2025-26 NBA Thread: manager at job site annoyed Kawhi hasn't shown up again (3 Viewers)

[Juxtatarot]

Interesting that Bobby Marks and Mark Cuban have come to the Clippers defense. What seems obviously wrong to a layman like me might not technically be a salary cap violation.

Cuban didn’t exactly address the details of the situation, more of a character reference. Didn’t see what Marks said.

Here’s the Marks video. He went through an investigation with the Nets so he should know what he’s talking about. His point seems to be that there needs to be direct evidence.

- 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

I don't know what his basis for this statement is. He's saying the Clippers cannot get in any trouble unless there's a document that literally states that the marketing agreement was arranged as part of an inducement to keep him with the Clippers. He's also saying that testimony from employees in the company at issue is totally irrelevant.

The CBA is a contract that impose whatever standards regarding the evidentiary support for a finding of circumvention it wants, but the standard Marks is talking about here is far, far more demanding than what you'd need to get a criminal conviction. Pretty sure the league has far more latitude to discipline owners based on circumstantial evidence than he's giving the league credit for.

He also said "this doesn't meet the smell test for a situation where the team is circumventing the salary cap" which is such a ludicrous statement for anyone who has listened to the Pablo pod that I find it hard to believe he's researched this at all.

Also, for what it’s worth, Zach Lowe just said on his podcast this morning that his sources expressly say the type of direct evidence Marks says is required is not, in fact, required

That makes much more sense. I was really surprised when I watched the Marks video.

 

[thecatch]

Interesting that Bobby Marks and Mark Cuban have come to the Clippers defense. What seems obviously wrong to a layman like me might not technically be a salary cap violation.

Cuban didn’t exactly address the details of the situation, more of a character reference. Didn’t see what Marks said.

Here’s the Marks video. He went through an investigation with the Nets so he should know what he’s talking about. His point seems to be that there needs to be direct evidence.

- 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

I don't know what his basis for this statement is. He's saying the Clippers cannot get in any trouble unless there's a document that literally states that the marketing agreement was arranged as part of an inducement to keep him with the Clippers. He's also saying that testimony from employees in the company at issue is totally irrelevant.

The CBA is a contract that impose whatever standards regarding the evidentiary support for a finding of circumvention it wants, but the standard Marks is talking about here is far, far more demanding than what you'd need to get a criminal conviction. Pretty sure the league has far more latitude to discipline owners based on circumstantial evidence than he's giving the league credit for.

He also said "this doesn't meet the smell test for a situation where the team is circumventing the salary cap" which is such a ludicrous statement for anyone who has listened to the Pablo pod that I find it hard to believe he's researched this at all.

Also, for what it’s worth, Zach Lowe just said on his podcast this morning that his sources expressly say the type of direct evidence Marks says is required is not, in fact, required

That makes much more sense. I was really surprised when I watched the Marks video.

Lowe provides more details later in the pod. Here's the relevant language from the CBA:

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

Marks is totally full of it.

 

[Sammy3469]

Interesting that Bobby Marks and Mark Cuban have come to the Clippers defense. What seems obviously wrong to a layman like me might not technically be a salary cap violation.

Cuban didn’t exactly address the details of the situation, more of a character reference. Didn’t see what Marks said.

Here’s the Marks video. He went through an investigation with the Nets so he should know what he’s talking about. His point seems to be that there needs to be direct evidence.

- 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

I don't know what his basis for this statement is. He's saying the Clippers cannot get in any trouble unless there's a document that literally states that the marketing agreement was arranged as part of an inducement to keep him with the Clippers. He's also saying that testimony from employees in the company at issue is totally irrelevant.

The CBA is a contract that impose whatever standards regarding the evidentiary support for a finding of circumvention it wants, but the standard Marks is talking about here is far, far more demanding than what you'd need to get a criminal conviction. Pretty sure the league has far more latitude to discipline owners based on circumstantial evidence than he's giving the league credit for.

He also said "this doesn't meet the smell test for a situation where the team is circumventing the salary cap" which is such a ludicrous statement for anyone who has listened to the Pablo pod that I find it hard to believe he's researched this at all.

Also, for what it’s worth, Zach Lowe just said on his podcast this morning that his sources expressly say the type of direct evidence Marks says is required is not, in fact, required.

I was just listening, Zach and Goldsbury made it seem like the Joe Smith level of action requires direct evidence (like Marks is saying), but there's a whole category of lesser punishment that could be meted out that doesn't require that level evidence. It also seems like those around the league are pissed and that this type of thing isn't common at all.

I'd also point out that if this is anything like Pablo and Mike Florio's NFL/NFLPA stuff, Pablo probably has more info to come. He likes to get the Clips or Kawhi on the record and then further refute what they are trying to claim.

 

[thecatch]

Interesting that Bobby Marks and Mark Cuban have come to the Clippers defense. What seems obviously wrong to a layman like me might not technically be a salary cap violation.

