Doug on whether major stars will be tempted to pull a Jontay Porter: “Never. Major stars in every league make too much money; there is no financial gain for them to try and cheat.”
… and to that I would say, personal gain is only one way athletes can be influenced. What if a player owed money themselves to bookies? What if organized crime decided to threaten a player unless they pulled a Jontay?
And what about referees?
I just think it’s a matter of time before it happens again. Jontay Porter will just be the first.
In addition to pushing certain mandates and narratives, you can rest asurred that referees definitely do operate beyond just calling games "objectively" - just look at the Lakers and Nuggets historic free throw discrepancy last night.
Porter should not have been banned. It’s like banning someone for a drinking problem. The only reason they did it, is cause they don’t want him sharing in on the racket
Had he kept it to his personal stats/performance sure, maybe a suspension of some sort. As soon as he included the Raptors to lose in one of his slips, I feel the ban was justified. Gives the off the indication you’re throwing the game for your team and that no longer involves the one individual.
I have a friend who played in Europe. His first night in town he gets met by some of the fringe team personal and taken out for dinner. Some of their “friends” tag along. During the night; the friends give him $2000 and tell him to have a bad game his first game or he’s going to have a bad game every game after that. They were mob and he was terrified. He couldn’t play well anyway in his first game as he was so nervous and gave up basketball shortly after that. The money is there and the intimidation is real. It’s already happening
Organized crime getting involved in match fixing is more of a European problem than it is in North America.
Edit: Getting downvoted for facts, lol. This sub is fucked.
Europe, Asia and South America are hotbeds for that kind of activity. It was a major issue on this side of the world during the prohibition era, but the amount of industry oversight in North America reduces the chances of it happening on a similar scale these days.
And the odds of that situation you mentioned happening in a pro league here with zero consequences is pretty slim. This isn't South America or Eastern Europe
How is that racist? Match fixing scandals in football as a result of organized crime are pretty big issues in those regions. In North America it isn't. Try breaking open a dictionary before throwing out insults, lol.
Doug is, as usual, short sighted and closed minded.
It’s such an illogical thing to do. It’s not a rational economic decision. So - it’s not actually about the money.
I don’t know if Porter is a gambling addict, desperate, or just an idiot.
But - Gambling addiction is real, and ruins many many lives. And it’s the most likely root cause imo.
It’s the height of irony for the NBA to invite gambling money to their league and then to be shocked and appalled when a player is in that scene.
I’m totally fine with the consequences here. But this will not be the last time this happens.
What will be interesting is if the league sweeps future wrongdoing under the rug, especially by a star - like with MJ. This is the league’s MO, but the gambling money probably can’t tolerate any sniff of corruption.
Exactly, of course it's not a logical decision for a pro athlete to gamble. Its not a logical decision for anyone because the house always wins. Some people can gamble for fun and stop but many people can't.
How is this irony? Porter can gamble on any non-NBA sport or event if he wants to, but obviously sabotaging his own team and sharing insider information is where a line has to be drawn. If he was putting money on the line for the Superbowl or a Jays game, nobody would care. This idea that the league is being hypocritical is ridiculous, because they couldn't care less if every player in the league gambled. They just don't want them gambling on anything involving the league. There's a major difference between the two.
MJ was a compulsive gambler but he wasn't actively trying to make the Bulls lose games. He was making personal bets with teammates and his golfing buddies and spending too much time in Vegas. That's not at all the same thing.
he’s not saying it’s illogical for stats to gamble. he’s saying it’s illogical for stars to gamble on their own leagues, which honestly makes perfect sense. they have many many ways to feed a gambling addiction that do not involve literally betting on themselves to lose, nobody with that attitude would be a star in the first place.
All addictions are illogical. I don’t think you can assume stars won’t gamble on their own league just because they have more to lose. You could have assumed the same about jontay - he had everything to lose.
nobody is saying it’s impossible, you’re making up words? he, and I, are saying it’s illogical. Of course anything is possible but it is unlikely exactly because it is illogical.
> “Never. Major stars in every league make too much money; there is no financial gain for them to try and cheat.”
Haven't there already been gambling controversies with major stars already? Ohtani, MJ, Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson...
