The Los Angeles Clippers’ future has been thrown into chaos by the NBA’s punishment, but Bill Simmons and Nick Wright believe Steve Ballmer may still have one weapon the league cannot take away from him: his money.
During a Clippers-heavy mailbag segment on The Bill Simmons Podcast, Simmons read a listener suggestion arguing that Ballmer should effectively go “scorched earth” on the NBA’s second apron. The idea was simple in theory: the Clippers have lost enormous amounts of future draft flexibility, but Ballmer remains the wealthiest owner in the league. Instead of retreating financially, why not lean completely into that advantage?
The listener jokingly called the strategy “marrying the nanny” – meaning that once a massive mistake has already been made, the only option is to embrace it rather than run from it. Simmons immediately latched onto the phrase and, more importantly, the basketball logic behind it.
The Clippers’ unusual situation makes the thought experiment more interesting than it would be for most teams. One of the harshest second-apron consequences is that a team finishing above the threshold can have its first-round pick seven years into the future frozen. But Los Angeles’ draft situation has already been devastated by league sanctions, creating what Simmons described as a brief window in which some of the usual long-term deterrents may carry less weight.
That does not mean Ballmer could simply spend without restrictions. The second apron is not just an enormous luxury-tax bill. It limits the mechanisms available to add talent, including certain exceptions and trade constructions, making roster improvement increasingly difficult even for an owner willing to write virtually any check. NBA officials have emphasized that the system was specifically designed to restrict the team-building advantages of the league’s highest spenders. The 2026-27 second apron sits at $221.686 million.
The more realistic version of the proposal, Simmons and Wright suggested, would involve weaponizing Ballmer’s financial capacity in trades. Los Angeles could potentially absorb undesirable contracts from other teams in exchange for draft compensation, essentially allowing rival franchises to pay the Clippers in picks for providing financial relief.
Wright compared that concept to the rebuilding strategy eventually adopted by the Brooklyn Nets after their infamous trade with Boston left them without control of several valuable first-round picks. Brooklyn spent years finding alternative ways to rebuild its asset base before eventually creating enough flexibility to pursue major stars.
“If he can, absolutely,” Wright said when Simmons asked whether he supported Ballmer spending aggressively over the next several seasons, adding that he believes ownership owes that level of commitment to Clippers fans.
The discussion then widened beyond payroll.
Simmons and Wright returned to their belief that Ballmer should have been presented with a far more dramatic choice when the NBA determined its punishment: accept the competitive sanctions or sell the franchise. Wright argued that if the league’s findings are accepted, the actions at the center of the case could not realistically have occurred without Ballmer’s knowledge. Ballmer and the Clippers, meanwhile, have continued to dispute that characterization.
The conversation became deliberately absurd when another listener wondered whether Ballmer could simply continue attending Clippers home games and pay whatever fines followed. That prompted Simmons to imagine Ballmer attempting to enter Intuit Dome in disguise before acknowledging one obvious problem: Ballmer’s famously animated courtside behavior would make hiding rather difficult.
Behind the jokes, however, Simmons raised a legitimate question about how far an owner might push back once the league has already imposed severe sanctions. Ballmer owns the arena, controls the organization and has resources on a scale virtually unmatched in professional sports. Simmons wondered aloud what would happen if he simply challenged the boundaries of his suspension and forced the NBA to respond.
The segment also underscored how personally painful the suspension could be for Ballmer. Simmons and Wright suggested that losing the ability to attend games at Intuit Dome – the arena Ballmer spent years developing into the Clippers’ permanent home – may sting nearly as much as some of the basketball penalties.
Later in the podcast, the pair returned to the Clippers’ broader problem and painted an even darker long-term picture. Without first-round picks to draft young talent or package in trades, Simmons argued that Los Angeles could spend much of the next decade struggling to create another genuine contender. Their proposed alternatives were essentially opposites: spend aggressively and use financial flexibility to absorb unwanted contracts for assets, or strip the payroll down toward the league minimum and endure the years until the franchise can rebuild its draft capital.
That is what makes the “marry the nanny” idea more than just a memorable podcast joke.
Ballmer cannot buy back the draft picks the Clippers have lost, and the second apron prevents him from treating the NBA like an unrestricted marketplace. But money can still become an asset of its own. If Los Angeles is willing to take contracts other franchises desperately want to escape, it could potentially begin rebuilding its supply of picks while remaining financially aggressive in ways few owners could tolerate.
The Clippers have already paid an extraordinary price for their current predicament. Simmons and Wright’s argument is that retreating now may accomplish very little.
If Ballmer is stuck with the consequences, their provocative solution is to embrace them completely: spend, absorb contracts, chase assets and use the one competitive advantage the NBA has not taken from him.
