For its first CTV campaign, Jennifer Aniston’s DTC haircare brand LolaVie had a few non-negotiables. The campaign had to be simple. It had to demonstrate measurable impact. And it had to be full-funnel.

LolaVie used Roku Ads Manager to test and optimize creatives — reaching millions of potential customers at all stages of their purchase journeys. Roku Ads Manager helped the brand convey LolaVie’s playful voice while helping drive omnichannel sales across both ecommerce and retail touchpoints.

The campaign included an Action Ad overlay that let viewers shop directly from their TVs by clicking OK on their Roku remote. This guided them to the website to buy LolaVie products.

Discover how Roku Ads Manager helped LolaVie drive big sales and customer growth with self-serve TV ads.

The DTC beauty category is crowded. To break through, Jennifer Aniston’s brand LolaVie, worked with Roku Ads Manager to easily set up, test, and optimize CTV ad creatives. The campaign helped drive a big lift in sales and customer growth, helping LolaVie break through in the crowded beauty category.

Learn more.

The league handed down its (first) penalty to the Clippers and Kawhi Leonard on Wednesday for paying him tens of millions the cap said they couldn't. Five first-round picks, a $30 million fine, a year ban for Steve Ballmer, a year for Gillian Zucker, six months for Lawrence Frank, five years of league monitoring, a five-year ban for Dennis Robertson (Kawhi’s Uncle), and $700,000 from Kawhi. I'm sure you've seen all of it. What I want to talk about is what's next, and one thing I think almost everyone is getting wrong.

Kawhi Leonard might not be as complicit in these schemes as the public makes him out to be. Not innocent. Not a bystander. But the default read, that Kawhi wanted this, drove this, and is laughing his way out of the country with his minuscule fine and that doesn't fully line up for me. The document the league published describes a scheme built by the Clippers' business side, demanded by Dennis Robertson, and papered over with Kawhi's signature. Kawhi is the product here, not the architect. And the fact the league didn’t void his contract reflects this.

Go read the Wachtell Lipton report. Every finding against Kawhi is phrased the same way: Mr. Leonard, "through the conduct of Mr. Robertson on his behalf," violated the circumvention rules. The investigators use the construction over and over. When you strip out everything Dennis did and look only at what the report says Kawhi personally did, you get a short list:

Now compare that to what the principal offenders in the report did. Dennis set a target of roughly $10 million a year in off-court income within months of Kawhi signing in 2019 and pushed it on Frank, Ballmer, and Zucker. In April 2020 he was on the phone with Ballmer and Frank complaining that Zucker's introductions weren't good enough and that he couldn't wait on her, because he had to get paid. Zucker sent three "introduction" emails inside a six-day window, inside Dennis's deadline, each written to look like the company had come asking when investigators found no evidence any of them had.

That was the method, not a lapse. Zucker fed proposed terms for the Aspiration contract to a business agent on retainer with the Clippers and gave input on the term sheet before the formal introduction was ever sent. Frank relayed Dennis's demands and signed off on the personal expenses the team was covering for Kawhi and his representatives. Ballmer, who the report says engaged in at least one significant act of team facilitation, approved the Forum deal after being told Sanberg wouldn't sign Kawhi without it. And a senior Clippers executive told Daktronics what to pay Kawhi, $3 million a year for two years, as spend-back on the Intuit Dome scoreboard contract, then came back the following year and told them to add $2 million because the team had decided to spend more on the board. Daktronics paid because it believed that refusing might cost it the arena.

Where is Kawhi in the mechanics of any of that? He isn't in the team's meetings. He isn't on the team's texts. The pressure came from Dennis². The quid pro quo with the vendors came from Zucker. The money that made the vendors whole came out of Ballmer's businesses. Kawhi surfaces exactly once in the machinery, on the vendor side, asking Aspiration to pay him in cash instead of stock. Which is what any athlete's representative asks for, and which requires knowing nothing about why the money exists. Everywhere else his contribution to the scheme was to be very good at basketball and to sign what was put in front of him³.

The report never shows him initializing any of it. It shows Dennis picking the number, Dennis making the calls, Dennis issuing the deadlines. It attributes those demands to Kawhi as a matter of agency, the way it has to, because Dennis was his business manager and a player answers for what his representative does on his behalf. But agency is a legal relationship. It is not a finding about what Kawhi wanted.