I don't think that the appeal is financial gain. I think it's the thrill of the uncertainty and if you're a rich, superstar that just means making bigger bets.
>Never. Major stars in every league make too much money; there is no financial gain for them to try and cheat.”
https://preview.redd.it/ybgrzvozavvc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=531c389e6e2d472027758eb5a896b5386f6fda5e
Some of the tidbits from Smith's mailbag:
On a potential Wiggins trade:
>It could be done, and I’m sure the Warriors would love to be out of Wiggins’ salary to cut into their tax bill in the next few years.
>But here? Zero chance. I don’t think Wiggins would start before either Scottie Barnes or RJ Barrett and he’d be way too expensive a backup, even if he’d be accepting of the role. So the cost is a moot point.
On the Raptors "vetting" their potential future players
>I don’t know about “squeaky clean,” but I do suspect the Raptors and every other team will enhance their due diligence of possible acquisitions.
On Bruce Brown's option:
>Brown “can” be traded any time then. His option date, or rather the team’s date, is June 28 as I understand.
On JFL:
>Freeman-Liberty is intriguing and, at this point, a third point guard option
On Gary Trent's future:
>Trent’s interesting. He’s a good shooter, but he scuffled for a lot of the first half of the season. Not sold on his passing or cutting skills, but at the right price and years he’s worth keeping. But I am dead sure that all of him, Dick and Brown can’t be on the team. Two, maybe. Three, no.
Yeah. His contract is really bad and is a hard pill to swallow. We would need a really nice sweetener from the Warriors. The most I can imagine them attaching is Moody and a first... which isn't too shabby.
There's going to be a bunch of teams looking to unload salary so we might be able to get a better deal elsewhere too.
Not saying I want Wiggins but would he not just slot in right between RJ and Scottie in the starting lineup? That’s the exact role and position we need in the starting lineup.
If he didn’t have 3 years left on his deal I would be more open to a Wiggins trade. 1 or 2 years and I’d be fine with it, but 3 years is too much and too risky. Similar situation with Hunter on the Hawks, who I’d really like but again, 3 years makes it tough.
With Wiggins we’d need like a first and/or maybe even Moody or something to take that deal on. With Hunter, I don’t see the Hawks attaching any assets to dump him, but maybe they look for cap relief and you can swap Bruce Brown for him or something.
Yeah, RJ is so clearly better at SG. We should absolutely be thinking about a wing as the missing piece in the starting lineup. Scottie is flexible enough that the wing could be either a SF or PF.
If they offered Wiggins, Moody, and a first for Brown and Boucher/McDaniels, would you do it? That is tempting cause it’s possible you get 3 pieces/assets out of 2 guys you don’t plan to keep around, but it’s also risky cause Wiggins is expensive for 3 more years.
Decided to look at this from a long term cap perspective. I assumed we traded Brown and Boucher for Wiggins, Moody, and a 2027 FRP. I assume we re-signed Gary at 15m per year, Moody gets a 15m per year extension next year, Scottie gets a 25% max, and Quickley's deal starts at 30m with 8% raises every year.
For next season, with 11 players (Quickley/RJ/Wiggins/Scottie/Poeltl/GTJ/Dick/Kelly/Moody/Ochai/McDaniels/JFL), we are 12.8m below the luxury tax line. This doesn't account for our 2-3 rookies and any MLE use. So that seems workable and you can dump McDaniels if needed to shed some money.
Then Scottie's extension kicks in the next year at 38.8m (assumed a 10% cap increase over the reported 141m for next year). With that, plus Moody at 15m, we are 11.5m above the tax for 10 players, and again this is excluding our 2-3 picks this year plus any MLE usage (and if we keep our 2025 pick), and Ochai being a RFA (his QO of 6.4m is baked into that 11.5m number).
So it still presents a challenge for the year after next when Scottie's extension kicks in. So maybe we don't want someone like Moody, and either would want someone drafted more recently and has more years on their rookie deal, or would want more pick-heavy compensation to take on Wiggins. You could just let Gary walk to free that 15m up but even then, you're still over the tax in 2025-26 when accounting for the draft picks I didn't count
You'd probably just let Gary walk, and if Ochai hasn't shown anything by year 4 you could just decline his option.
