Re: [外絮] 鳥權上訴可能會影響或是延遲簽約?

看板Jeremy_Lin (林書豪)作者puppetsgame (puppetsgame)時間13年前 (2012/06/26 22:54)推噓12(12推 0噓 22→)

留言34則, 10人參與討論串2/2 (看更多)

(修正原譯的瑕疵) Could free agency be delayed by the NBA's appeal of the recent Bird Rights arbitration hearing? NBA對本次鳥權仲裁提起上訴，是否會延遲自由球員市場開市？ It's possible. The NBA Players Association could request an injunction on behalf of the players involved, including Jeremy Lin and Steve Novak, to delay free agency until the appeal process is completed. 這是可能的。球員工會可能(could)代表「所有受鳥權聽証影響的球員」，包含 Jeremy Lin 與 Steve Novak，提出（延遲自由球員市場開市的）禁制令的聲請，直到仲裁程序完全結束為止。 The NBA's appeal could take weeks, possibly months, according to several people with knowledge of the situation on both sides. A panel has to be assembled, the sides have to present their cases and a decision has to be rendered after review. This isn't something that comes together quickly and with July 11 -- the first official signing day -- just over two weeks away, there is little chance for closure on this issue in time. 根據數名知悉雙方情勢的人的說法，NBA 的上訴會耗時數周、甚至可能數個月。必須組成仲裁庭、兩造都必須提出攻擊/防禦的理由，由仲裁庭檢視後，才會得出結論。這不是一個很快的程序，而且因為自由球員市場將於兩週後的七月十一日正式開市，本仲裁案幾乎不可能在期限內做成最終決定。 The union would not want to open free agency without a resolution and, privately, the Knicks would prefer to wait until they have a definitive answer so they can execute the proper offseason plan. In the midst of an appeal, the CBA says the Knicks need to follow the letter of the law until further notice. That means they would have to use their Mid-Level Exception to re-sign Lin, which could lead to them losing out on other impact free agents, such as Jason Kidd or Lamar Odom. 球員工會不希望在「還沒做成最終仲裁決定」之前讓自由球員市場開市，而且尼克私底下，應該也傾向於等待一個確切的答案，讓他們可以好好地執行季後補強計畫。根據 Collective Bargaining Agreement的規定，在仲裁確定之前，尼克必須遵守「CBA 的文意」（註）；而這意味著，他們必須使用中產條款續簽 Lin，讓簽下 Jason Kidd或 Lamar Odom這類，有影響力的自由球員的機會降低了。 == 註：本次兩造攻防在兩個字，「only」、「trade」。 CBA 明文規範：「只有」在被「交易」的情況下，鳥權才會隨著球員移轉。如果對此條文做文意解釋，Lin 等人是沒有鳥權的。這是 NBA官方的立場：letter of the law，合約字面的意義。但球員工會的立場則是「合約精神解釋」，認為鳥權移轉的意義，在於保護非自願移轉母隊的球員；而在揮棄期、或特赦中被撿起來的球員，轉移母隊也是非自願的，所以應該與被交易的狀況相同，保留鳥權。這是球員工會的立場：spirit of the law，合約文字的精神。 == What if the appellate panel upholds the decision of arbitrator Kenneth Dam? The NBA would have a major controversy on its hands. Sure the Knicks may have their MLEs back in play, but what if all their top priority targets were already signed elsewhere? 萬一上訴審的仲裁庭，維持仲裁者 Kenneth Dam 的原判斷時，會發生什麼狀況？ NBA 將面臨極大的爭議。尼克當然希望保留中產（譯註：不要用在 Lin 身上），但如果仲裁還沒確定，自由球員市場就開市，而他們想追求的主要對象都被簽走了，尼克該怎麼辦？ So rather than halt the free agency season while arguing over a definition (the word "trade" as used in the collective bargaining agreement) and negatively impact a franchise's ability to conduct business, the best case scenario for everyone involved is for the NBA and NBPA to meet and negotiate a settlement in this case. 所以，與其爭執 CBA當中「交易」此字的定義，而延遲自由球員市場開市，對球團經營造成負面影響，不如選擇對所有人最好的方案：讓聯盟跟球員工會在此案達成和解。（譯註：聯盟不要走上訴審程序，球員工會也不要提出禁制令的聲請。) One reasonable resolution could be for the NBA to grant the arbitrator's decision be effective strictly for the 2012-13 season, if the NBPA accepts that henceforth, the accepted rule is that Bird Rights transfer only via trade and not via waivers. 其中一個合理的方案是：雙方同意原仲裁結果，不再爭執，但效力僅限於 2012-13 球季；如果球員工會同意，表示 2013 以後的鳥權移轉，將真的僅限於「交易」，而非「揮棄後撿起」。 It is such a rare case that we may never see this come up again anyway. Players claimed off waivers don't usually develop a value where Bird Rights are an issue. But this season the emergence of Lin and Novak have created such a scenario, so a one-time exclusion may become the only time it ever comes up again. 這麼做的理由是：反正這種案例太少，我們以後大概也看不到了。被撿起來的球員，身價通常不會高到「讓鳥權成為問題」，本季 Jeremy Lin 與 Steve Novak的出現，才會有這種爭議，所以這種「下不為例」，也可能不會有下一次了。 The NBA had the right to appeal the decision and followed standard operating procedure. There is a dangerous precedent that could be set by this result because it would open the door for other ambiguities in the CBA to be challenged by the union. The league could not afford to shrug off the decision; especially one that it felt was not an ambiguity. NBA 有權上訴，並依照一般程序啟動自由球員市場。如果本仲裁案成為先例，對 NBA 官方而言是危險的，因為這會讓球員工會不斷挑戰 CBA規範中的漏洞。聯盟無法承擔「有這種CBA 被挑戰成功的先例」的後果，更何況聯盟並不認為條文規範中有漏洞。 The NBA feels confident about the appeals process, but as one league source told me, "We didn't think we'd lose in the first place." The league fought the Chris Dudley trade to the Knicks in 1997 and after it lost in arbitration -- coincidentally Kenneth Dam presided over that as well -- the NBA appealed and the decision was upheld. NBA 對上訴的結果有信心，但某位聯盟的消息來源也說，「我們一開始也沒料想到會輸」。 NBA 曾在 1997 年尼克隊的 Chris Dudley 交易案中，與球員工會打過一仗；當時聯盟在第一審仲裁輸了（巧合地，該案的仲裁員也是 Kenneth Dam），聯盟選擇上訴，然後再輸一次。 This time around, with so much uncertainty and too many variables, it seems unlikely that this appeal will ever reach full execution. The sides simply need to get together and, as they did so often six months ago, negotiate a settlement. 但在這次，由於有這麼多的不確定性與變素，本次上訴不太可能會有「最終結論」。雙方應該儘快坐下來談，跟六個月前做的事一樣，談一個和解方案出來。 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 114.34.108.34

推