2025-26 Team Developments: Trades / Free Agents / News / Rumors / Ideas

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/46210422/inside-warriors-stalemate-jonathan-kuminga

again back to hoops stuff, supposedly gs upped their offer to kuminga to 3/75 but are still insisting on a team option on the last year, which kuminga is saying no to. his folks countered with a one-year deal with no options at a higher rater than the QO, if i read the article correctly. but gs didn't want that for some reason (this seems like the win/win to me).


one complicating factor has been that the warriors basically made FA promises to horford and melton and gpII, and kuminga can't sign for more than 22.8 starting and still have those deals work or something. warriors got in over their head in several ways here, imo.

i wonder how much lacob meddling caused this problem, too. i guess it's his team, but i think if he'd have let his management do their jobs, this would have been resolved last year with a sensible kuminga trade. it's just hard to imagine a path forward in which either side is happy with him in a gs uniform this year. if he signs the QO, kerr has no real reason to feature him or focus on him, and at this point any contract is just one that's intended to be traded. but trading partners know that, too.

 

Man.7M is not some big endorsement in the first place. What are you talking about? For a player of his caliber, that's not some red flag.

Now you are counting this dude's pockets, and trying to determine how much money he should make on endorsements? On top of that, you want to dictate the amount of money, Ballmer invests too? I mean damn..you reaching a bit much, in order to make this fit your conspiracy theory aren't you?

So your idea is, the grand scheme was to blow 62M as a cover, in order to fund the 28M deal? But wait..Then Ballmer ups and decides, to blow the whistle on them, because they stiffed his boy out of the last 7M?

Hell..following your logic, anyone you deem unworthy, of the amount of their endorsement deal, is probably circumventing the salary cap! It's a slam dunk if anyone on those lists I posted, has an owner that invested in any company, they have an endorsement deal with.

Lol..you are outrageous dude

 

i often wonder if you read your own links. 7m is huge...for kawhi leonard...according to your link. it's small for lebron james or steph curry.

there's no reaching required to generate a theory of why a player is getting a no-show endorsement deal that requires employment with a single team from a sham company with an investor who owns that player's team. none. it's sitting in your lap.

well, it was actually a 48 million dollar deal. i mean, if ballmer believed the company was legit--as you swear he did--then those stock options were real money, right?

already been over why legitimate large companies paying market rates for endorsements is totally different than this. you're just plugging your ears and pointing to kawhi's basketball acumen (which was last witnessed in the reagan era or something).

no, i'm just laughing at you carrying a cheating billionaire's water on a message board.

 

Offseasons sure can be long.

 

All these deals and nobody got a toilet?

 

These excuses are just so over the top - what better way to lure Ballmer for more money and try to defraud him than participating in a quid pro quo? This whole thing including the fraud doesn't add up on unless you can rationalize this insane endorsement deal for Kawhii and it simeply doesn't even make sense for a criminal to do that sort of deal without the cap circumvention part thrown in there!

The amount of money was just way too over the top and way out of line. If they wanted to do Ballmer a solid and help Kawhii out as an "enticement" you wouldn't break the freakin bank and take money out of your own pot of scammed money with the size of the Kawhii deal. To make that 28 million work you would have to try scam Ballmer for way more money that just how the math works here.

 

"He's already told everyone this."

He did NOTHING of the sort! He said wasn't going do anything on simple "appearance" of circumvention and was launching a full and through investigation. And stated the case was not like a criminal or civil case and the LATITUDE he has in his final decision looking at ALL and all TYPES of evidence .... plus pointed out all the penalties he can impose if he finds against them.

 

With KL99 having changed his story from yeah they probably did it but nothing will happen, and being all over the map with a million words in the interim to NOW calling Slick "Genius" for these takes.

 

I'm siding with you on this but I just don't think Silver will punish him much.

 

i don't, either. the debate i'm waging is about whether he should.

i think the clippers should have a cap/tax threshold that is approximately 5-10% lower than everyone else's for a minimum of 4 years. or they should lose the ability to trade draft picks for 5 years.

svtzr thinks punishing sets a dangerous precedent (i disagree and think that not punishing sets a more dangerous precedent).

slick seems to think this is just good solid business.

i truly have no real idea what kobenluka thinks, because it seems to have changed multiple times--other than uncle dennis sucks.

 

I kind of crack up over everyone's take aways on this. I'm just an old man, in the wait and see mode. Whatever happens happens. It may make me think twice about how I view Silver going forward. Won't change my opinion on Ballmer, won't change my opinion on the Lakers, won't change my opinion on Kawhi. All those things are pretty much set in stone. I think you have everyone pegged into the right holes. Wait and see how it all turns out. Part of the journey.

 

The size of Kuminga deal can't be more than that or they get hamstrung by the second apron: it's preventing the obvious move which is a large one year "lump sum" payment to Kuminga which would allow him to leave but the Warriors to still have some control of the asset. Lowe had a nice pod on this

 

Can't remember a contract stand-off with someone as mid as Kuminga dragging on this long. If we did a 2 for 1 trade like this Wiggins rumor, I wonder if there would be an opportunity to swoop in on Melton....probably not.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/66...ource=athletic_targeted_email&userId=14254432

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.


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.

 

These are the penalties for impermissible agreements between teams and players (CBA Section 13.2). CBA Section 13.1 outlines impermissible agreements between teams and third parties (like sponsors), the penalties for violating that section are a little less (the fine is capped at $4.5 million, you can only take away one future first round pick, etc.). Not sure how it works if you're found to have violated both.

 

Yeah he said that, and you keep skipping over the other part he said. A

99% of this board doesn't see this situation, in the same way tho. As evidenced by the posts,so again, what makes anyone's opinion more valid than someone else's? If you are inclined to believe something, that's what you are going to do, use the same information that someone else says is questionable, and say " See!" How can you not see this in the same manner as us? Well I pointed out why I don't , and I have yet to see anyone effectively refuting my points. It's just aww. Slick, you're trying to be a contrarian for kicks. Nope..I hate these people, but I'm not convinced this circumventing the salary cap stuff occurred.

 

He got scammed for 62M, that isn't enough for you?


You guys are overlooking the fact, that an investment doesn't stop, just because they spent your money. It wasn't a gift, he's owed a return on his investment, regardless of what they did with the money. Nobody is mentioning how they had already blew through the 50M before they signed the endorsement deal either.

 

[


Yeah and how does this contradict any thing I said? Ok..let's talk about a few facts here..

This company committed a massive fraud to the tune of 250M. Fact.

This company pitched a 330M naming rights deal to the Flippers, Ballmer terminated the negotiations, after they failed to deliver, on their obligations relating to this deal. Fact

Ballmer lost 60M in this fraud. Fact.

The endorsement deal was for 28M not 62M Fact.

There hasn't been any contract presented, that shows a no show endorsement deal. Fact.

There hasn't been any documents produced, that shows Ballmer explicitly invested his money, in order to fund an endorsement deal. Fact.

There is absolutely no rule, that dictates how much a player can receive in an endorsement. Fact.

There is absolutely no rule,that determines that a player, can't sign an endorsement deal, with a company, his team invests in. Fact

These facts are all kinds of evidence aren't they?

So what are these Facts, that you have, showing an obvious conspiracy to circumvent the salary cap?

Please share, because somehow I've missed them. All I'm seeing is innuendo and hearsay.[/QUO