The NBA is once again staring down a major salary-cap controversy and this time Kawhi Leonard is at the center of it. Reports allege that Leonard inked a $28 million endorsement deal structured in a way that helped the Los Angeles Clippers skirt salary-cap restrictions. The case has sparked debates about league integrity, player empowerment and how blurred the lines have become between endorsements and contracts.
For longtime fans of the NBA, the situation brings back memories of one of the league’s biggest salary-cap scandals from the late 1990s: the Joe Smith case with the Minnesota Timberwolves. Back then Smith signed under-the-table agreements that allowed the Wolves to save cap space with the promise of a future payday. When the arrangement was uncovered the punishment was severe. Minnesota was fined millions and stripped of multiple first-round draft picks.
I spoke with Joe Smith about that chapter of his career and his words provide critical perspective as Kawhi’s situation unfolds today.
Smith explained what it was like when the league first reached out. “Oh yeah. I got a call right away from the league,” Smith shared.
“They were asking my side of the story while they’re doing their investigation. So I had to explain just what I told you, how everything went down.”
He remembered the details of the signing process vividly. “When I went in to sign my contract I had no idea that it was something that I was doing illegal. It wasn’t explained to me that way. I was 23-24 years old and I was putting my trust in the agents that I thought had my back. So I was just going in there doing something I thought was normal in the NBA.”
According to Smith, his explanation didn’t stop the investigation from widening. “So I explained that to them and they did more investigating with the team, with the general manager and my agents at the time. They came up with the decision that either at that time I would have to sit out for a year or I would have to leave Detroit and play somewhere else for a year and then I could return back to Minnesota.”
The decision he faced wasn’t easy. “So at the time I chose to go to Detroit for a year and played with the Pistons. At the end of the year I was able to go back to Minnesota and pick up where I left off.”
Smith also pushed back against the idea that he was responsible for the penalties Minnesota faced. “That’s the thing about it because a lot of people ask me about it and they kind of assume that it was my fault that the Timberwolves lost the draft picks and the penalties that came down on the Timberwolves. But I was just as much of an innocent bystander as anybody else.”
Smith’s description of being a “bystander” resonates today. In his case it was agents and team executives maneuvering behind the scenes. In Kawhi’s case it appears endorsement deals and corporate partners may have been used as leverage to get around the rules. The parallels are striking.
Both cases expose a recurring tension in the NBA: players, agents and teams pushing the boundaries of the cap in search of competitive advantage while the league fights to preserve balance. For Smith the price was steep. He lost valuable time in Minnesota and the Wolves lost critical draft capital.
Still Smith remembers the bond he built with his Timberwolves teammates fondly. “Minny was the squad bro! It was the brotherhood, the locker room, the camaraderie we had with everyone from KG to Mailk Sealy, Terrell Brandon… we had a crew! We all treated each other like brothers. We all worked hard and took care of one another and it was just a family atmosphere and that’s something that’s hard to find. And when I found it, that was something that was hard to walk away from.”
That brotherhood made the fallout even tougher. The Wolves’ punishment was not just a blow to the franchise but to the chemistry of a team that felt like family.
Kawhi’s case may not follow the exact same path but history suggests the NBA will act decisively. The Smith case set a precedent that the league does not take lightly when it comes to cap circumvention. If the allegations against Leonard and the Clippers hold true the punishment could alter the franchise’s future and impact Kawhi’s legacy.
Just as Smith’s story serves as a cautionary tale from the late 90s, Leonard’s case may become a defining one for today’s era of player empowerment and big-money endorsements. The lesson is clear: in the NBA, business moves can be just as risky and consequential as anything that happens on the court.