Cuban didn’t exactly address the details of the situation, more of a character reference. Didn’t see what Marks said.

Here’s the Marks video. He went through an investigation with the Nets so he should know what he’s talking about. His point seems to be that there needs to be direct evidence.

- 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

I don't know what his basis for this statement is. He's saying the Clippers cannot get in any trouble unless there's a document that literally states that the marketing agreement was arranged as part of an inducement to keep him with the Clippers. He's also saying that testimony from employees in the company at issue is totally irrelevant.

The CBA is a contract that impose whatever standards regarding the evidentiary support for a finding of circumvention it wants, but the standard Marks is talking about here is far, far more demanding than what you'd need to get a criminal conviction. Pretty sure the league has far more latitude to discipline owners based on circumstantial evidence than he's giving the league credit for.

He also said "this doesn't meet the smell test for a situation where the team is circumventing the salary cap" which is such a ludicrous statement for anyone who has listened to the Pablo pod that I find it hard to believe he's researched this at all.

Also, for what it’s worth, Zach Lowe just said on his podcast this morning that his sources expressly say the type of direct evidence Marks says is required is not, in fact, required.

I was just listening, Zach and Goldsbury made it seem like the Joe Smith level of action requires direct evidence (like Marks is saying), but there's a whole category of lesser punishment that could be meted out that doesn't require that level evidence. It also seems like those around the league are pissed and that this type of thing isn't common at all.

I'd also point out that if this is anything like Pablo and Mike Florio's NFL/NFLPA stuff, Pablo probably has more info to come. He likes to get the Clips or Kawhi on the record and then further refute what they are trying to claim.

The CBA doesn't make the direct/circumstantial distinction, so all punishments would technically be on the table. Though as a practical matter they may not want to dock 3 firsts unless there's even more of a smoking gun.

 

[mr. furley]

In case you missed the Turkey v. Serbia match, it was a good one. Highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZA3YtyEmwk

Tried to give 20 bucks to the company that was broadcasting this thing but couldn’t ever get the app to work. Blows espn doesn’t have it on their app I was looking forward to watching.

can't wait until the league makes players subscription based

sure, you signed up for the channel, but did you pay for the sports sub-package as well?

you did? great..did you also sign up for the Magic sub-package to the sports sub-package?

you did! fantastic, now to unlock Banchero on the screen you have to pay an additional $1.99 per game. the other players on the court can be unblurred for $0.99 per game. A BARGAIN!

 

[Gr00vus]

I just hope the league doesn't strip the Clippers of all those championships Leonard has won them. How sad Ballmer would be to take these risks and have nothing to show for it.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Boy—that trade that the Clippers made in order to get Paul George (that effectively Kawhi forced) in order to get on the Clippers is looking worse and worse every day. Not only are you giving away Shai+5 first rounders in order to please Kawhi and get George—you’re also paying him $28 million (and some claim up to $48 million if you include stock shares) off of the books .

 

[GroveDiesel]

Torres now tweeted out that they confirmed ANOTHER $20M side deal through Aspiration bringing the total to $48M. Just under Ballmer’s $50M “investment” in Aspiration and basically the exact amount that Kawhi lost in Bird rights money when he left the Raptors for the Clippers.

This could legitimately be one of the biggest scandals in NBA history.

IMO, any current or former owner or GM defending or excusing this should immediately be suspected of having done the same thing. Non-cheating owners should be demanding huge penalties and/or Ballmer being forced to sell the team.

 

[SWC]

brohans this stinks because up and until this i really liked what ballmer had done with the clippers the new stadium his enthusiasm and taking away from the lakers which is always just and righteous but now i am questioning everything i guess i will have to wait and see how it turns out but man come on i just wanted him to make the fakers the second show in la like they should be take that to the bank bromigos

 

[SWC]

also amazing title cappy you rule so much at good titles that is your superpower take that to the bank brochachos

 

[Major]

also amazing title cappy you rule so much at good titles that is your superpower take that to the bank brochachos

Yep. Reminds me of the no show jobs on The Sopranos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49H_PsDoLDY

 

[Yo Mama]

Balmer got a kid gloves interview on NBA partner ESPN (a sit down with buddy to the LA owners Ramona Shelborne).

As expected, he didn’t really address the substance of the accusations or any of the details. Here was the base of his response:

1) We (Clips) were scammed by a company that admitted to fraud. We were the victims here. I’m angry and sad on behalf of the team employees and their families.

2) We had no involvement with the endorsement deal or its arrangements with Kawhi.

I’m sure there’s no smoking gun in writing that will be found like in the Wolves Jos Smith deal, but it doesn’t sound like the league needs that (listening to pods by both Zach Lowe and Nate Duncan on the subject). There’s plenty of damning circumstantial evidence here.


