So, if the hammer drops, what does it look like?
That’s the big question of the week, even if we may not get an answer for months, as the slow drip of circumstantial evidence continues to accumulate that the LA Clippers might have engaged in brazen salary cap circumvention by funding a no-show endorsement deal for All-Star forward Kawhi Leonard with a now-bankrupt company called Aspiration.
Before we start, let me emphasize: There is not, at least as of yet, a smoking gun that ties Clippers owner Steve Ballmer’s and minority owner Dennis Wong’s investments in Aspiration to the payments the company made to Leonard, even if the timing and amounts of the investments are clearly suspicious. The league’s investigation still has to play out, but in the absence of a check from Ballmer to Aspiration with “CAP CIRCUMVENTION” in the memo field, the league’s attorneys may have to make some tough calls regarding the ultimate strength of their case.
That said, we’re at the point where it’s fair to at least consider the possibility of a draconian punishment. That’s what would result if the league convinces an independent arbitrator that the Clippers were guilty of circumvention via unauthorized agreements, which would open the Clippers to significant penalties based on Article XIII of the CBA (right there, on page 341).
And certainly, if the Clippers were found guilty of such a salary cap crime, justice from the commissioner’s office would be severe. In fact, 29 other owners would demand it.
On that point, let me emphasize: There’s been a supposition out there in some places that maybe the league will go soft on the Clippers, even if they find them guilty of circumvention, because some other teams are doing stuff like this too. Having worked in the league for seven years … no. Actually, (expletive deleted) no.
There is a level of routine rule-bending involving things like starting free agency talks a few days (or weeks) before the rules say you’re supposed to, but this isn’t even remotely the same thing. It’s just completely beyond the pale, something that virtually every exec in the league agrees should be punished by having the guilty parties drawn and quartered.
Last week, NBA commissioner Adam Silver himself said he had “very broad powers” in these cases, and while he left out medieval torture, he did specifically mention fines, draft picks and suspensions. Those latter three remedies are all right there in Article XIII, yes, but let’s talk more specifically about how this works if Silver drops the hammer on the Clippers. What does this hammer actually look like, what are the limits, and what would it mean for the Clippers, Leonard and the league?
The penalties for circumvention are delineated in Article XIII, and one or two of them could be problematic for reasons I’ll get into in a minute. But here’s the menu Silver is working from:
- Fine the Clippers up to $7.5 million
- Fine Leonard up to $350,000
- Forfeit Clippers draft picks
- Suspend Ballmer or other Clipper personnel up to a year and fine them up to $1 million each
- Void Leonard’s contract and prohibit him from re-signing with the Clippers
- Require Leonard to return the money he received from Aspiration
Some of these penalties are more straightforward than others. In particular, fining the individual parties in the Clippers’ organization doesn’t even require the system arbitrator to agree with the NBA’s findings. Alas, a $1 million fine for Steve Ballmer is a parking ticket for anyone else, the lightest of wrist slaps. Ditto for fining the Clippers organization $7.5 million, which is less than 4 percent of the Clippers’ payroll and still basically amounts to a rounding error on Ballmer’s next tax return.
On the draft picks, we can at least anticipate the league’s response based on the precedent of the Joe Smith case in 1999. The NBA penalized the Timberwolves five first-round picks for that, in a case of circumvention that most observers consider far less scandalous than the one the Clippers are now accused.
The NBA can’t take more than five first-round picks from the Clippers, though, because they only have five left to be penalized. It stands to reason the league would scotch all of them (the Clippers’ own picks in 2030, 2031 and 2032, and pick swaps in 2027 and 2029), and would possibly also seize the two seconds the Clippers haven’t already traded (in 2031 and 2032) and their partial share of a 2026 Memphis pick (they only get it if it lands between 31 and 42). Similar to the Smith case, it’s equally possible the league would reinstate a pick several years later if the Clippers behave themselves.
