Insights into the Lin decision http://ppt.cc/6EfC I spoke with NBA players' association Deputy General Counsel, Ron Klempner , to get some insights into Friday's decision regarding Bird and early Bird rights for players claimed off waivers, which granted those rights to Jeremy Lin and Steve Novak . Here are highlights of the conversation: 这是记者跟球员工会法律顾问Ron Klempner对於决定给於LIN跟NOVAK的谈话 Q: There was a lot of surprise about the decision. Were you? Klempner: No, definitely not. I think that [the arbitrator] basically did what I've been saying for quite some time, and that was his conclusion, which is that this was incontrovertibly the state of that rule from 1995 to 2005. The reason we brought this proceeding is because we didn't think that we had intended to change what was in place that whole time. We think the language change was not substantive, so that's why we brought this proceeding, and he had confirmed what we had been saying. Q:"这是个包含很多惊喜的决定 是吧? K:"不 不尽然是 我认为仲裁员基本上只是做了我已经说了很多次的事 而他的结论 就是这个规则从95年到05年是不可辩解的 我们会带来这个诉讼的理由是 因为我们不认为我们企图改变的那规则是正确的 我们认为联盟不是绝对的 这就是为甚麽我们带来这场官司 I knew [the ruling] was a high burden to overcome, but if we were going to overcome it, it would be because we were able to show him that [the league] could have and should have done this a lot more clearly. I thought our argument went very well. I thought that [the arbitrator] understood the arguments, so it doesn't really surprise me. The word that I had gotten that many various observers didn't think that we had much of a chance to win this. We always thought that was the right result and we thought that we could make the arbitrator recognize that. "我知道这个裁决是个很难成功的 但如果我们成功了 这将可以展现是联盟是可以 去做并且做得更清楚些(应该是说联盟的规则吧) 我认为我们的辩护人做得很好 我想仲裁员他...可以理解辩护人(难道这是NOVAK@@!?) 所以这真的没吓到我 我曾询问过各种的专家 每个都不认为我们有机会可以赢 我们始终认为这个结果是正确的 而且我们可以使仲裁员认可我们! Q: Many insiders and salary-cap experts said the players' union wouldn't win. Also, David Stern said previously that the league would likely win the case because it had been addressed previously during negotations. Your thoughts? Klempner: That's incorrect. This was not an issue that was discussed at all during the negotiations. The treatment of a waived player who's claimed off of waivers was not discussed in this new round of CBA negotiations. David I guess was incorrect in his prediction that he made during his Finals press conference. Q:很多薪资帽专家都说球员工会不会赢得这场官司 屎藤也说联盟会赢得这场官司 因为这个以前就以已经讨论过并解决了 你认为呢? K:这是不对的 这以前不是个被讨论然後解决的议题 在新的CBA中并没有谈论被挥弃 的球员能不能拿到鸟权 我想史藤他的预言是错的(屎藤去旁边哭哭不要来乱ˋˇˊ) Q: In basic terms, what was the argument from the union's side? Klempner: The Knicks shouldn't have to go and break up their team. That's part of what the soft-cap system is about. The team should always have maximum ability to retain their own players. And the question for these guys is: How strong would the Knicks' ability be to go and keep them in light of their market value? And I think in layman's terms, it basically means that the Knicks can keep these players if they so desire. And if they and the players want that resolved, that was pretty much the intention of our agreement. Q:工会是以甚麽角度去辩护的呢? K:"尼克不应该去拆散他的球队 这就是弹性薪资空间的作用 这个队伍一直都想尽最大的可能去留下他们的球员 这个问题对於其他球队也是一样 尼克有多大的能耐可以用自由市场的价格去保持住他的球员们? 用通俗的说法就是 这个基本上认定尼克可以保留住他的球员 只要他们渴望这麽做 只要他们跟他们的球员很坚决的想要这个规则 这对於我们的辩护员是最好的意义 We were arguing the spirit of the rule as much as we were arguing the language, which is that players who move teams, not by choice, should not have to start over with their Bird rights. They shouldn't forfeit their valuable Bird rights, and that was a spirit that we thought was since the inception of the rule in 1995 and it should still exist today. Lin and Novak did not have a choice as to where it is they were going to play once their teams effectively cast them off or placed them waivers. If they had a chance to go and pick their teams, then clearly their Bird Rights would start fresh. We thought we had the higher ground on the policy and we feel like this was the right result. "我们跟联盟辩论了这个规则的本质 球员转队若非出於个人选择， 鸟权就不应该重算 (就是说不应该是只有交易才可以有鸟权) 他们(球员)不应该丧失他们的鸟权 这就是我们认为这个规则的本质 林跟NOVAK就是没那个选择的人 如果他们有选择去挑选他们的球队 他们的鸟权计算必须重新算起 我们认为我们应该要有更好的规定 这就是我们所感觉的正确的结果 Q: How long will the eligibility of Bird and early Bird rights last for future players claimed off waivers? Klempner: It's indefinite. There could be something different moving forward, and we'll know that soon. But right now, it's indefinite. The appeal would go to an appeals panel of three arbitrators, who the the two parties [the union and league] would have to select. The players' association believes the appeal from the league will not be resolved by July 1, the start of free agency, so as of now the union has won the case. Q:你认为这个鸟权跟早鸟资格多久後会出现在未来的球员身上 K:这是不确定的 我们都知道会很快 但现在是不确定的 这个案子将会上诉到 委员会 联盟跟工会都要做出选择 球员工会相信联盟想要上诉这件事在7/1号前是不 会被解决的 所以现在工会赢了!! 心得:只有一个礼拜 联盟想上诉还要敲定听证会和一堆有的没的 屎藤 你来得及吗>.^? -- ─∥ ─── ◣ =◥"◥’． ∵ ◆∥ ψsherry821224 ────────────── ∥ ◤ ◥ ◤ ◥ ∥ ◤ ◢◤\ ◣◥ Teammates don't ∥ ╱ ∥◤￣◣ ﹍◣∥◤￣╲∥ ╱∥◤￣╲ ▼‵､λ﹀▼▼ play with each ∥◆◇ ∥ ∥∥◣∥ ∥╱ ∥◣＿ ─-.╳ ︶- other, they play ∥ ╲ ∥ ∥∥ ∥ ∥ ╲ ◥∥▲ ρ\ `, ▲▲ FOR each other. ─∥ ╲ ∥ ∥∥ ∥◣＿╱∥ ╲╲＿◢∥ ◥ | ◢────────…‥． --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.167.181.191 ※ 编辑: lest83 来自: 118.167.181.191 (06/23 11:18) 感谢:) ※ 编辑: lest83 来自: 118.167.181.191 (06/23 12:17)