Joe Budden entertained Pablo Torre on his podcast recently. Pablo Torre clarified on the Joe Budden Podcast that the main distinction is the type and proof of the alleged circumvention: the Jalen Brunson deal involved a publicly structured contract that the NBA’s light penalty suggests was mostly within the rules, whereas the Kawhi Leonard situation involves alleged undisclosed, indirect payments from the owner.
Joe Budden podcast asking Pablo Torre what the difference is between the Jalen Brunson/New York Knicks deal and the Kawhi Leonard/Clippers/Steve Ballmer situation via Joe budden patreon. pic.twitter.com/KtvA6LBkOU
— joebuddenclips/fanpage (@chatnigga101) November 24, 2025
Pablo Torre’s work, especially on his podcast Pablo Torre Finds Out, revealed grave claims that the Clippers had violated the pay ceiling.
Torre and even former Mavericks owner Mark Cuban claimed, the main difference is the type of alleged impropriety. While the Leonard case contains claims of a covert, fraudulent payment system intended to completely conceal large sums of money from the league’s cap restrictions, the Brunson case involved procedural rule-breaking (talking too early) with a regular contract.
According to reports, Aspiration, an environmental company in which Clippers owner Steve Ballmer personally invested $50 million, offered Kawhi Leonard a $28 million “no-show” endorsement agreement.
According to reports, the agreement was a second, covert payment intended to transfer funds to Leonard without being subject to the NBA’s salary ceiling, so enabling the Clippers to pay him more than the league permits.
Torre’s article is based on Aspiration’s bankruptcy filings and interviews with former employees who made it clear that the arrangement was made “to circumvent the cap”.
In summary, the Knicks scenario involved a technical infraction pertaining to the timing of communication with a free agent, whereas the Clippers story involves claims of a complex, covert plan to essentially violate the salary cap regulations.
