I can't remember the details of my post years back, but I put together a high level legal analysis of why Kraft should theoretically be able to sue the NFL for the picks. It was similar to the analysis Stephanie Stradley put together post-Brady at the CA (believe it was something to do with implied terms in the CBA against objectively false/fraudulent grounds grounding punishments - whatever it was, I advocated for Brady taking that position well before Stradley wrote the article).
While I don't have the actual NFL partnership agreement (making my analysis quite weak), neither do you. Notwithstanding, as a non-lawyer, your armchair lawyering comes from an even weaker position. The idea that partners can't sue each other, especially when the partnership punishes a partner on an objectively false basis, is just wrong. And if you think a court with a sound understanding of the actual facts in Deflategate wouldn't be sympathetic to that (forget the media bias and all the nonsense they spouted about "light balls") you're even more wrong.