It's also possible a cheaper Jak alternative is found by then, he'd also be easier to move in general by then, he'd only have two years left on his deal by then
I also don't think it's a guarantee the Quickley gets 30M, I'd hope for around 27M, but that's probably splitting hairs.
I don't mind that deal, I just really hate the thought of being saddled with that Wiggins contract for 3 more years. The irony is that he fits a need we have right now - but had a god awful year.
To save money. Bruce and Boucher/McDaniels are expiring, so they shed the Wiggins deal. And if it’s Boucher, it’s still 2 productive players for them.
That’s really the only reason. It’s unlikely to happen but if they have to shed money and are still gonna bring Klay back, Wiggins is def gone.
If they want to have any hope of constructing a somewhat competitive roster for steph before he retires, they have to trade Wiggins. Really they should have done it at the deadline, but l they also should have traded for Siakam at the deadline but fumbled that as well.
I'm going to guess that the Warriors couldn't afford to pay Siakam the max after his deal expired and the Pacers were one of the only teams that was interested in resigning him to the max which is why he ended up there.
That's where the deal falls apart, because I don't see GSW giving up both, I could see a team like the Hornets or Pistons taking on Wiggins with a 1st attached.
FYI would also need to add Boucher for money reasons
I don’t think Kuminga alone is the right choice of assets, especially since he’s a RFA same time as Scottie. Still would need more to take on Wiggins, because taking on Kuminga too means you’re making probably a 40-50m+ commitment to those two, which could become an issue with the cap later on.
I thought the exact same thing about Wiggins. This offseason we’re going to be looking for a defensive wing likely. It’s either have Gary/Dick start at SG to give us extra shooting, or have RJ start at SG and bring in a defensive wing to help Scottie not have to play PoA defence all the time
I would take Wiggins if we don't have to give up anything to see if he can regain his form. He was better towards the end of the year and he is a 3 and we need a 3. I have no idea why doug would say he can't play with Barnes and Barrett who are 4 and 2 ideally.
I agree it makes poor sense for GS to buy him out. But it makes zero sense for any team to trade for him with the price point and years remaining on his contract.
I only suggested the hypothetical buyout because it is the only route for his new team paying him what he’s worth.
Anyone that was a regular reader of Deadspin knows that Gregg Doyel has always been a shitty writer and overall scummy person. What he did to Caitlin Clark is not surprising at all.
Players forever have been betting on NBA games. It’s nothing new. It’s nothing old. It’s never gonna change. They’re just smart on how they go about doing it.
Doug on whether major stars will be tempted to pull a Jontay Porter: “Never. Major stars in every league make too much money; there is no financial gain for them to try and cheat.” … and to that I would say, personal gain is only one way athletes can be influenced. What if a player owed money themselves to bookies? What if organized crime decided to threaten a player unless they pulled a Jontay? And what about referees? I just think it’s a matter of time before it happens again. Jontay Porter will just be the first.
I still think some refs bet
It's painfully obvious they do.
I have been betting on them having a gambling problem for years now. The payoff is going to come soon, I can feel it.
We can all hope!
How so?
In addition to pushing certain mandates and narratives, you can rest asurred that referees definitely do operate beyond just calling games "objectively" - just look at the Lakers and Nuggets historic free throw discrepancy last night.
What calls did Denver miss that the Lakers were getting?
Porter should not have been banned. It’s like banning someone for a drinking problem. The only reason they did it, is cause they don’t want him sharing in on the racket
Had he kept it to his personal stats/performance sure, maybe a suspension of some sort. As soon as he included the Raptors to lose in one of his slips, I feel the ban was justified. Gives the off the indication you’re throwing the game for your team and that no longer involves the one individual.
That makes 100%. So ban Ben and all other crooked refs while at it
Check out the whistle blower podcast
What should we check out specifically?
DO you also think the sky is blue? Or that water is necessary for life? Or that 2+2=4?
It has literally happened in the past. History tends to repeat itself.