One interesting point I saw from Pablo: Kawhi’s deal with Aspiration didn’t start until 2022 (which the company never announced publicly - weird for a marketing/endorsement deal), but the KL2 Aspire LLC that the payments ultimately went into was created shortly after his contract extension in 2021. Seems like the upcoming endorsement was known of when he signed his semi-team-friendly extension. His LLC had Kawhi’s initials, jersey number, and a form of the company name in its title - well ahead of when the endorsement deal was made.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I’m just half way through, but Mark Cuban argues with Pablo that the deal was likely between Uncle Dennis and Aspiration without the Clippers knowledge.

- 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

Edit: Finished. I wouldn’t be surprised if Cuban is right.

 

[Kev4029]

Just half way through, but Mark Cuban argues with Pablo that the deal was likely between Uncle Dennis and Aspiration without the Clippers knowledge.

- 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

The only possible explanation for that is that the owner(s) were big time jersey chasers that wanted to get close with NBA athletes. But that breaks down pretty quickly when you consider what a strange dude and probably lame hang Kawhi would be. There are significantly cooler athletes in LA to pay to be friends with.

 

[Desert_Power]

I’m just half way through, but Mark Cuban argues with Pablo that the deal was likely between Uncle Dennis and Aspiration without the Clippers knowledge.

- 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

I agree with Pablo that it is amazing how deferential Cuban is to a fellow billionaire, but that isn't really a new thought.

Not much else interesting in that.

 

[Kev4029]

Balmer got a kid gloves interview on NBA partner ESPN (a sit down with buddy to the LA owners Ramona Shelborne).

As expected, he didn’t really address the substance of the accusations or any of the details. Here was the base of his response:

1) We (Clips) were scammed by a company that admitted to fraud. We were the victims here. I’m angry and sad on behalf of the team employees and their families.

2) We had no involvement with the endorsement deal or its arrangements with Kawhi.

I’m sure there’s no smoking gun in writing that will be found like in the Wolves Jos Smith deal, but it doesn’t sound like the league needs that (listening to pods by both Zach Lowe and Nate Duncan on the subject). There’s plenty of damning circumstantial evidence here.


One interesting point I saw from Pablo: Kawhi’s deal with Aspiration didn’t start until 2022 (which the company never announced publicly - weird for a marketing/endorsement deal), but the KL2 Aspire LLC that the payments ultimately went into was created shortly after his contract extension in 2021. Seems like the upcoming endorsement was known of when he signed his semi-team-friendly extension. His LLC had Kawhi’s initials, jersey number, and a form of the company name in its title - well ahead of when the endorsement deal was made.

Which of course would be how it would work. There wouldn't be enough time to negotiate and review a contract in the short amount of time before he signed his NBA contract.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Just half way through, but Mark Cuban argues with Pablo that the deal was likely between Uncle Dennis and Aspiration without the Clippers knowledge.

- 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

The only possible explanation for that is that the owner(s) were big time jersey chasers that wanted to get close with NBA athletes. But that breaks down pretty quickly when you consider what a strange dude and probably lame hang Kawhi would be. There are significantly cooler athletes in LA to pay to be friends with.

The argument is that Kawhi being a Clipper makes the Clippers a title contender and, therefore, their relationship with the Clippers becomes more valuable.

 

[Desert_Power]

Just half way through, but Mark Cuban argues with Pablo that the deal was likely between Uncle Dennis and Aspiration without the Clippers knowledge.

- 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

The only possible explanation for that is that the owner(s) were big time jersey chasers that wanted to get close with NBA athletes. But that breaks down pretty quickly when you consider what a strange dude and probably lame hang Kawhi would be. There are significantly cooler athletes in LA to pay to be friends with.

The argument is that Kawhi being a Clipper makes the Clippers a title contender and, therefore, their relationship with the Clippers becomes more valuable.

I think this would be more plausible without the $50B injection from Balmer.

 

[Kev4029]

Just half way through, but Mark Cuban argues with Pablo that the deal was likely between Uncle Dennis and Aspiration without the Clippers knowledge.

- 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

The only possible explanation for that is that the owner(s) were big time jersey chasers that wanted to get close with NBA athletes. But that breaks down pretty quickly when you consider what a strange dude and probably lame hang Kawhi would be. There are significantly cooler athletes in LA to pay to be friends with.

The argument is that Kawhi being a Clipper makes the Clippers a title contender and, therefore, their relationship with the Clippers becomes more valuable.

Which could be an argument if:
1. Ballmer didn't give them the $50m
2. They actually had Kawhi do anything for them.
3. Announced Kawhi as spokesperson.
4. Their board had any involvement in the contract with Kawhi.
5. They didn't, in theory, pay Kawhi $12m/yr vs the $13m/yr they paid the Clippers for their sponsorship.
6. Some jersey sponsorships in the NBA (for reference) - Bibigo/Lakers - $20m/yr, Rakuten/Warriors - $20m/yr, Abu Dhabi/Knicks - $30m/yr... it seems if their goal was more visibility, there was significantly better options for potentially less money.
7. The Clippers were actually title contenders with Kawhi.
8. There was anywhere near $48m of benefit to having Kawhi as part of their marketing push... the marketing push that didn't actually involve Kawhi.