While we’re here, I’ll note that the Clippers’ swap partners in 2027 and 2029 would be unaffected by such a penalty. The surrendered Clippers pick in 2027 would be the lesser of its own, Oklahoma City’s or Denver’s, and in 2029 the lesser of its own or Philadelphia’s. If the Clippers landed in the top three in 2029, that swap is protected 1-3, and thus it would just be straight-up forfeited — a bonanza for whatever team landed directly behind them in the lottery. The Sixers would then pick in their regular spot.
Suspending Ballmer and perhaps other Clippers personnel for up to a year — it appears the CBA, as written, caps the length of this penalty — certainly would make for some awkwardness when Ballmer’s shiny new palace, Intuit Dome, hosts the 2026 NBA All-Star Game. But again, that’s a pretty straightforward historical throughline from the Minnesota case, when Wolves owner Glen Taylor suspended for nine months.
Which takes us to the biggest, ugliest, most confounding part of this: The possibility of voiding Leonard’s contract. This is the most direct penalty available given the violation, but unfortunately, it’s also the most problematic for the rest of the league.
This problem arises from two sides. First, is the league actually penalizing the Clippers by voiding the contract, or is it doing them a favor? Leonard is due to make $50 million next year and, while still an elite player when healthy, has constantly missed time with injuries. (You’ve no doubt already heard the jokes about Aspiration being his second no-show job). Without Leonard’s money on the books, the Clippers will have max cap space in the summer of 2026 and could either completely pivot to a new roster or even, perhaps, try to poach LeBron James from the rival Lakers.
That brings up the second aspect of voiding the contract: Could they leave the $50 million on the Clippers’ 2027 cap and still void the contract? Amazingly, for a document of this size, the exact mechanics of how this works aren’t clearly spelled out, and the definitions in Article I of the CBA don’t include “void contract” as an entry. Opposing teams are surely rooting for this penalty, but to me that seems an unlikely endgame — it’s basically double jeopardy, giving the Clippers the cap hit without the player.
A more interesting question, perhaps, is whether the commissioner could put the money Leonard received from Aspiration onto the Clippers’ 2026-27 cap, as this had never been charged to their books in any previous season. That would eliminate the double-jeopardy concern above and still deprive L.A. of a cap-space bonanza; it would also partly satisfy complaints from other owners that the Clips should pay luxury tax for the Aspiration money that Leonard received in previous years.
Finally, we get to the most vexing part of voiding the contract, and why I ultimately think it’s a big problem for the league: The mayhem that would ensue in the free-agent market.
Training camp is just around the corner, nobody has any cap space, and the league is likely weeks — if not months — away from completing its investigation. That’s before it even gets around to setting up a hearing with an arbitrator and deciding the case; we might be halfway through the season before we get any kind of resolution.
So, can you imagine if Kawhi Leonard were suddenly an unrestricted free agent halfway through the season, one who is forbidden from re-signing with the Clippers? What if he decides he just likes being in L.A. and signs with the Lakers for the minimum? What does that do for competitive balance? For that matter, what if he signs anywhere for a meager salary — won’t that be hugely distorting to the playoff chase?
I presume 28 other owners would be absolutely howling if Leonard joined a contender while making a small exception, but there’s no good way for Silver to ensure any kind of market-rational outcome for a midseason free agent of this caliber. The only end run I could see around this would be to suspend Leonard for the season, which seems both unduly harsh and a precursor to a nasty fight with the players’ union.
In some ways it’s much easier, from the league side, if it can drag the whole process out until the spring and then void the contract once the regular season has ended, setting up an orderly process for Leonard to find his next team in the summer. Failing that, it might be easier for the league to keep Leonard’s contract on the Clippers’ books and instead hammer them with a cap charge for the extra money Aspiration funneled his way, or come up with other novel punishments.
So, that’s the landscape facing Adam Silver right now if he and an independent arbitrator both deem the Clippers guilty of cap circumvention. If so, the loss of several draft picks and a fine and year-long suspension for Ballmer are almost a given.
The real question is what happens with Leonard’s contract. In a vacuum, I’m sure the league would likely prefer to establish the precedent of voiding the contract. In reality, it could prove so problematic to execute fairly with a player of this caliber in the middle of a season that the league decides they’re better off not bothering.
(Photo of Kawhi Leonard: Tim Nwachukwu / Getty Images)
Source link
