn't addressing this. (I guess that isn't technically "goalpost shifting".)

Assuming no smoking gun is found, this whole case seems to be coming down to two things, IMO. First, can Ballmer and Wong reasonably explain why they made their investments at the times they did. Cuban is helping explain this to the public but most people aren't following. Second, what will Kawhi's agent tell the NBA's law firm?

Pablo’s first assertion was that Kawhi signed a huge no-show deal with a company that had a large partnership with the Clippers and that Balmer was heavily invested in. Company insiders pointed out how unusual the deal was and that the implications were this was a direct deal involving the Clippers/Balmer which indicated cap circumvention.

Balmer’s main defense was that they were scammed and that they had no idea of the Kawhi deal.

Pablo then responded it’s possible that Balmer was scammed and he also had a side deal to funnel money to Kawhi. That’s not moving goalposts, it’s responding to what Balmer proclaimed. He also provided more evidence that Wong/Balmer continued to invest in the company after their financial issues were pretty well known and which seemed to align with when payments were due to Kawhi.

Pablo has addressed the claims (not evidence that you mention) that this wasn’t a no-show job multiple times and even has a signed document by the former CFO, CTO, and CLO stating how unusual this deal was and their objections to it from the start. The main evidence of the no-showiness of the deal is the contract stating he didn’t have to do anything they ask him to do, the fact that the company never publicly announced the deal, and the fact Kawhi never actually actually did anything since signing this deal (no trees planted, not public appearances, not even any retweets of company posts).

The carbon credits Pablo calls out now comes in response to Cuban offering these as a more reasonable way for cap circumvention - Cuban saying these would be better proof of wrongdoing than the investments Pablo was calling out (Pablo then proved Clippers were doing these too).


These aren’t Pablo changing his story, they are him finding new information to support his initial claim and/or counter the responses from Balmer, Cuban and other defenders.

Regarding the no show contract, here is what CEO Andrei Cherny (who signed the contract) had to say:

Twitter link

Yeah I saw that. This was what Pablo was responding to when he released the signed letter from the former CFO, CTO, and CLO. So he definitely addressed those comments.

The contract lays out all the things Kawhi was supposed to do, but it also says he doesn’t have to do them if he doesn’t want to. And the basic fact is, he never did anything at all and the company never went after him to terminate the deal and went out of their way to keep paying him.

This letter? It makes no mention of it being a no show contract. Obviously we know that it wasn’t a good deal for the company. What they need to try to figure out is why did Sanberg agree to it.

Edit: I did get the timeline a little mixed up. I thought Cherny was responding to the other letter. I see now that it was the opposite. Cherny then correctly pointed out that the letter by the executives didn’t conflict with anything he stated. I think that was the last of this exchange?

 

[Juxtatarot]

By the way @Juxtatarot i appreciate the discussion. I admit I’m coming at this as someone who believes Clippers are 100% in the wrong here and have been doing shady stuff for years now (among many other teams like Warriors and Knicks). Everything I’m seeing backs up my assumptions, but I admit that confirmation is what I’m mainly looking for so I’m definitely biased.

Thanks. I’ve decided not to take anything you guys say personally even if I frustrate you guys to no end. Weird though that it seems to be Mark Cuban and I against the world. I never even cared for Mark Cuban much before!