https://www.houstonchronicle.com/te...s-preview-kevin-porter-jr-status-18391496.php What will happen with Kevin Porter Jr.? Why don’t the Rockets just cut him now? If the Rockets waive Porter, it could be argued the move is in violation of the collective bargaining agreement which prohibits a team from disciplining a player solely because of an arrest. If they waive him a month from now, it can be considered a basketball move, especially because he had already been replaced at point guard and they will need to make cuts to get to the roster limit of 15 standard contracts. His contract extension was written to give the Rockets that option. If they trade him to a team that waives him, that team’s move to waive Porter would be for basketball and roster construction reasons since players are often released after trades. Porter’s contract could make some trades mathematically possible. But since he would not be considered an asset, teams might not want any part of needing to explain why they would make such a move, even if the explanation includes that he will be immediately released. The Rockets could waive Porter, as well. They already had replaced him at point guard with the additions of VanVleet and Thompson. There is no need to wait for a league suspension. He would still cost the Rockets the $15.8 million on his contract for 2023-24 with the money he’d lose while suspended going to NBA charities, rather than Rockets savings. But they could hold him until the Feb. 8 trade deadline when larger contracts are moved far more often than in the preseason. Keeping Porter on the roster, even if away from the team, means accepting the cloud and even distraction that comes with uncertainty and court cases (he is due to appear Oct. 16.) If he still holds a roster spot when the season begins Oct. 25 in Orlando, his guarantee for next season increases from $1 million to $3 million, and the Rockets would have to cut a player and carry 14 with standard NBA contracts. That is not uncommon, especially with up to three players with two-way contracts, but would be a tough result for the player cut in favor of a player that will not play. The NBA still has not put Porter on administrative leave, the seeming no-brainer first step. Media day on Monday will be three weeks since his arrest for assault and strangulation of his girlfriend, Kysre Gondrezick. Porter will not participate in anything with the team next week — or probably ever again.
It's probably just PTSD from the obvious rigging of the Rockets/Warriors western conference finals, but I can't help feel paranoid that the League is trying to manage this situation to **** us as much as they can.
I still don't see how waiving a player is a disciplining move. This is especially contradictory with this sentence: There are plenty of players get waived for basketball reasons.
I was about to say the same thing. T Too many people are willing to ascribe nebulous "legal reasons" for the Rockets inaction in response to the KPJ situation, and, as usual for team-friendly media, give them a free pass. Again I haven't read the whole CBA and its addendums or whatever governshere, nor has Feigen, but to accept that the Rockets/Silver, whoever are immediately and unreservedly foreclosed from all public or private comment due to "legal reasons" seems - highly unlikely, unless the league negotiated the worst possible deal with the players. It's kind of their job to get them to say things here, legal reasons or not, that they are unwilling to say and that they owe us an explanation for. Like if the Rockets won't say anything officially, get somebody to say something unofficially That's why the free press parts of the first amendment exist!
I do think technically it is not but it is not written anywhere that is strictly a financial/roster move either ....... some grey areas. Basically Silver or the NBPA is imploring teams to let them conduct their investigation......out of respect. It ought not to be punishable but you know the drill. This time it could be nothing or it could be very serious and Silver is really pissed off about Miles Bridges and now Kevin Porter. It is like a direct ask not to interfere during this period of time. It is really weird if you ask me.
The team's hands are tied by the league as has been stated on several occasions. Really can't blame them for being silent. We are just going to have to wait for the league to act and they are in no hurry to do so, as stated by Silver himself with the "we're not in season" comment. Ler them "conduct their investigation" and then we can move forward. In the mean time, when the Rockets conduct their "Media Day" and KPJ is not present .... they'll have said all there is to say.
Exactly, and I like how Feigan just glosses over addressing the actual conduct in the context of what the team officials even think about the conduct, or how it aligns to team values. Not a word about that. Only what comes off as a verbatim Stone explanation that is meant to defend himself in a challenging situation. Also not sure why the Houston Chronicle values it's content so much to paywall every single thing they post. I grew up with and have nostalgia for the Chron, and it's longterm writers, but over the past couple decades they really have been a shell of what they once were.
So the CBA stops teams from waiving players after an arrest? That is interesting..... So now they have to play musical chairs and pretend. DD
It doesn't. Here's the actual provision: Section 16. Player Arrests. A Team shall not impose discipline on a player solely on the basis of the fact that the player has been arrested. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) a Team may impose discipline on a player for the conduct underlying the Article VI 123 player’s arrest if it has an independent basis for doing so, (b) nothing herein shall permit a Team to discipline a player for his failure to cooperate with a Team’s investigation of his alleged misconduct if he has a reasonable apprehension of criminal prosecution, and (c) nothing herein shall prevent a Team from precluding a player from participating in Team activities without loss of pay to the extent it otherwise has the right to do so. The Rockets can't "impose disicipline" on KPJ which would be a fine, suspension w/o pay. UNLESS they "have an independent basis for doing so" I'd argue that the Rockets do have "an independent basis for doing so" given Porter's history of violent and unreliable conduct towards team officials, such as shoving coaches, leaving at halftime, destorying property, etc , and also, it's not like they just got a police report and have no further knowledge of the situation; the whole sickening situation played out in public and I'm sure the Rocket have lots of prior knowledge of things like the road rage incident and other warning signs we don't even know about. Also note, this has nothing to do with waiver or voiding contracts, those are separate provisions of the CBA.
