Source: Live broadcast
Translator's Note: The original text was published in The Athletic. The data in the article are as of the time of publication of the original text (September 16, local time), and the dates and times involved are local time. The viewpoint in this article has nothing to do with the translator and platform.
So, what if the heavy hammer of punishment fell, what would it look like?
This is the big question this week, even if we may have to wait for answers in the months ahead, as indirect evidence is still accumulating, suggesting that the speedboat may have boldly circumvented the pay hats by funding a false representation contract with a now bankrupt company called Aspiration.
Before we begin, let me emphasize that, at least so far, there is no firm evidence to link the investment of the fast-paced boat owner Steve-Ballmer and the small owner Dennis-King to the money Aspiration paid to Leonard, even though the time and amount of these investments are obviously suspicious. The investigation of the alliance is still to be conducted, but the lawyers of the alliance may face a difficult decision when evaluating the ultimate persuasive power of their case, without a Bolmer check sent to Aspiration and a note bar written "Avoiding the Wage Hat."
Nevertheless, we can now at least fairly examine the possibility of harsh punishment. If the alliance can convince an independent arbitrator that the speedboat has committed the act of avoiding the pay-hat through an unauthorized agreement, then under Article 13 of the Labour Agreement (at page 341), the speedboat will face severe punishment.
Moreover, the official ruling of the coalition would undoubtedly be harsh if the fast-paced ship was found to have violated such salary hats. In fact, the other 29 owners would require it to do so.
In this regard, please allow me to emphasize that there is an assumption that even if the league determines that the Clippers have evaded, it may give them a lighter punishment, because some other teams are doing similar things. Based on my seven years of working experience in the League, I can assert that this is in no way possible.
There is indeed a degree of widespread violation in some things, such as starting free players negotiations days (or weeks) earlier than the rule allows, but that is not the same as the current situation. This is completely beyond the bottom line, and almost every executive in the league believes that the violator should be punished with the toughest penalty.
Last week, NBA President Adam-Chou said he had a “very broad power” in these cases, although he did not mention medieval torture, but he did specifically mention fines, choosing rights and bans. The last three punishments were clearly written in Article 13, so let’s talk more specifically about how if Chou would be punished by the Rapid Ship, what would the hammer look like, what were its limitations, and what it meant for the Rapid Ship, Leonard and the League?
The punishment for circumvention is detailed in Article 13, one or two of which may be problematic, a reason I will talk about later on.
A fine of up to $7.5 million for fast ships
Leonardo fined up to $350,000
Confiscation of speed boat.
A maximum one-year ban on Ballmer or other speedboat personnel and a maximum $1 million fine for each.
Declaring Leonardo's contract void and prohibiting him from renewing with the Rapid Ship
Requests Leonardo to return money he received from Aspiration
Some of these penalties are more direct than other options. Specifically, a penalty for individuals in the speedboat team and even without the need for a systemic arbitrator to agree to the results of the NBA investigation. However, a $1 million penalty for Steve-Ballmer, for him like a parking penalty, is the slightest penalty. The same applies to a $7.5 million penalty for the speedboat, which is less than 4% of the total speedboat salary and basically equivalent to a four-fifth mistake on the Ballmer tax statement.
With regard to draft picks, we can at least predict the league's reaction based on the precedent of the 1999 Joe-Smith case. In that case, the NBA deprived the Timberwolves of five first-round draft picks because of their evasive behavior, and most observers believe that that case is far less bad than the current Clippers case.
The NBA can't take more than five first-round picks from the Clippers, though, because they only have five picks left to be confiscated. It is reasonable to think that the league will confiscate them all (the Clippers own picks in 2030, 2031 and 2032, and the swap of picks in 2027 and 2029), and possibly also confiscate the two sub-rounds that the Clippers have not yet traded (2031 and 2032) and the 2026 sub-rounds they got from the Grizzlies (only effective when the overall pick is between 31-42). Similar to the Smith case, if the Clippers perform well, it is also possible for the league to return a pick a few years later.