It's the only argument that somebody could make, but it makes little sense at face value, but is a near impossible argument to make considering the rest of the circumstance.

 

[Yo Mama]

I also like how known vibrant personality Kawhi Leonard is a more valuable spokesperson (despite his contract saying he doesn’t have to do anything) than Robert Downey Jr, Drake, Leo DiCaprio, and all other celebrity endorsers combined.

 

[Sammy3469]

FWIW, the smoking gun here is the type of investment Ballmer made (capital totally at risk, didn't get sponsor shares, etc) vs the type of investment Oaktree did on the same exact day. Oaktree presumably got their $250 million back (was held in escrow at the SPAC) while poor Steve Ballmer got swindled by these hucksters. Spare me, Ballmer got exactly what he wanted with that $50 million.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Just half way through, but Mark Cuban argues with Pablo that the deal was likely between Uncle Dennis and Aspiration without the Clippers knowledge.

- 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

The only possible explanation for that is that the owner(s) were big time jersey chasers that wanted to get close with NBA athletes. But that breaks down pretty quickly when you consider what a strange dude and probably lame hang Kawhi would be. There are significantly cooler athletes in LA to pay to be friends with.

The argument is that Kawhi being a Clipper makes the Clippers a title contender and, therefore, their relationship with the Clippers becomes more valuable.

Which could be an argument if:
1. Ballmer didn't give them the $50m
2. They actually had Kawhi do anything for them.
3. Announced Kawhi as spokesperson.
4. Their board had any involvement in the contract with Kawhi.
5. They didn't, in theory, pay Kawhi $12m/yr vs the $13m/yr they paid the Clippers for their sponsorship.
6. Some jersey sponsorships in the NBA (for reference) - Bibigo/Lakers - $20m/yr, Rakuten/Warriors - $20m/yr, Abu Dhabi/Knicks - $30m/yr... it seems if their goal was more visibility, there was significantly better options for potentially less money.
7. The Clippers were actually title contenders with Kawhi.
8. There was anywhere near $48m of benefit to having Kawhi as part of their marketing push... the marketing push that didn't actually involve Kawhi.

It's the only argument that somebody could make, but it makes little sense at face value, but is a near impossible argument to make considering the rest of the circumstance.

I encourage you to watch the video if you have an hour to kill.

It’s hard for me to totally dismiss what Cuban is saying. He has so much experience in these circles. I’m not saying he’s right but I certainly think it is possible.

 

[Kev4029]

Just half way through, but Mark Cuban argues with Pablo that the deal was likely between Uncle Dennis and Aspiration without the Clippers knowledge.

- 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

The only possible explanation for that is that the owner(s) were big time jersey chasers that wanted to get close with NBA athletes. But that breaks down pretty quickly when you consider what a strange dude and probably lame hang Kawhi would be. There are significantly cooler athletes in LA to pay to be friends with.

The argument is that Kawhi being a Clipper makes the Clippers a title contender and, therefore, their relationship with the Clippers becomes more valuable.

Which could be an argument if:
1. Ballmer didn't give them the $50m
2. They actually had Kawhi do anything for them.
3. Announced Kawhi as spokesperson.
4. Their board had any involvement in the contract with Kawhi.
5. They didn't, in theory, pay Kawhi $12m/yr vs the $13m/yr they paid the Clippers for their sponsorship.
6. Some jersey sponsorships in the NBA (for reference) - Bibigo/Lakers - $20m/yr, Rakuten/Warriors - $20m/yr, Abu Dhabi/Knicks - $30m/yr... it seems if their goal was more visibility, there was significantly better options for potentially less money.
7. The Clippers were actually title contenders with Kawhi.
8. There was anywhere near $48m of benefit to having Kawhi as part of their marketing push... the marketing push that didn't actually involve Kawhi.

It's the only argument that somebody could make, but it makes little sense at face value, but is a near impossible argument to make considering the rest of the circumstance.

I encourage you to watch the video if you have an hour to kill.

It’s hard for me to totally dismiss what Cuban is saying. He has so much experience in these circles. I’m not saying he’s right but I certainly think it is possible.

I plan on giving it a listen tomorrow while I’m working around the house.

It’s possible my skepticism of billionaires (and the ruling class, generally) is tainting my ability to look at this rationally, but I fail to see any sort of logic to follow that brings me any other place than the Clippers were 100% circumventing the cap. The best argument that I could really come up with to make the Clippers even remotely sympathetic in this situation is that this is relatively common practice (which I don’t believe is the case but I would be much more open to that possibility) and they just got caught. Part of the reason I don’t think it is common is because most of the owners don’t have the kind of money to funnel $10s of millions of dollars to their players - and even some that do have the money are too cheap (Reinsdorf, Kroenke, Fertitta, Buss family).

