(修正原译的瑕疵) Could free agency be delayed by the NBA's appeal of the recent Bird Rights arbitration hearing? NBA对本次鸟权仲裁提起上诉，是否会延迟自由球员市场开市？ 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. 这是可能的。 球员工会可能(could)代表「所有受鸟权听证影响的球员」，包含 Jeremy Lin 与 Steve Novak，提出（延迟自由球员市场开市的）禁制令的声请，直到仲裁程序完 全结束为止。 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. 根据数名知悉双方情势的人的说法，NBA 的上诉会耗时数周、甚至可能数个月。 必须组成仲裁庭、两造都必须提出攻击/防御的理由，由仲裁庭检视後，才会得出 结论。这不是一个很快的程序，而且因为自由球员市场将於两周後的七月十一日 正式开市，本仲裁案几乎不可能在期限内做成最终决定。 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. 球员工会不希望在「还没做成最终仲裁决定」之前让自由球员市场开市，而且尼克 私底下，应该也倾向於等待一个确切的答案，让他们可以好好地执行季後补强计画 。根据 Collective Bargaining Agreement的规定，在仲裁确定之前，尼克必须遵 守「CBA 的文意」（注）；而这意味着，他们必须使用中产条款续签 Lin，让签下 Jason Kidd或 Lamar Odom这类，有影响力的自由球员的机会降低了。 == 注：本次两造攻防在两个字，「only」、「trade」。 CBA 明文规范：「只有」在被「交易」的情况下，鸟权才会随着球员移转。 如果对此条文做文意解释，Lin 等人是没有鸟权的。这是 NBA官方的立场：letter of the law，合约字面的意义。 但球员工会的立场则是「合约精神解释」，认为鸟权移转的意义，在於保护非自愿 移转母队的球员；而在挥弃期、或特赦中被捡起来的球员，转移母队也是非自愿的 ，所以应该与被交易的状况相同，保留鸟权。这是球员工会的立场：spirit of the law，合约文字的精神。 == 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? 万一上诉审的仲裁庭，维持仲裁者 Kenneth Dam 的原判断时，会发生什麽状况？ NBA 将面临极大的争议。尼克当然希望保留中产（译注：不要用在 Lin 身上）， 但如果仲裁还没确定，自由球员市场就开市，而他们想追求的主要对象都被签走了 ，尼克该怎麽办？ 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，与其争执 CBA当中「交易」此字的定义，而延迟自由球员市场开市，对球团 经营造成负面影响，不如选择对所有人最好的方案：让联盟跟球员工会在此案达成 和解。（译注：联盟不要走上诉审程序，球员工会也不要提出禁制令的声请。) 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. 其中一个合理的方案是：双方同意原仲裁结果，不再争执，但效力仅限於 2012-13 球季；如果球员工会同意，表示 2013 以後的鸟权移转，将真的仅限於「交易」， 而非「挥弃後捡起」。 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. 这麽做的理由是：反正这种案例太少，我们以後大概也看不到了。被捡起来的球员 ，身价通常不会高到「让鸟权成为问题」，本季 Jeremy Lin 与 Steve Novak的出 现，才会有这种争议，所以这种「下不为例」，也可能不会有下一次了。 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 有权上诉，并依照一般程序启动自由球员市场。如果本仲裁案成为先例，对 NBA 官方而言是危险的，因为这会让球员工会不断挑战 CBA规范中的漏洞。 联盟无法承担「有这种CBA 被挑战成功的先例」的後果，更何况联盟并不认为条 文规范中有漏洞。 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 对上诉的结果有信心，但某位联盟的消息来源也说，「我们一开始也没料想到 会输」。 NBA 曾在 1997 年尼克队的 Chris Dudley 交易案中，与球员工会打过一仗；当时 联盟在第一审仲裁输了（巧合地，该案的仲裁员也是 Kenneth Dam），联盟选择上 诉，然後再输一次。 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. 但在这次，由於有这麽多的不确定性与变素，本次上诉不太可能会有「最终结论」 。双方应该尽快坐下来谈，跟六个月前做的事一样，谈一个和解方案出来。 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 114.34.108.34 ※ 编辑: puppetsgame 来自: 114.34.108.34 (06/27 09:22)