Let me quote you.

“How can you make a decision without any information?”

Exactly! (30 game suspension w/o pay)

I think you should address that to Rowell.

If you dont mind, I will now call you the “Red Snapper” Just kidding.

Why are you trying to sound like a lawyer when you are not?

If you are… Good Lord!

Sprewell case had a dual consequence because not only he offended the organization, he offended the the league. The Warriors punished him, the League had to act accordingly as well…

And…

There is a World of Difference between violating a contract and lying out of panic and physically assaulting an individual. Oh my!

True a contract is a mutual agreement between two parties. In this case, an agreement between a billion dollar organization and a twenty one year old. Try not to circumvent this with your rhetorics but circumvent it with logic.

You dont want to use the word “Punished”, but look at the comments of sports columnists,

Monta may have violated a rule or two. He also, by his confession lied about his case.

But that doesnt mean his career doesnt deserve to be protected.

It doesnt mean he deserves to penalized with in an open-ended manner where you don’t know the finality, It doesn’t mean he should be punished with a double-edged sword.

Everyone should be equal under the law.

Here’s a scenario,

A promising new kid in town shows up and the organization takes a good interest on him. Monta’s contract in under a cloud of being voided or not because of this incidents, Which is more convenient for the Warriors at this point?

Lastly, if you find my takes laughable, Why are you snapping. Do you find Marcus takes laughable too.

A word of advice, Laughter is not always a sign of intelligence. It could be also ignorance.

In Sprewell’s arbitration decision, the arbitrator expressly found that dual punishments (by the Warriors and the NBA in sequence) were not per se forbidden by the CBA. Rather, he found that the Warriors’ specific punishment of voiding the deal was unreasonable because of the ambiguity of the “moral turpitude” clause.

Therefore legally, i see no problem with “dual punishment”, as you inaccurately characterize the Warriors’ action.

Furthermore, while giving Ellis (or any player) is a “gamble” in the loose sense of the word you use, their “gamble” was not an unlimited one. A contract is a mutual agreement; as the Warriors agreed to pay Ellis, Ellis agreed to act in accordance with the Uniform Player Contract.

Given that Ellis not only breached, but also lied to cover up the “accident”, how unreasonable is it for the Warriors to demand additional time to determine the full extent of the appropriate response. How can you make a decision without any information?

The Warriors have some information now – Ellis is out for 3 months minimum. They acted based on that information. If you want a non-legal reason, then as a PR move, they had to act to show that they weren’t going to let this go.

The Warriors might gain new information later – that Ellis is either diminished significantly, or completely unable to play. They want to reserve the POSSIBILITY of acting later on. Again, how unreasonable is that?

The first person to bring up the “criminal” and “punishment” context was Marcus when he first introduced the “double jeopardy” argument.

Whether you agree with the Warriors actions “ethically” is entirely subjective, so I leave you to your own musings. This situation, however, is not governed by ethics for that very reason. Ethics are subjective. Rules, law, contracts are intended to be objective.

We live in a society of law, basketball is a business governed by contracts and rules. Your self-righteous dismissal of any reasoned analysis is therefore entertaining in a laughable sense, but completely irrelevant.

I love the reference to “pain and suffering” – a term applicable to civil law and an element thats utterly arbitrary at the will or folly of the jury.

If i missed the point, You missed the bus. Just kidding. Relax.

Relax if you can. If you can’t, oh well.. Discussion are discussions and no one, including you has the full monopoly of ideas. I really doubt it.

Let me quote you again!

“You’re completely dense and missing the point.”

That’s quite a judgement and if you want to discuss and promote your point, you don’t come with a statement like this. That’s just an advise.

Because!

You don’t advertise your logic by naming people with labels like this. “Dense” “Missing the point!”

Look Who’s talking Part III.

Behind Anger is usually insecurity.

It was you who implied there’s no potential for richness in Basketball.

It was you who suggested for all concerned to “Wait” Wait for more punishment?

Is that logical or Illogical? You answer!

Like I said, It can always be negotiated at any point at present or during the rehabilitation, a compromise between the two parties.

A solution that will be fair for both sides. If it can be done closed doors and away from the media, then so much the better.

If Monta is no longer the way he is, a voiding of the contract isnt necessary but a new round of negotiations to effect changes agreeable to both parties would be much a better alternative in the spirit of compromise and negotiation.

In other words a cut in his pay until he becomes the same player again. Monta would surely understand this. He violated a rule.

But Voiding a Contract is giving the management a righ to kick him out of the organization when they deem so. What if there’s a new in town which caught the eye of this organization? How is Monta protected here?

Fair or Unfair? You answer.

But since this whole fiasco was brought out in the media and the general public, I have to reserve my doubts about the sincerity of this organization to move on and achieve brighter things.

The Main thing here is Monta is not on sick leave.

He is suspended from work without pay for thirty games. Whether he deserves it or not is not the point. He erred. There’s a consequence and he is Man enough not face it.

But the point here is where do we draw the line where we can say he has finally paid for his error. (Note. I did not use the word punishment. Not a good business word).

Suspended, Penalized, Fined, etc. Don’t this equate to punishment somehow. Hmmm.. No because according to you Jon, this is business not crime.

So Donaghy’s action is not criminal? Just asking.

But who is accusing someone a criminal here? Im not! My point here is Violations are violations and there’s a corresponding consequence and Monta is facing the consequence of his action. But up to what point where he can fully say he has fully paid his punishment?, Ooops I mean fine?, oops, I mean penalty?

Speaking of violations, is is “lawful” to “penalize” a person twice? Business wise, Jon seems to justify it.

But Ethics and CBA wise, I strongly doubt it.

The organization gambled on a twenty one year old. They should be Men enough to face their share of consequences too.

Jon, I never declared the Warriors have already voided the contract. Read my take. I really don’t know where you got that from.

Perhaps its clear who is the person who can’t make the distinction of the current events of this issue.

Once again, I completely agree with Marcus.

Honestly, the Warriors probably should just void his deal. There’s no way that Ellis is going to command that kind of money now that he’s destroyed his ankle. He may get a small offer from another team to show if he can still run, but if I were Monta and I was really worried about making a full recovery (which it appears that he is), I would pipe down and pray the Warriors do not void. Heck, they are going to start paying him those fat paychecks in a few months anyway (for doing nothing but rehabbing).

This whole thing just makes Monta look bad.

I am with you. I feel you. He robbed the team and the fans. I still say if you suspend him 30 games for doing such, then that is your penalty. If there is not enough information — such as you don’t know if he will ever be the same — then you need to hold off on ANY punishment until you are ready to decide.
While what you are saying is true, it still doesn’t justify getting two penalties when the CBA calls for one.
I just ask you this. Say Monta serves his 30 games and returns in January. Then say in October, the Warriors determine he is damaged goods and they want to terminate his contract. Would they be then terminating his contract because he violated his contract? If so, then what was the 30-game suspension for? If you’re answer is lying, then the 30-game suspension would be excessive and perhaps against the rules (can you suspend a guy for lying?). If you’re answer is for being injured and missing games, you would be in violation of the CBA, which dictates that you cannot revoke a players contract because of injury. (You used Grant Hill. Didn’t get all of his money? Yes.) So that leaves you with saying that the 30-game suspension was for violating his contract. Now you have a problem. You’re terminating his contract for that reason. So he’s paying two separate penalties for the same crime.
How? Because if Monta isn’t suspended and the Warriors terminate his contact before year two, he should be getting $11 million of the $66 million he’s owed. But if you suspend him 30 games and terminate his contract before season two, now he’s onlt getting $8 million and not $11 million, plus “pain and suffering.”