It is important to note that the Clippers'swap rights partners in 2027 and 2029 will not be affected by such penalties. The confiscated Clippers draft pick in 2027 will be the lowest overall pick among themselves, Thunder and Nuggets, and the lowest overall pick among themselves and the 76ers in 2029. If the Clippers draw the top three pick in 2029 and that swap right has a 1-3 overall pick protection, then that pick will be forfeited outright-a windfall for any team that follows close behind in the lotto draw. The 76ers will then choose in their regular overall pick.
The imposition of a one-year ban on Ballmer and other speedboat crew—the explicit provisions of the labor agreement seem to limit the length of the penalty—would undoubtedly cause some embarrassment when Ballmer’s shiny new palace, the Intuit Dome, hosted the 2026 NBA All-Star Game.
This brings us to the biggest, ugliest, and most confusing part of the matter: the possibility of announcing the invalidity of Leonardo’s contract.Given the breach, this is the most direct punishment possible.But unfortunately, it also brings the biggest problems to the rest of the league.
The question comes from two sides. First, the league’s announcement of contract invalidity is to punish the speedboat, or to help them a job?Leonard’s next year’s contract amount is $50 million, and although he is still a top player in health, he’s constantly missing because of his injury (you’ve probably heard this joke: Aspiration is Leonard’s second “named” job).If Leonard’s contract is canceled, the speedboat will have a top-paying space in the summer of 2026, when they can completely build a new lineup and maybe even try to dig LeBron-James from their city rivals.
This leads to the second aspect of declaring the contract invalid: could they still count the $50 million in the salary hats for the 2026-27 season while declaring the contract invalid? Surprisingly, for such a huge document, the specific mechanism of its operation is not clearly outlined, and there is no "contract invalid" in the definition of Article 1 of the labor agreement. The opponent team would want to see this penalty, but in my opinion, it seems unlikely to be the final outcome – it is basically a double penalty, letting the speed boat bear the impact of its salary hats while not getting players.
A more interesting question is whether Shaw could count Leonard’s receipts from Aspiration into the salary hats of the Rapid Ship 2026-27 season, as the money hadn’t been counted into their accounts in any previous season. This would eliminate the concerns of the above double punishment while still preventing Rapid Ship from getting an unexpected salary space. This could also partially calm down the complaints of other owners that Rapid Ship should pay luxury tax on the amount of Aspiration company received by Leonard years earlier.
Finally, it’s the most difficult part of declaring the contract invalid and the reason I ultimately think it’s a big problem for the league: the chaos that the free player market will create.
The training camp is about to begin, and no team has a salary space, and the league’s investigation may take weeks—if not months—to be completed.This is not even the stage of arranging an arbitration hearing and waiting for the case to be ruled, and we may take the end of the season to get some form of solution.
So, can you imagine if Kawhi-Leonard suddenly became a completely free agent midway through the season, and was also banned from signing a contract extension with the Clippers? What if he decides to stay in Los Angeles and sign with the Lakers on a base salary contract? What impact will this have on the competitive balance? Furthermore, if he signed with any team for a meager salary, wouldn't that greatly distort the playoff competitive landscape?
I guess that if Leonardo joined a championship team with a small special contract, the other 28 bosses would definitely protest strongly.But for a free player of this level that appeared in the season, Shaw has no good way to maintain market reason.The only alternative I can think of is to ban Leonardo from playing the whole season, but that seems too harsh and means that there will be a fierce conflict with the staff.
From the perspective of the league, it would be much easier to delay the entire process to the spring, and then declare the contract invalid after the regular game, so that Leonard can find his home in an orderly manner during the summer. If this is not done, the league might feel that it would be easier to keep Leonard's contract on the account of the fast boat, instead of punishing him for the additional money that Aspiration company sent him to the fast boat in terms of salary caps, or to think of other innovative ways to punish.
So, if Adam-Shuwa and an independent arbitrator both conclude that the speedboat has evaded the pay-hat, that is what he is currently facing. If so, losing a few voting rights, punishing Ballmer and a year-long ban would be almost a spell.
The real question is how Leonard's contract will be handled. Under ideal circumstances, I'm sure the league might be more willing to set a precedent for declaring contracts void. But in reality, fairly enforcing this penalty to players of this caliber in the middle of a season can be so problematic that the league ultimately decides it's best to avoid complications.
By John Hollinger
Translated by: Gwayne