Ok, what I’m wondering about is logistically how they would assess the fine if Kawhi doesn’t have an active NBA contract. My understanding is that normally a fine comes from a player’s paycheck. If a contract is voided, no paycheck, so how is the NBA going to get the money?
I'm not going to spell it all out for here right now because you will be able to answer your question by conducting a simple Google search, but the NBA is definitely NOT restricted to only a player's paycheck when collecting a fine...
Well, in this day and age, we all have personalized search results, so maybe your Google is different than my Google. As far as I can tell, the NBA has never reclaimed a fine from a player with no active contract. So feel free to spell it out if you have anything.I'm not going to spell it all out for here right now because you will be able to answer your question by conducting a simple Google search, but the NBA is definitely NOT restricted to only a player's paycheck when collecting a fine...
I mean, now you're kind of talking about something different...Yes, the NBA has never reclaimed a fine from a player with no active contract. But, that was not your initial question. You simply asked if it can be done. And based on what I see and read, yes, it can.
There's an article in the Athletic today by Hollinger talking about this. (Link)
I’d say they could be punished by taking their picks away but the Clippers already traded most of their picks in various deals to appease Kawhi.
So, you think that the Clippers should lose picks, even if malfeasance can't be proven?
The standard of proof depends on the court. Torre's making a (successful) argument to the court of public opinion. He has been slow playing his hand a little bit, but I doubt he has enough content to keep up interest in this topic for most of a year.
It's not a criminal trial, so they don't have to prove he wasn't scammed. Such a high burden of proof in something like this would just be an indicator of corruption. If the paper trail is there, and a reasonable person would think him more likely guilty than not, there absolutely should be appropriate penalties.
Perhaps... I'm just not willing to rule out the possibility of there being scammers afoot.
Apropos of nothing, where do you stand on this growing trend of journalism as content? By which I am referring to this practice of slow-rolling the reporting in order to drive engagement, as opposed to releasing a single comprehensive report?
Occam's razor, to be honest. Scamming a team owner for tens of millions of dollars and giving tens of millions of dollars to one of his players for doing nothing, sounds absurd.
Only if you fixate on the "doing nothing" part, which I'm not doing. And, if what I read was correct, Ballmer put in over a hundred million.
I considered this, and find it too unlikely. I don't see where the confidence in Aspiration could come possibly come from.
You seem to be misreading my intentions as a "confidence" in Aspiration, whereas I have simply learned to never underestimate the audacity of a grifter.
Hmm. I didn't interpret what Torre was doing here as maximizing engagement. I assumed he was provoking a response with his initial report jab, and then coming in with a cross after the weak PR defense of blanket denials was set up. Standard 1-2 punch. As a result we got to see Cuban express support (if not outright fealty) to Ballmer, for no apparent reason other than rich guy solidarity. I found that interesting.
Pablo works for the Athletic, which is a subsidiary of the New York Times so it’s not like this is a random TikToker breaking this news
