[Storyteller]

An interesting question has been raised on the Blazer board that is puzzling to me. It has to do with a player who is waived for breaking the "morals clause" of his contract and whether or not the team is still required to pay him. Here's the skinny:

According to the Uniform Player's Contract, as outlined in Section 16(a), a player can be waived for the following reasons:
(i) not following physical or moral rules as established by the team
(ii) attacking an NBA official or an NBA employee (other than a player)
(iii) lack of skill
(iv) failing to "offer his services"

Additionally, Section 16(b) discusses situations where a player cannot play because of injury.

Now, here's where it gets tricky. Article II, Section 4(a) of the CBA says that a player who is waived for lack of skill is still due the remainder of money specified in the contract. (Section 4(b) through 4(h) additionally addresses cases of death and mental illness). But what about in the case of "moral failure"? If that player clears waivers, is the team still responsible for paying his salary?

Yes, such a case would probably be contested by the player and the Player's Union. Regardless of that, my question is whether the CBA protects the salary of a player who is waived for violating the morals clause of his contract? And if so, where?

Thanks for any input.

[Dan Rosenbaum]

SCBF, I don't have any wisdom to add on this question, but the fact that we have never seen it happen makes me think that it would not be very easy to stop paying such a player.

Jay Williams also may be a test case on this one.