 

[Desert_Power]

Just half way through, but Mark Cuban argues with Pablo that the deal was likely between Uncle Dennis and Aspiration without the Clippers knowledge.

- 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

The only possible explanation for that is that the owner(s) were big time jersey chasers that wanted to get close with NBA athletes. But that breaks down pretty quickly when you consider what a strange dude and probably lame hang Kawhi would be. There are significantly cooler athletes in LA to pay to be friends with.

The argument is that Kawhi being a Clipper makes the Clippers a title contender and, therefore, their relationship with the Clippers becomes more valuable.

Which could be an argument if:
1. Ballmer didn't give them the $50m
2. They actually had Kawhi do anything for them.
3. Announced Kawhi as spokesperson.
4. Their board had any involvement in the contract with Kawhi.
5. They didn't, in theory, pay Kawhi $12m/yr vs the $13m/yr they paid the Clippers for their sponsorship.
6. Some jersey sponsorships in the NBA (for reference) - Bibigo/Lakers - $20m/yr, Rakuten/Warriors - $20m/yr, Abu Dhabi/Knicks - $30m/yr... it seems if their goal was more visibility, there was significantly better options for potentially less money.
7. The Clippers were actually title contenders with Kawhi.
8. There was anywhere near $48m of benefit to having Kawhi as part of their marketing push... the marketing push that didn't actually involve Kawhi.

It's the only argument that somebody could make, but it makes little sense at face value, but is a near impossible argument to make considering the rest of the circumstance.

I encourage you to watch the video if you have an hour to kill.

It’s hard for me to totally dismiss what Cuban is saying. He has so much experience in these circles. I’m not saying he’s right but I certainly think it is possible.

I plan on giving it a listen tomorrow while I’m working around the house.

It’s possible my skepticism of billionaires (and the ruling class, generally) is tainting my ability to look at this rationally, but I fail to see any sort of logic to follow that brings me any other place than the Clippers were 100% circumventing the cap. The best argument that I could really come up with to make the Clippers even remotely sympathetic in this situation is that this is relatively common practice (which I don’t believe is the case but I would be much more open to that possibility) and they just got caught. Part of the reason I don’t think it is common is because most of the owners don’t have the kind of money to funnel $10s of millions of dollars to their players - and even some that do have the money are too cheap (Reinsdorf, Kroenke, Fertitta, Buss family).

Yeah. Pablo basically said something to the affect of: You’re saying this is an “SEC” bagman type of situation?

Which might be right, but if you believe the coaches/staff at those schools didn’t know what was going on….

 

[Desert_Power]

Also doesn’t seem like Pablo is a great interviewer of a somewhat adversarial witness. Cut off Cuban a lot.

 

[thecatch]

Just half way through, but Mark Cuban argues with Pablo that the deal was likely between Uncle Dennis and Aspiration without the Clippers knowledge.

- 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

The only possible explanation for that is that the owner(s) were big time jersey chasers that wanted to get close with NBA athletes. But that breaks down pretty quickly when you consider what a strange dude and probably lame hang Kawhi would be. There are significantly cooler athletes in LA to pay to be friends with.

The argument is that Kawhi being a Clipper makes the Clippers a title contender and, therefore, their relationship with the Clippers becomes more valuable.

Which could be an argument if:
1. Ballmer didn't give them the $50m
2. They actually had Kawhi do anything for them.
3. Announced Kawhi as spokesperson.
4. Their board had any involvement in the contract with Kawhi.
5. They didn't, in theory, pay Kawhi $12m/yr vs the $13m/yr they paid the Clippers for their sponsorship.
6. Some jersey sponsorships in the NBA (for reference) - Bibigo/Lakers - $20m/yr, Rakuten/Warriors - $20m/yr, Abu Dhabi/Knicks - $30m/yr... it seems if their goal was more visibility, there was significantly better options for potentially less money.
7. The Clippers were actually title contenders with Kawhi.
8. There was anywhere near $48m of benefit to having Kawhi as part of their marketing push... the marketing push that didn't actually involve Kawhi.

It's the only argument that somebody could make, but it makes little sense at face value, but is a near impossible argument to make considering the rest of the circumstance.

I encourage you to watch the video if you have an hour to kill.

It’s hard for me to totally dismiss what Cuban is saying. He has so much experience in these circles. I’m not saying he’s right but I certainly think it is possible.

I plan on giving it a listen tomorrow while I’m working around the house.

It’s possible my skepticism of billionaires (and the ruling class, generally) is tainting my ability to look at this rationally, but I fail to see any sort of logic to follow that brings me any other place than the Clippers were 100% circumventing the cap. The best argument that I could really come up with to make the Clippers even remotely sympathetic in this situation is that this is relatively common practice (which I don’t believe is the case but I would be much more open to that possibility) and they just got caught. Part of the reason I don’t think it is common is because most of the owners don’t have the kind of money to funnel $10s of millions of dollars to their players - and even some that do have the money are too cheap (Reinsdorf, Kroenke, Fertitta, Buss family).