The obvious objection is that this report runs on inference everywhere, so inference here proves nothing. Fair enough. The league suspended an owner for a year without citing direct evidence that he ordered any of it, on the strength of what his organization knew and what he failed to prevent. That's a real limit on my read. It also cuts the other way: a report willing to hold a man responsible for conditions he merely allowed had every tool it needed to say Kawhi drove this, and never said it.

Then look at what the league chose to do, and what it chose not to. Article XIII let it void Kawhi's contract. It has done that before, to Joe Smith, whose Minnesota deals were torn up and whose Bird rights went with them over a secret side agreement. The league could have suspended Kawhi too. It did neither. What it did instead was order $700,000 in restitution, which is not a fine but a return of improper benefits the Clippers had covered for him and Dennis. The fine it could have imposed was capped at $350,000 for a first violation anyway, so the number was never going to say much⁴. The two discretionary choices are what say something.

Set that against everyone else. Five years for Dennis. A year for Ballmer. A year, unpaid, for Zucker. Six months, paid, for Frank. Five years of monitoring, $30 million, and five first-round picks for the franchise. If the league believed Kawhi was the engine of this, that is not reflective in how it sorted the blame.

The same pile of money meant something completely different to each person who touched it. To Ballmer it was noise. To Kawhi it was real but not transformative. To Dennis Robertson it was the entire ballgame.

Run the arithmetic. Boingo, Daktronics, and Lockton owed Kawhi $18 million combined, and the report says all $18 million was paid by August 2021. Aspiration was $48 million on paper, $7 million cash and $5 million in equity per year for four years, but Aspiration was a fraud that went bankrupt, so the equity is somewhat worth nothing and the cash stopped early. Kawhi said at media day in September 2025 that he never collected what he was owed and that the shortfall was bigger than the $7 million listed in the bankruptcy filing. Call it somewhere in the $30 to $40 million range that actually cleared, over five years.

I'm not going to insult you by calling that a small amount of money. It's more than most players in this league earn in a career, and it arrived outside the cap, which is the whole point of it. Set against roughly $375 million in on-court salary, it isn't life-changing money for Kawhi though¹¹. It is life-changing money for almost anyone else in the story.

The stronger objection isn't about the size of the check anyway. It's that the motive was never cash, it was cap space. Every dollar a sponsor pays a star is a dollar the team doesn't have to fit under the cap, and a max player chasing rings has an obvious reason to want a better roster around him. That's the version of the theory I find hardest to dismiss, and I want to be straight that I can't dismiss it entirely. What I can say is that it appears nowhere in the report. Robertson's demand predates every one of these deals: approximately $10 million a year, communicated to Frank, Ballmer, and Zucker within months of the 2019 signing. Across 200,000 pages of documents and 73 interviews, investigators do not quote a single person describing any of this as a way to improve the team's books.

Now look at Dennis. He has no contract with the Clippers, no contract with the league, no standing with the players' union, no real position anywhere in professional basketball. Proximity to his nephew is the only asset he has ever had to sell. The report has him selling it constantly: the $10 million target, the April 2020 call where he complained to Ballmer that Zucker was making introductions for "bullshit deals" and that he couldn't wait on her because he had to get paid, the three-to-six-month plan he demanded, the list of five or six companies he wanted in the pipeline. Ballmer's answer, per Frank's contemporaneous notes, was that everyone at the Clippers were "collective workers" helping Kawhi hit his financial goals.

Then the timing. Zucker's three "introduction" emails went out over six days in early June 2020. On June 9, the same day she sent the second one, three days after the first and before the third, the articles of organization for KL2 LBS LLC were filed⁵. Kawhi and Dennis are the members. Investigators flagged it for the obvious reason: someone was already making legal arrangements to collect money that could not possibly have been negotiated yet.

What the report never says is what Dennis got. It confirms the Clippers paid personal expenses for Kawhi, his family, and Robertson, with instances of flights, hotels, gifts, and tickets. But it never puts a figure on Robertson's share of the endorsement money. That's the number I most want and don't have, and its absence is a real limit on everything I've argued here. My guess is all this went into shared bank accounts and the smoking gun would be those bank statements.

One more thing about that media day, since I'm using it. At the same podium where Kawhi said Aspiration still owed him, he was asked whether it was true he'd done nothing for the money and said he didn't think that was accurate. I don't believe him. The report found his only confirmed activity across three of the four agreements was one visit to a military base and signing some memorabilia. But he said it, and it's the strongest thing in the record suggesting he understood these deals as things he was supposed to be defending. But it’s a fine line between being in lockstep with Uncle Dennis in these schemes and letting him do everything and just relaying what Uncle Dennis told him.

