I'd love to see them be able to void it too, but since it's a first offense for Gilbert, it's going to be really hard to. I can't imagine the Players Association would ever let it slide. What's more likely is a buyout, and possibly the biggest in the history of the NBA given the amount of money left on his deal.
I would be surprised if all the NBA contracts don't have a morals clause, but surely Arenas would sue if it were invoked. In fact: http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2010/01/gilbert-arenas-suspended-by-nba-will.html Washington, D.C.: What kind of leverage does this give the team, if it's looking for a way to dump Gilbert's contract? Does he have to be convicted of a felony before any morals clause kicks in? Michael McCann: This is the real interesting issue, in my view. Clause 16 of the Uniform Player Contract empowers teams to void contracts and is vaguely worded to include not only criminal behavior, but behavior that is immoral. It has been seldom used, however (a recent example was the Celtics using it to terminate Vin Baker's contract, and that wasn't entirely successful, since it lead to a financial settlement with Baker). Hypothetically, if the Wizards terminate Arenas' contract through Clause 16, the Players Association will vehemently object and file a grievance, which will be heard by an independent arbitrator. Latrell Sprewell (with the Players' Association help) was able to get his contract with the Warriors reinstated, even though he choked a coach, which is arguably worse than what Arenas did. Bottom line: if Arenas contract can be voided, think about what teams will do with other controversial players who have long-term, lucrative contracts.
What could work against Arenas is he did in fact have a prior mis-demeanor for weapon possession. Also DC has strict gun laws and if there's an overzealous judge looking to make a name for himself/herself they could make an example out of Arenas.