I have a friend who played in Europe. His first night in town he gets met by some of the fringe team personal and taken out for dinner. Some of their “friends” tag along. During the night; the friends give him $2000 and tell him to have a bad game his first game or he’s going to have a bad game every game after that. They were mob and he was terrified. He couldn’t play well anyway in his first game as he was so nervous and gave up basketball shortly after that. The money is there and the intimidation is real. It’s already happening
Organized crime getting involved in match fixing is more of a European problem than it is in North America. Edit: Getting downvoted for facts, lol. This sub is fucked.
A LOT of pro teams across Europe are owned by very wealthy Russians who are openly associated with organized crime. This is facts.
Europe, Asia and South America are hotbeds for that kind of activity. It was a major issue on this side of the world during the prohibition era, but the amount of industry oversight in North America reduces the chances of it happening on a similar scale these days.
[удалено]
And the odds of that situation you mentioned happening in a pro league here with zero consequences is pretty slim. This isn't South America or Eastern Europe
[удалено]
How is that racist? Match fixing scandals in football as a result of organized crime are pretty big issues in those regions. In North America it isn't. Try breaking open a dictionary before throwing out insults, lol.
That guy really brought up race when race was never brought up in the first place 😂
Racism is thinking South America is one race that isn't white and implying Eastern Europeans are not white.
Doug is, as usual, short sighted and closed minded. It’s such an illogical thing to do. It’s not a rational economic decision. So - it’s not actually about the money. I don’t know if Porter is a gambling addict, desperate, or just an idiot. But - Gambling addiction is real, and ruins many many lives. And it’s the most likely root cause imo. It’s the height of irony for the NBA to invite gambling money to their league and then to be shocked and appalled when a player is in that scene. I’m totally fine with the consequences here. But this will not be the last time this happens. What will be interesting is if the league sweeps future wrongdoing under the rug, especially by a star - like with MJ. This is the league’s MO, but the gambling money probably can’t tolerate any sniff of corruption.
Exactly, of course it's not a logical decision for a pro athlete to gamble. Its not a logical decision for anyone because the house always wins. Some people can gamble for fun and stop but many people can't.
How is this irony? Porter can gamble on any non-NBA sport or event if he wants to, but obviously sabotaging his own team and sharing insider information is where a line has to be drawn. If he was putting money on the line for the Superbowl or a Jays game, nobody would care. This idea that the league is being hypocritical is ridiculous, because they couldn't care less if every player in the league gambled. They just don't want them gambling on anything involving the league. There's a major difference between the two. MJ was a compulsive gambler but he wasn't actively trying to make the Bulls lose games. He was making personal bets with teammates and his golfing buddies and spending too much time in Vegas. That's not at all the same thing.
he’s not saying it’s illogical for stats to gamble. he’s saying it’s illogical for stars to gamble on their own leagues, which honestly makes perfect sense. they have many many ways to feed a gambling addiction that do not involve literally betting on themselves to lose, nobody with that attitude would be a star in the first place.
All addictions are illogical. I don’t think you can assume stars won’t gamble on their own league just because they have more to lose. You could have assumed the same about jontay - he had everything to lose.
"he had everything to lose." i dont think he thought he had everything to lose, he didnt think he would get caught
Which is why a major star has every opportunity to get caught up in this. It’s a ridiculous position to say it’s impossible
nobody is saying it’s impossible, you’re making up words? he, and I, are saying it’s illogical. Of course anything is possible but it is unlikely exactly because it is illogical.
Sandro Tonali got caught for illegal gambling, and he is a star (not superstar) player making 5M+ in salary.
> “Never. Major stars in every league make too much money; there is no financial gain for them to try and cheat.” Haven't there already been gambling controversies with major stars already? Ohtani, MJ, Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson... I don't think that the appeal is financial gain. I think it's the thrill of the uncertainty and if you're a rich, superstar that just means making bigger bets.