Here's the part I think got missed at the time. When Kawhi signed in 2019, the reaction was mild confusion or disappointment. Three years with a player option on the third, so really two guaranteed. For a 28-year-old Finals MVP with his pick of the league, that's a short commitment. Especially for an injury riddled player.

Watch what that structure does. It means that from July 2019 until August 2021, every single day is a live renegotiation. Dennis is never a guy asking for favors from a team that already has what it wants. He's a guy with a hand out and a departure date.

Now line up the money. All $18 million from Boingo, Daktronics, and Lockton was paid out by August 2021. The exact month Kawhi re-signed. The leverage window and the payment window close on the same page of the calendar.

And then it keeps going. Aspiration's deals with the Clippers and Ballmer closed in September 2021. On October 25, Zucker sat down with Joe Sanberg and raised the idea of team sponsors doing endorsement deals with players, using Kawhi as her example. That's two months into the new contract. Ballmer's entire public defense has been that they were done with Kawhi before Aspiration ever came up.

They were. That's the problem. The leverage was gone, and the money kept coming anyway, which means the Aspiration deal wasn't leverage at all. It was the bill arriving after the fact. The consideration for re-signing, delivered on a delay long enough that the two things would never sit on the same document.

Everything up to here came out of a 35-page report. This next part doesn't. I'm reasoning past the record rather than from it, because that’s all we can do right now.

Two facts about Kawhi Leonard sit right next to each other and nobody connects them.

The first is that Dennis Robertson has been asking professional basketball teams for things they are not allowed to give since at least 2019. The Athletic reported that during that summer's free agency he asked Jeanie Buss for part ownership of the Lakers, a private plane available at all times, a house, and a guaranteed number for off-court endorsement income. Buss told him those things were illegal. He made similar requests in Toronto. The league investigated, found no evidence any team had actually granted them, and then built an entire rules enforcement initiative around this episode. A new reporting requirement, plus a compliance training it ran with every franchise in the NBA. Wachtell states it flatly: the initiative existed as a direct result of Robertson's conduct on Leonard's behalf.

The second fact is that Kawhi Leonard says less in public than any superstar of his era.

The quiet ones are who get taken advantage of. Michael Beasley made more than $30 million across eleven NBA seasons and has said publicly that his family and his accountant took all of it. The detail that sticks with me is how he characterized the family part: not criminal, at least not at first, just people spending faster than he could earn. He has also said that by the time he was a teenager at draft camps, peers were telling him his relatives and handlers were already pocketing six figures. The accountant, he alleges, took what was left. Beasley went broke and spent two years sleeping in his car.

Kawhi's situation is not exactly that. He came out of this tens of millions ahead and nobody needs to feel sorry for him. But the mechanism is the same one, and the mechanism is what I'm after. A player who is quiet, or private, or simply uninterested in the business side hands the business side to family. Family operates without supervision, because supervising family means accusing family. The professionals in the orbit convert the family's pressure into actual transactions, because converting pressure into transactions is what professionals do. In Beasley's telling it ended with a CPA. In Kawhi's it ended with a team president of business operations writing introduction emails designed to look like someone else had asked for them. Robertson is Kawhi's mother's brother and has run his business affairs since he was a teenager.

So what did Kawhi know? The 2019 investigation was public by that December. He was the player at the center of it. His own franchise sat through the league's compliance training a month later. I can't prove he understood that his uncle had become an NBA problem, but I don't think you can reach 2020 in his position and not understand it to some degree. He kept Dennis employed anyway. Six more years.

Then, in early July 2026, on the day the Toronto trade was agreed on, he reportedly fired him. He fired Mitch Frankel the same day (his certified agent) and handed the extension negotiation to Harrison Gaines, who had been his business attorney for the previous year.

The easy read is cleanup: investigation winding down, new team, bad optics, cut the uncle loose. But the date runs backwards for that theory. Agent commissions are capped at four percent and they get paid when a contract gets signed. Leonard's Toronto extension is worth up to $123.7 million. Firing your representation the week extension talks open signals who you want to get that four percent. If this were image management, the cheap version was sitting right there. Keep them through the signing, let them collect, separate quietly in the fall. He did do the opposite.