Here's what it says when I read through it just now: 6.16 Player Arrests. A Team shall not impose discipline on a player solely on the basis of the fact that the player has been arrested. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) a Team may impose discipline on a player for the conduct underlying the player’s arrest if it has an independent basis for doing so, (b) nothing herein shall permit a Team to discipline a player for his failure to cooperate with a Team’s investigation of his alleged misconduct if he has a reasonable apprehension of criminal prosecution, and (c) nothing herein shall prevent a Team from precluding a player from participating in Team activities without loss of pay to the extent it otherwise has the right to do so. ............. Then there is this clause: 6.7 Unlawful Violence. When a player is convicted of (including by a plea of guilty, no contest, or nolo contendere to) a violent felony, he shall immediately be suspended by the NBA for a minimum of ten (10) games. ................ I don't see anything here about the ability to waive or not. Only that the Rockets cannot suspend him independently in a way that keeps him from getting paid. The can exclude him from team activities but cannot keep him from getting paid until the league and the NBPA independently hand down a suspension after an investigation. So I don't really know what Feigan is talking about here. The way I read the CBA, I don't see any reason why the Rockets cannot cut bait today. They just have to pay him and it'll be under the presumption of basketball reasons even though they likely don't have to say anything. To the last part, sounds like if the Rockets are waiting around for any type of salary relief from a suspension that it'll have to be after he's CONVICTED or Pleads guilty... which could be a year or two from now. So why not just waive him now and save yourself 2 million in cap space for next season???
This is what @heypartner and @aelliott have both been mentioning since the beginning of this. punishment for an incident and a normal nba transaction are two completely separate things
I think the issue is Porter pleaded not guilty so 6.7 doesn't apply (until convicted). 6.16 is really unclear to me.
Also, I am looking at the NBA's domestic violence addendum - seems like the Commissioner can suspend him immediately : While an investigation is pending, the Commissioner may at any time place the player on administrative leave with pay for a reasonable period of time. The parties agree that administrative leave is not intended to be routinely applied during the pendency of every player investigation under this Policy. Instead, administrative leave should be applied in only those cases in which a balancing of all relevant factors clearly establishes that it is reasonable to do so under the totality of the circumstances. In deciding whether to place a player on paid administrative leave, the Commissioner shall consider among other relevant factors the following non-exhaustive list of factors: • The nature and severity of the allegation(s), including whether a weapon was involved and whether any injury was suffered by anyone (including the player); • Whether the allegations are supported by credible information; • The relationship between the player and accuser; • Information regarding the player’s history of prior similar conduct, or lack thereof; • The prior criminal or disciplinary history of the player, or lack thereof; • The status of any criminal investigation and/or prosecution regarding the alleged incident, including whether any arrests have been made; • The character of the player; • The player’s reputation within the NBA community; • The NBA’s past practice regarding discipline imposed on a player for similar allegations; and • The risk of reputational damage to the NBA and/or the player’s team. The NBA will give prompt notice to the NBPA, the player’s team, and the player of any decision to place a player on paid administrative leave pursuant to this Policy. The decision to place the player on paid administrative leave pending an investigation shall not preclude further F-8 Exhibit F disciplinary action by the Commissioner against the player in accordance with the provisions of this Policy. While on administrative leave, the player shall be ineligible to play in any of his team’s games. However, the player will continue to receive his salary and other welfare benefits to which he would be entitled as an active player. The player and the player’s team may also request that the player be allowed to participate in non-public practices, workouts, or other team activities with the consent of the NBA, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. A player may challenge the decision to be placed on paid administrative leave under the Grievance and Arbitration Procedure of the CBA. In evaluating such a challenge, the Grievance Arbitrator will determine whether it was reasonable for the Commissioner to place the player on administrative leave. A player may also request the Grievance Arbitrator review the length of a period of administrative leave that exceeds seven days. In such a proceeding, the Grievance Arbitrator will determine whether administrative leave in excess of seven days is reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances. Once a player challenges the decision to be placed on paid administrative leave, or the duration of such leave, the hearing before the Grievance Arbitrator must take place within 72 hour Seems cut & dried that Silver can impose an immediate adminsitrative leave (basically a suspension) penidng investigaton given that literally every single aggravating factor (past history, violent nature of assault, risk of damage to team) weighs against KPJ. So, I guess Adam Silver is correct in saying he "has time" to not suspend KPJ, but he doesn't have to take the time, he can be suspended immediately IMO, the worst thing that happens is it goes to arbitratro who says "no you can't suspend him". Seems weird to have this provision and, in connectoin with a violent, high profile incident - not even bother to use it because you "have time" to not use it. Maybe it was for in-season use only but, if you're trying to set a precedent here under the new CBA, you should use it, though I'm no labor lawyer
Not if the NBA warns the Rockets not to intervene......namely to delay waiving the player. Namely if they think this DV case is more serious and want to set a precedent and likely they want to add clauses to their DV guidelines. Basically I do think the Rockets are pondering what to do themselves, it might not be something egregious either.