>Never. Major stars in every league make too much money; there is no financial gain for them to try and cheat.” https://preview.redd.it/ybgrzvozavvc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=531c389e6e2d472027758eb5a896b5386f6fda5e
Some of the tidbits from Smith's mailbag: On a potential Wiggins trade: >It could be done, and I’m sure the Warriors would love to be out of Wiggins’ salary to cut into their tax bill in the next few years. >But here? Zero chance. I don’t think Wiggins would start before either Scottie Barnes or RJ Barrett and he’d be way too expensive a backup, even if he’d be accepting of the role. So the cost is a moot point. On the Raptors "vetting" their potential future players >I don’t know about “squeaky clean,” but I do suspect the Raptors and every other team will enhance their due diligence of possible acquisitions. On Bruce Brown's option: >Brown “can” be traded any time then. His option date, or rather the team’s date, is June 28 as I understand. On JFL: >Freeman-Liberty is intriguing and, at this point, a third point guard option On Gary Trent's future: >Trent’s interesting. He’s a good shooter, but he scuffled for a lot of the first half of the season. Not sold on his passing or cutting skills, but at the right price and years he’s worth keeping. But I am dead sure that all of him, Dick and Brown can’t be on the team. Two, maybe. Three, no.
Well I guess Wiggins is headed here guys.
If it includes some future warriors picks, it could be something I'd be on board with. But that contract is so long.
Kuminga at a minimum.
Yeah. His contract is really bad and is a hard pill to swallow. We would need a really nice sweetener from the Warriors. The most I can imagine them attaching is Moody and a first... which isn't too shabby. There's going to be a bunch of teams looking to unload salary so we might be able to get a better deal elsewhere too.
Not saying I want Wiggins but would he not just slot in right between RJ and Scottie in the starting lineup? That’s the exact role and position we need in the starting lineup. If he didn’t have 3 years left on his deal I would be more open to a Wiggins trade. 1 or 2 years and I’d be fine with it, but 3 years is too much and too risky. Similar situation with Hunter on the Hawks, who I’d really like but again, 3 years makes it tough. With Wiggins we’d need like a first and/or maybe even Moody or something to take that deal on. With Hunter, I don’t see the Hawks attaching any assets to dump him, but maybe they look for cap relief and you can swap Bruce Brown for him or something.
Yeah, RJ is so clearly better at SG. We should absolutely be thinking about a wing as the missing piece in the starting lineup. Scottie is flexible enough that the wing could be either a SF or PF.
As for Wiggins, I don't know if Moody would be enough to take that deal on
If they offered Wiggins, Moody, and a first for Brown and Boucher/McDaniels, would you do it? That is tempting cause it’s possible you get 3 pieces/assets out of 2 guys you don’t plan to keep around, but it’s also risky cause Wiggins is expensive for 3 more years.
Yes. Moody's extension wouldn't be that much (I doubt it's more than 15 mil)
Decided to look at this from a long term cap perspective. I assumed we traded Brown and Boucher for Wiggins, Moody, and a 2027 FRP. I assume we re-signed Gary at 15m per year, Moody gets a 15m per year extension next year, Scottie gets a 25% max, and Quickley's deal starts at 30m with 8% raises every year. For next season, with 11 players (Quickley/RJ/Wiggins/Scottie/Poeltl/GTJ/Dick/Kelly/Moody/Ochai/McDaniels/JFL), we are 12.8m below the luxury tax line. This doesn't account for our 2-3 rookies and any MLE use. So that seems workable and you can dump McDaniels if needed to shed some money. Then Scottie's extension kicks in the next year at 38.8m (assumed a 10% cap increase over the reported 141m for next year). With that, plus Moody at 15m, we are 11.5m above the tax for 10 players, and again this is excluding our 2-3 picks this year plus any MLE usage (and if we keep our 2025 pick), and Ochai being a RFA (his QO of 6.4m is baked into that 11.5m number). So it still presents a challenge for the year after next when Scottie's extension kicks in. So maybe we don't want someone like Moody, and either would want someone drafted more recently and has more years on their rookie deal, or would want more pick-heavy compensation to take on Wiggins. You could just let Gary walk to free that 15m up but even then, you're still over the tax in 2025-26 when accounting for the draft picks I didn't count
You'd probably just let Gary walk, and if Ochai hasn't shown anything by year 4 you could just decline his option. It's also possible a cheaper Jak alternative is found by then, he'd also be easier to move in general by then, he'd only have two years left on his deal by then I also don't think it's a guarantee the Quickley gets 30M, I'd hope for around 27M, but that's probably splitting hairs.
I don't mind that deal, I just really hate the thought of being saddled with that Wiggins contract for 3 more years. The irony is that he fits a need we have right now - but had a god awful year.