I don't know what happened in the eleven months between Pablo Torre's first episode and that morning. Wachtell interviewed Leonard somewhere in that window; the report confirms it without saying when or how often. My guess is that at some point he was shown the same things we can all now read in a PDF: the June 9 filing, the six-day run of manufactured introductions, Sanberg threatening to call him directly and explain who had actually killed his deal, and worked out that the people managing his affairs had been managing something else¹².

"He couldn't bring himself to fire his uncle" and "he was perfectly content with the arrangement" predict the identical seven years. Same silence, same deposits, same LLC with his initials on it. The sympathetic version can't be disproved, which is the best argument against it. The firing is the first moment in the entire story where the two readings come apart. It isn't proof of anything. It's just the only fact here that the cynical read has to explain it away rather than simply absorb.

Kawhi Leonard is a member of KL2 LBS LLC. The articles of organization were filed on June 9, 2020, three days after Zucker's first "introduction," the same day she sent the second, before the third went out¹³. Somebody in his camp was papering an entity to receive money before any negotiation with any of those companies could plausibly have begun. His signature is on four endorsement agreements. He reportedly personally asked Aspiration to swap the cash and equity components of his deal, which is engagement with terms, not passive receipt of a document. The report finds that he failed to reimburse the Clippers for unauthorized personal expenses, hundreds of instances of them, although the Clippers could have never made him aware of this.

At media day in September 2025, asked directly by Ramona Shelburne whether Kawhi understood the Aspiration contract, what he was owed, and what he was supposed to do for it, he said: "I understand the full contract and the services I had to do."

That's a real case though. Anyone telling you Kawhi is totally innocent has to get past all of it, and I can't.

But here's where I’m at with this.

Every item on that list establishes that Kawhi knew he was being paid. None of them establishes that he knew how the payment was engineered. And under the CBA those are two separate violations with two separate defenses, which is the distinction I think the entire public conversation has conflated.

Article XIII prohibits two things. It prohibits the arrangements themselves and it separately prohibits a player or his representative from soliciting them. On the arrangement, the record is moves in one direction: a senior Clippers executive telling Daktronics the precise number to pay Kawhi as spend-back on a scoreboard contract, then returning a year later to raise it because the team had decided to spend more on the board. A Forum term sheet with a line reading "$7M back in business," the same figure as the annual cash portion of Kawhi's Aspiration deal, entered before anyone had calculated a single ton of the Forum's emissions. Aspiration's C-suite agreeing internally they'd be fine as long as it was cashflow neutral. A credible witness told investigators that one of the consulting agreements was a sham built to move team money to a company so the company could move it to Kawhi. Every one of those things happened between the Clippers and a vendor, or inside a vendor. There is no version of the record where Kawhi is in those rooms.

On solicitation, I'm not claiming ignorance, because ignorance isn't the defense there. Agency is. Robertson made the demands and a principal answers for his agent. That's a legal relationship, and it's the one the report invokes, twice, in identical language. It is not a finding about what Kawhi wanted. Those are different sentences and the league wrote the one it’s lawyers could support.

Which brings me to the thing I should have led with. The $700,000 is restitution for the personal expenses. That's it. Read the conclusion: he violated the CBA by failing to reimburse payments for unauthorized personal expenses, many of which Robertson requested. So the league assessed him nothing for the endorsement scheme itself.

And consider what the expenses finding actually is. Teams cover flights and hotels and tickets for players constantly. The CBA requires them to deduct it from the player's pay, and the deduction is where teams get sloppy. It's the kind of thing an audit turns up at most franchises if you audit hard enough, and the Clippers were audited harder than any team in recent memory⁶. Frank was the one who authorized the payments. What that means is that after 11 months, 73 interviews, and 200,000 pages, the only thing investigators could put on Kawhi's ledger directly was a bookkeeping failure on somebody else's paperwork. If they had more, it would be in there⁷.

The media day quote is the piece of this I've turned over most, because it's the one sentence in the whole story that comes from his own mouth about his own knowledge. Two things about it. The first is that it contradicts him within the same press conference: asked minutes later how much the Aspiration deal had actually paid him, he said he didn't know, it was two, three, four years ago. A man with command of a contract generally does not lose track of what it paid. The second is the register. "I don't deal with the conspiracies or the clickbait analysts" is not testimony. It's a famously uncommunicative athlete shutting down a line of questioning he doesn't want, and both answers are doing the same work. I don't think he was making a considered representation about his contractual knowledge. I think he was just getting off the podium.