Well, I'm definitely not a socialist and I think it's total baloney too. Shams, Marks, and Cuban schilling for Balmer reminds me a little bit of the people who were inexplicably going to bat for SBF during his trial.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I’m leaning more towards Team Ballmer in all this. I’m not confident in this position, though. Maybe I’ll change my mind as more comes out. I’ll probably be open to accepting whatever conclusion the NBA investigation comes to. There is so much we don’t know.

Here’s an interesting opinion article to consider. It’s from Michael Rosenberg from Sports Illustrated. I know SI does not have the reputation it once did and I’m not familiar with Rosenberg but he seems to be a respected, long time sports writer formerly with the Detroit Free Press. Anyway, he raises some interesting questions to consider.

 

[Major]

I also like how known vibrant personality Kawhi Leonard is a more valuable spokesperson (despite his contract saying he doesn’t have to do anything) than Robert Downey Jr, Drake, Leo DiCaprio, and all other celebrity endorsers combined.

Do you not follow his TikToks? He has a huge following and vibrant social media presence. It's lit fam.

 

[Kev4029]

I’m leaning more towards Team Ballmer in all this. I’m not confident in this position, though. Maybe I’ll change my mind as more comes out. I’ll probably be open to accepting whatever conclusion the NBA investigation comes to. There is so much we don’t know.

Here’s an interesting opinion article to consider. It’s from Michael Rosenberg from Sports Illustrated. I know SI does not have the reputation it once did and I’m not familiar with Rosenberg but he seems to be a respected, long time sports writer formerly with the Detroit Free Press. Anyway, he raises some interesting questions to consider.

That article presents almost nothing to the conversation. The conclusion from the article seems to be that they paid him more than any other team could have so why would they need to pay him more?

My retort would be that 1. California has the highest income tax in the country so if Leonard was all about maximizing money in his pocket, there are 26 teams where he could have made more money, hypothetically. And 2. I haven't seen/heard this mentioned in anything I've consumed but there was reporting at the time that Leonard was pushing for a 1+1 at the time which LAC was not very interested in. The additional money could have been the incentive to get a longer term deal.

 

[Kev4029]

@Juxtatarot - if you are on the side of Ballmer, are you agreeing with Cuban that it was potentially worth $48m to Aspiration to keep Kawhi on the Lakers to maximize their sponsorship investment? If not, what could possibly be the reason for them to pay him that much for a no-show job?

 

[Juxtatarot]

@Juxtatarot - if you are on the side of Ballmer, are you agreeing with Cuban that it was potentially worth $48m to Aspiration to keep Kawhi on the Lakers to maximize their sponsorship investment? If not, what could possibly be the reason for them to pay him that much for a no-show job?

Cuban also made the point that this question requires the person answering to get in the mind of a scammer. How can I know why a scammer does something? It’s not necessarily for a completely logical reason.

However, Cuban’s answer is a possibility although it seems odd to me. Also, I wonder what the perceived value was for the scammer to mention to future potential investors that they had a deal with Kawhi directly in addition to the Clippers.

On a separate point, I question calling this $48M. $20M was a future equity stake from that Sanberg guy, right? That’s nothing like cash when one considers what type of company this was. I kind of see this as $7M per year. That doesn’t seem to be a lot from a guy who committed $248M in fraud.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I’m leaning more towards Team Ballmer in all this. I’m not confident in this position, though. Maybe I’ll change my mind as more comes out. I’ll probably be open to accepting whatever conclusion the NBA investigation comes to. There is so much we don’t know.

Here’s an interesting opinion article to consider. It’s from Michael Rosenberg from Sports Illustrated. I know SI does not have the reputation it once did and I’m not familiar with Rosenberg but he seems to be a respected, long time sports writer formerly with the Detroit Free Press. Anyway, he raises some interesting questions to consider.

That article presents almost nothing to the conversation. The conclusion from the article seems to be that they paid him more than any other team could have so why would they need to pay him more?

My retort would be that 1. California has the highest income tax in the country so if Leonard was all about maximizing money in his pocket, there are 26 teams where he could have made more money, hypothetically. And 2. I haven't seen/heard this mentioned in anything I've consumed but there was reporting at the time that Leonard was pushing for a 1+1 at the time which LAC was not very interested in. The additional money could have been the incentive to get a longer term deal.

You’re right that the article doesn’t add anything. It asks some questions to the reader that I think are interesting. Whenever I read people’s thoughts about this story online, the presumption of guilt seems squarely on Ballmer. I thought it might be interesting for some to read something different. That’s why I posted it.

Again, I don’t know what the truth is here. Ballmer could be guilty. I don’t know for sure.

 

[Sammy3469]

@Juxtatarot - if you are on the side of Ballmer, are you agreeing with Cuban that it was potentially worth $48m to Aspiration to keep Kawhi on the Lakers to maximize their sponsorship investment? If not, what could possibly be the reason for them to pay him that much for a no-show job?