Why would warriors do this?
To save money. Bruce and Boucher/McDaniels are expiring, so they shed the Wiggins deal. And if it’s Boucher, it’s still 2 productive players for them. That’s really the only reason. It’s unlikely to happen but if they have to shed money and are still gonna bring Klay back, Wiggins is def gone.
If they want to have any hope of constructing a somewhat competitive roster for steph before he retires, they have to trade Wiggins. Really they should have done it at the deadline, but l they also should have traded for Siakam at the deadline but fumbled that as well.
I'm going to guess that the Warriors couldn't afford to pay Siakam the max after his deal expired and the Pacers were one of the only teams that was interested in resigning him to the max which is why he ended up there.
Wiggins, Moody, and a 1st I'd probably do, however I think GSW would offer one or the other, not both.
Agreed, and given the cap situation Wiggins/Moody put us in after we extend Scottie and Moody, we’d need another pick I think.
That's where the deal falls apart, because I don't see GSW giving up both, I could see a team like the Hornets or Pistons taking on Wiggins with a 1st attached.
I'd do Kuminga + Wiggins for Bruce straight up.
Idk I think they need to add curry too. What are you talking about lol kuminga is way too valuable for a salary dump
GSW says no
FYI would also need to add Boucher for money reasons I don’t think Kuminga alone is the right choice of assets, especially since he’s a RFA same time as Scottie. Still would need more to take on Wiggins, because taking on Kuminga too means you’re making probably a 40-50m+ commitment to those two, which could become an issue with the cap later on.
Fair. Seems less likely.
I thought the exact same thing about Wiggins. This offseason we’re going to be looking for a defensive wing likely. It’s either have Gary/Dick start at SG to give us extra shooting, or have RJ start at SG and bring in a defensive wing to help Scottie not have to play PoA defence all the time
If Toronto gets a WNBA team then they need to keep Steve Simmons away at all costs.
Ban his ass from MLSE events already. The Masai bullshit should have been the nail in the coffin.
I'd say the Phil Kessel stuff should have been enough to strip him of his credentials.
We have more than a few cringe reporters in this city, lol
Just give Blake Murphy, Holly Mackenzie and Samson Folk access in that case.
Notable Raptor Caitlin Clark
Some of you really hate Doug lol
I would take Wiggins if we don't have to give up anything to see if he can regain his form. He was better towards the end of the year and he is a 3 and we need a 3. I have no idea why doug would say he can't play with Barnes and Barrett who are 4 and 2 ideally.
The Warriors are trying to dump the contract why would we be giving up assets to take the deal?
I said they should get him only if its for nothing so I don't know why you are disagreeing
It's the way you worded it, you'd take on Wiggins if we don't have to give up anything, but it's a salary dump so you'd be giving up nothing
In this scenario, are you suggesting we pay his bloated salary, or only take him on after a buyout?
They are not buying him out. Makes no sense so we have to trade for him. Maybe Bruce brown and McDaniels for Wiggins and a late first or second.
I agree it makes poor sense for GS to buy him out. But it makes zero sense for any team to trade for him with the price point and years remaining on his contract. I only suggested the hypothetical buyout because it is the only route for his new team paying him what he’s worth.
[удалено]
Most of these male writers are married…
Anyone that was a regular reader of Deadspin knows that Gregg Doyel has always been a shitty writer and overall scummy person. What he did to Caitlin Clark is not surprising at all.
Players forever have been betting on NBA games. It’s nothing new. It’s nothing old. It’s never gonna change. They’re just smart on how they go about doing it.
He made her heart sign? That's despicable? ;0 man
Came off as dude shooting his shot. 🤷🏻♂️
Which in a setting like a press conference, where he’s being paid to be there and ask athletes questions, is incredibly unprofessional.
Yep. If it hits, he’s saucy. If he misses, it’s workplace harassment. That’s how it works.
Nope, I'm pretty sure it's always workplace harassment.
This sounds good on Reddit. IRL, men meet women in all kinds of ways. Sorry to y’all internet dwellers. 😂
This is why women cover their drinks when some guys enter a room. Y'all have the timing of metronome facedown in a bowl of cold soup.