Then there's a detail I initially read against myself and now read the other way. When the Forum negotiation stalled in March 2022, Sanberg's threat was that he would call Dennis and Kawhi and be totally honest with them about why the deal was dying. Eric Chan, then the Clippers' CFO, wrote to Ballmer's investment chief asking whether Steve understood that Sanberg was about to call Kawhi and tell him his $12 million deal was gone because of Clippers management. Look at what makes that a threat. It only has force to the degree with which it is a revelatio for Kawhi. If it’s just simply “hey, your business partner isn’t hold up their end, so we are done here” then that’s not too much. If it’s “hey, let’s make you aware of this whole scheme in order to pay your Uncle,” then that’s a bigger threat! You do not weaponize disclosure against a man who already knows, and the Clippers' own CFO was worried about exactly that call landing.

Last piece, and I want to be precise about what kind of argument it is. If Kawhi had done one real day of work for Aspiration: a commercial, a press release, an appearance, anything, the no-show framing that made this a national story never exists. He's shot commercials before. He knows how it works. Nobody staged even the appearance of a real endorsement.

That's an argument about competence, not innocence. It doesn't prove he didn't know. It proves nobody was managing the story, and the person you'd expect to manage it was the person collecting the checks. Dennis wanted the money in the account. He did not appear to spend one minute thinking about how any of it would look if somebody read the paperwork out loud.

None of the four agreements were ever publicly announced, and investigators flag that as defeating the entire purpose of an endorsement deal. That's deliberate invisibility, not carelessness. But work through whose interest it serves. Concealment protects the Clippers and the vendors. Activation would have protected Kawhi assuming he was on board with all of this. The silence is evidence about what the people running this wanted, and what they wanted was for nobody to look.

On August 17, Don Van Natta Jr., Baxter Holmes, and Ramona Shelburne reported that the NBA had found no evidence Steve Ballmer funneled money through team sponsors to pay Kawhi Leonard, sourced to three people with knowledge of discussions between the league and the team. The same day, the Clippers put out a public statement defending the introductions as ordinary practice.

Mike Bass, the league's chief communications officer, responded that the NBA had declined to cooperate with the story and that it contained numerous and significant inaccuracies.

Two things landing on the same date is not a coincidence, and Wachtell noticed. The report specifically dates the Clippers' public statement to August 17 and spends a paragraph explaining why the theory in it is wrong. This was a coordinated push during active penalty negotiations, and it came from one side of the table. When it crossed my feed I filed it as a blip. It's worth going back to, because the wording is very important.

The claim was that investigators found no evidence Ballmer funneled money through sponsors. Read what that leaves untouched. It says nothing about Zucker. It says nothing about Frank. It says nothing about whether the team initiated, facilitated, or induced anything. Billionaires do not wire the money themselves. They approve the deal that makes the money possible. That distinction has a name in this report: facilitation. Ballmer got a facilitation finding. He approved the Forum Agreement knowing Sanberg had made it a precondition for the Kawhi contract. That is a real finding, and it is not a funneling finding, and both of those sentences are true at once.

The same ESPN story said the league was instead looking at whether the introductions themselves were the violation and whether the team had failed to supervise its people. That was the actual news in the piece, and it turned out to be the entire case⁸. Two of the sources also said a circumvention charge built on introductions wouldn't survive arbitration. One even called it dead on arrival. Which explains a great deal about what happened two weeks later, because the NBPA signed off and agreed the penalties were final and binding. The arbitration door the Clippers were counting on closed before they reached it.

Now the letter, which people are quoting like it's a rebuttal. David Kelley, Ballmer's attorney at O'Melveny, writes that league counsel acknowledged the league does not believe there was an agreement between the Clippers and Aspiration to funnel money to Kawhi Leonard. Lawyers are precise for a living, and that sentence is engineered. Count the qualifiers: an agreement, with Aspiration, to funnel money. Three fences around one denial.

The report doesn't find that. It finds initiation, facilitation, and inducement, across four companies, with Zucker as the point person. The gap between what Kelley denied and what Wachtell found is narrow, and it is doing enormous work. It's what lets the Clippers be this aggressive without technically saying anything false⁹.

There's also a reason for that precision that has nothing to do with public relations. The letter says the Clippers will explore every legal remedy, and Ballmer is already in civil litigation and the Aspiration bankruptcy proceeding. Litigation means discovery. For an organization the report describes as at times operating in an adversarial or obfuscatory manner, and whose president of business operations investigators found made false statements to them, opening the document vault to opposing counsel is the last thing anyone should want. The careful denial isn't only messaging. It's a man keeping his statements narrow enough to survive being read back to him under oath.