Cuban also made the point that this question requires the person answering to get in the mind of a scammer. How can I know why a scammer does something? It’s not necessarily for a completely logical reason.

However, Cuban’s answer is a possibility although it seems odd to me. Also, I wonder what the perceived value was for the scammer to mention to future potential investors that they had a deal with Kawhi directly in addition to the Clippers.

On a separate point, I question calling this $48M. $20M was a future equity stake from that Sanberg guy, right? That’s nothing like cash when one considers what type of company this was. I kind of see this as $7M per year. That doesn’t seem to be a lot from a guy who committed $248M in fraud.

I'll just point out that Ballmer didn't get nearly enough shares/protections/upside from Aspiration for his investment. He presumably was providing the working capital to Aspiration to keep this thing going until the SPAC was completed. Inherent in that is needing some type of upside (usually warrants or sponsor shares) like Oaktree got. Yet he doesn't (as far as I can parse through the SEC filing, so maybe some of the upside is the Oaktree piece of this and Ballmer is invested there)? Maybe the $50 million was to pay for the actual Clippers sponsorship. That's certainly plausible, but there is some quid pro quo in that whole relationship.

 

[thecatch]

@Juxtatarot - if you are on the side of Ballmer, are you agreeing with Cuban that it was potentially worth $48m to Aspiration to keep Kawhi on the Lakers to maximize their sponsorship investment? If not, what could possibly be the reason for them to pay him that much for a no-show job?

Cuban also made the point that this question requires the person answering to get in the mind of a scammer. How can I know why a scammer does something? It’s not necessarily for a completely logical reason.

However, Cuban’s answer is a possibility although it seems odd to me. Also, I wonder what the perceived value was for the scammer to mention to future potential investors that they had a deal with Kawhi directly in addition to the Clippers.

On a separate point, I question calling this $48M. $20M was a future equity stake from that Sanberg guy, right? That’s nothing like cash when one considers what type of company this was. I kind of see this as $7M per year. That doesn’t seem to be a lot from a guy who committed $248M in fraud.

Scammer's aren't necessarily irrational, they are just self-interested. This whole, "the company's CEO was a scammer so nobody else could have possibly been doing anything untoward" is wholly unpersuasive.

 

[thecatch]

And we also know (1) Uncle Dennis was on record demanding these types of illegal (under the CBA at least) payments from a bunch of teams, so why is it so implausible that he finally found a team willing to work with him? and (2) Ballmer already got his hand slapped for offering an impermissible marketing contract to a free agent before, so he's got a history with this stuff too. It's not like the allegations came totally out of nowhere in terms of the histories of the relevant actors. People also seem to be overlooking the fact that there's direct testimony from company employees that this deal was designed to circumvent the cap.

 

[Capella]

Not questioning his journalistic chops but before a media outlet publishes a story like this it goes through multiple source verifications and levels of management. I wonder if Pablo has that. Not saying he doesn’t, just things are different now.

 

[Yo Mama]

A few guys I follow online (full disclosure, they are Lakers bloggers who have always been bitter with Kawhi signing with the Clippers) have been reposting all these old posts by Woj, Shams, and other NBA analysts lauding all these smart team-friendly deals the Clippers have signed players to over the years.

Now I can’t imagine the Clippers are bending the rules for guys like Mason Plumlee (lots of players forego more money for better team situations), but it’ll be interesting to me to see what this does to the Clippers reputation.

One I thought was interesting:

Nate Duncan in ‘22: “I think if anyone should be investigated for circumvention it's the Clippers. Batum signing a 1+1 last summer for 120% of the minimum, then signing 2 years max Early Bird once they had those rights is very fishy to me. Batum could have had WAY more on the market last summer.”

 

[Yo Mama]

Maarkenan and Finland upset Jokic and Serbia in the first knockout round in Eurobasket.

 

[Sammy3469]

Not questioning his journalistic chops but before a media outlet publishes a story like this it goes through multiple source verifications and levels of management. I wonder if Pablo has that. Not saying he doesn’t, just things are different now.

David Samson said there were lawyers in the studio ready to stop production if they read the emails wrong or said something they shouldn’t.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Does anyone find it odd that there has been no statement yet from Kawhi or his agent?

 

[Juxtatarot]

People also seem to be overlooking the fact that there's direct testimony from company employees that this deal was designed to circumvent the cap

A problem with this is the source for them getting this information doesn’t appear to have been the Clippers. One possibility I’ve considered is Sanberg wanted Kawhi personally but the Marketing people had little use for him (this latter part reported in the Boston Sports Journal article). This could have lead employees to speculate on other motives. We just don’t know.

I’ve also been thinking more about those initial Marks comment. Although the NBA can use circumstantial evidence, would they? Would they lay down the hammer without any direct proof? I wonder if this is what Marks was getting at. I don’t think the info in the Pablo report is enough by itself. Hopefully the investigation will uncover more information to give the NBA (and hopefully eventually us) a better idea on what happened.

