顯示廣告
隱藏 ✕
※ 本文為 kulinomi 轉寄自 ptt.cc 更新時間: 2012-06-27 15:09:08
看板 Jeremy_Lin
作者 puppetsgame (puppetsgame)
標題 Re: [外絮] 鳥權上訴可能會影響或是延遲簽約?
時間 Tue Jun 26 22:54:00 2012


(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
yun0215:推P大!!! 聯盟討厭死Kenneth Dam了XDDDD1F 06/26 22:55
javabird:感謝p大的精翻. 是說聯盟未免也太輕忽仲裁了吧?! 明明知2F 06/26 23:48
javabird:道仲裁官有過一次先例還不好好準備,聯盟請的律師也太鳥了
javabird:另我有疑問:有一說Novak不能享有鳥權,因為他的合約之前只
javabird:有一年,這是不是也是鳥權的模糊地帶?如果Novak因為這樣沒
javabird:有鳥權,林明年,JR明年也不會有鳥權,因為換新合約了?
yun0215:可是之前ALAN要LIN簽一年底薪約時都說之後會有鳥權...@@?7F 06/26 23:55
yun0215:應該只要在母隊打滿兩年(不管是不是同張約) 應該就有鳥權
yun0215:了吧@@?
silviasun:感謝p大翻譯!!!!專業又清楚!!!!!!!10F 06/27 00:04
WongKarWai:推p大專業11F 06/27 00:07
yun0215:剛去晃了一下Novak待過的球隊...他的超混亂的= =12F 06/27 00:13
javabird:整個搞不懂Novak的狀況!13F 06/27 00:17
yun0215:Novak好像是跟火箭簽三年然後第三年被交易到快艇然後14F 06/27 00:25
yun0215:第三年結束快艇跟他續了一年約...到第四年這裡都還清楚
yun0215:第五年Novak以自由球員的身分被小牛簽下...(似乎是一年約
yun0215:然後被揮棄被馬刺撿起...打完馬刺被黑八的球季
yun0215:第六年馬刺重新跟Novak續了一年約?然後馬上被丟出去尼克
yun0215:撿起來...應該是...這樣(很不確定= =
yun0215:也就是說他的合約不是跑同一張...也沒在母隊打滿兩年...
yun0215:這樣...到底是...= =?
ab32110:好亂啊>< 偏偏最需要鳥權的是他@@22F 06/27 00:57
thianz11:既然反正這種案例很可能不再發生 聯盟何不就讓工會贏23F 06/27 01:31
yun0215:因為CBA還有很多洞...聯盟不可能讓球員工會一直無限的24F 06/27 01:33
yun0215:去挑戰CBA...有一就有二...其實是會破壞雙方的平衡點...
yun0215:                                ^這樣
thianz11:就立法本意意旨實質 不拘泥文字來判比較符合潮流一點27F 06/27 01:36
javabird:就算是就立法本意,像Novak那種狀況還是搞不定啊!28F 06/27 01:48
ab32110:NOVAK真的很可能白忙ORZ 他的情況好複雜 偏偏最在意的是他29F 06/27 02:28
※ 編輯: puppetsgame     來自: 114.34.108.34        (06/27 09:22)
HarryYu:翻譯大推,兩造都有堅持的理由,就看下去吧30F 06/27 09:38
essendo:大推p大! 這樣看來,無論鳥權如何裁定,起碼Lin留在尼克的情31F 06/27 09:53
essendo:況幾乎是確定囉
gaudiron:推~~謝謝翻譯33F 06/27 10:25

--
※ 看板: kulinomi 文章推薦值: 0 目前人氣: 0 累積人氣: 83 
作者 puppetsgame 的最新發文:
點此顯示更多發文記錄
分享網址: 複製 已複製
guest
x)推文 r)回覆 e)編輯 d)刪除 M)收藏 ^x)轉錄 同主題: =)首篇 [)上篇 ])下篇