My guess at what happened in the room: the Clippers argued the league needed a smoking gun running all the way up to Ballmer, their lawyers got the league's lawyers to concede there was no paper trail for that particular thing, and the league was simultaneously building a penalty out of everything that did have one. That's the spirited discussion. That's why the tidbit surfaced on August 17, because the Clippers leaked it to help their cause.

Now, the paper trail exists in large part because of Lawrence Frank. The April 2020 call where Robertson said he couldn't wait on Zucker because he had to get paid only survives because Frank took contemporaneous notes. Investigators drew the contrast explicitly: Frank discussed his conduct openly, recalled details, took responsibility for his subordinates, and stayed consistent across interviews, while Zucker made statements that conflicted with the documents, professed not to remember key events, pushed blame downward, and told different versions in different sittings. They recommended the league weigh cooperation and credibility in setting penalties, and the league did: six months for Frank, a full year without pay for Zucker. The man who got the lighter sentence is a substantial reason there was a case at all.

One last thing, and it's the part I'd watch. Section D of the report runs about a page. A credible witness with direct knowledge told investigators that one company's consulting agreement with the Clippers was a ruse. A vehicle for the team to send that company money so the company could pay it to Kawhi. The company went along because it had been promised a much larger services contract. The information arrived late and corroboration is ongoing.

That's the funneling. Not facilitation, not introduction. Money leaving the Clippers and arriving at Kawhi with a shell in between.

And notice which company it isn't. Section D is framed around the Boingo, Daktronics, and Lockton agreements, and Aspiration never had a consulting agreement with anybody. Kelley's denial is scoped to Aspiration. The live funneling allegation is somewhere else entirely. He denied the thing he could safely deny on Ballmer’s behalf.

The report says investigators are still receiving information and will supplement their findings as appropriate. The Clippers' lawyers have certainly read that sentence too.

Which brings this back to Kawhi. All of this messaging requires the villain to be somebody other than the Clippers, and there are exactly two candidates available. The same careful parsing that keeps Ballmer a facilitator rather than a funneler is what leaves Kawhi and his uncle holding the story. When the team says it merely made introductions at a player's request, that sentence has a subject, and the subject is the player.

Everybody who built this scheme had a motive, and there is no evidence Kawhi helped build the scheme.

Ballmer wanted a superstar and a building full of sponsors. Zucker wanted to deliver for Ballmer, because delivering for Ballmer is the whole job and it pays extremely well. Frank wanted to keep his job so he kept a record, which is why we know anything at all. Dennis wanted to get paid.

The person it was all nominally for cleared somewhere in the neighborhood of $38 million he wasn't entitled to and lost a decade of reputation over it. And in thirty-five pages, the only two findings the investigators make against him are written the same way, both times: through the conduct of Mr. Robertson.

Dennis Robertson's motives are explicit and documented. Kawhi's have to be read off his behavior, and the behavior says something different than the story everybody's telling. He did the minimum. He took the cash instead of the stock. He said nothing for six years¹⁰. And when it finally came time to choose, he fired his uncle and hired a professional.

I'm not saying Kawhi is clean. He isn't. I'm saying the most reclusive superstar of his generation let the most notorious hanger-on of his generation run his business for seven years after the league had already flagged the man and written a rule about him and the story of why that happened is more interesting, and more damning of nearly everyone else, than the one being told.

Watch what he does in Toronto with Dennis nowhere near the building. That will tell us more than any statement ever will.

That's the argument. The aftermath is its own piece, and it's coming next. Subscribe so it lands in your inbox. And if you made it this far, please considering sharing this article!

In it: why the Clippers' furious letter to Adam Silver denies exactly one thing and carefully avoids everything else. What Section D of the report is actually alleging, why it's the only paragraph in thirty-five pages that isn't a finding, and why the company it concerns is not the one Ballmer's lawyer named. Why a man with no picks and no appeal might sue anyway, and why discovery is a worse idea for him than for the league. What Lawrence Frank's notebook did to his boss. Why Gillian Zucker, the person the report calls primarily and directly culpable, got half of what Uncle Dennis got. Despite being the only one of them the NBA has any actual authority over.

And whether the trade to Toronto survives all of it.

Photo credit to Edward A. Ornelas/San Antonio Express-News