 

[thecatch]

People also seem to be overlooking the fact that there's direct testimony from company employees that this deal was designed to circumvent the cap

A problem with this is the source for them getting this information doesn’t appear to have been the Clippers. One possibility I’ve considered is Sanberg wanted Kawhi personally but the Marketing people had little use for him (this latter part reported in the Boston Sports Journal article). This could have lead employees to speculate on other motives. We just don’t know.

If Sanberg actually wanted Kawhi to do something, he wouldn't have drafted a contract that paid him exponentially more than Robert Downey Jr. while simultaneously not requiring Kawhi to do anything.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I watched the entire Torre piece and I found it to be well done and compelling. My personal opinion is that there was absolutely some sort of backdoor deals being done. With that said, I’m not sure if Ballmer will get punished—-and if he does—I wouldn’t be surprised if it was relatively insignificant proportional to what he was trying to get away with. Billionaires seem to have this magical ability where they are geniuses when it comes to making money and finding loopholes, but they magically become dumb and unaware the moment things go sideways for them. Keep in mind, the implications are that he was trying to loophole the salary cap—but that’s just half of it—he was also trying to loophole the concept of maximum contracts. Just feels like what was going on here was a pseudo-sort of money laundering. Person A puts in $50 million into Company B—and company B gives Person C a $48 million combination of cash+stock. Thats a better return than laundering money through a casino—unless of course the stock options on Company B end up going to zero.

 

[Juxtatarot]

People also seem to be overlooking the fact that there's direct testimony from company employees that this deal was designed to circumvent the cap

A problem with this is the source for them getting this information doesn’t appear to have been the Clippers. One possibility I’ve considered is Sanberg wanted Kawhi personally but the Marketing people had little use for him (this latter part reported in the Boston Sports Journal article). This could have lead employees to speculate on other motives. We just don’t know.

If Sanberg actually wanted Kawhi to do something, he wouldn't have drafted a contract that paid him exponentially more than Robert Downey Jr. while simultaneously not requiring Kawhi to do anything.

We don’t yet know much on what happened between the initial Aspiration email to the Clippers requesting to contact Kawhi and the signed contract. There could be reasons for the point you raise other than salary cap circumvention.

 

[thecatch]

People also seem to be overlooking the fact that there's direct testimony from company employees that this deal was designed to circumvent the cap

A problem with this is the source for them getting this information doesn’t appear to have been the Clippers. One possibility I’ve considered is Sanberg wanted Kawhi personally but the Marketing people had little use for him (this latter part reported in the Boston Sports Journal article). This could have lead employees to speculate on other motives. We just don’t know.

If Sanberg actually wanted Kawhi to do something, he wouldn't have drafted a contract that paid him exponentially more than Robert Downey Jr. while simultaneously not requiring Kawhi to do anything.

We don’t yet know much on what happened between the initial Aspiration email to the Clippers requesting to contact Kawhi and the signed contract. There could be reasons for the point you raise other than salary cap circumvention.

I've yet to hear one that doesn't sound facially ridiculous.

 

[Juxtatarot]

People also seem to be overlooking the fact that there's direct testimony from company employees that this deal was designed to circumvent the cap

A problem with this is the source for them getting this information doesn’t appear to have been the Clippers. One possibility I’ve considered is Sanberg wanted Kawhi personally but the Marketing people had little use for him (this latter part reported in the Boston Sports Journal article). This could have lead employees to speculate on other motives. We just don’t know.

If Sanberg actually wanted Kawhi to do something, he wouldn't have drafted a contract that paid him exponentially more than Robert Downey Jr. while simultaneously not requiring Kawhi to do anything.

We don’t yet know much on what happened between the initial Aspiration email to the Clippers requesting to contact Kawhi and the signed contract. There could be reasons for the point you raise other than salary cap circumvention.

I've yet to hear one that doesn't sound facially ridiculous.

I’ve thought of some reasons, but, respectfully, I don’t want to go down the road of trying to defend hypothetical positions. I’d rather wait to see what comes out. To be sure, though, salary cap circumvention could be the reason.

 

[Capella]

Billionaires seem to have this magical ability where they are geniuses when it comes to making money and finding loopholes,

It’s called an army of people working for you to accomplish those ends.

 

[Yo Mama]

Maarkenan and Finland upset Jokic and Serbia in the first knockout round in Eurobasket.

And now Georgia (the country not the state) upset France. Two euro favorites knocked out early.

 

[the moops]

Really wish the season would start. This kawhi thing is boring me now

 

[scoobus]

Maarkenan and Finland upset Jokic and Serbia in the first knockout round in Eurobasket.

And now Georgia (the country not the state) upset France. Two euro favorites knocked out early.

Who would win, Georgia or a team with players from the state of Georgia?

No I’m not doing the research.