d-train wrote:Does anyone know where to get documents like the briefs from both sides?
I haven't seen them. It is arbitration so unless they are leaked we will probably just have to settle for the final verdict, although that should be here soon.
d-train wrote:Does anyone know where to get documents like the briefs from both sides?
Sham wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/sports/basketball/jeremy-lin-granted-early-bird-rights.html?_r=1&smid=tw-share
How the bloody hell did that happen
d-train wrote:The arbitrator made the only possible decision. The NBA had no case.
DBoys wrote:d-train wrote:The arbitrator made the only possible decision. The NBA had no case.
Your response is predictably extremely-NBAPA-sided ...and the idea that the NBA had "no case" in asserting that a negotiated, signed agreement should be enforced as written is goofy (and simply wrong from a legal standpoint).
d-train wrote:DBoys wrote:d-train wrote:The arbitrator made the only possible decision. The NBA had no case.
Your response is predictably extremely-NBAPA-sided ...and the idea that the NBA had "no case" in asserting that a negotiated, signed agreement should be enforced as written is goofy (and simply wrong from a legal standpoint).
lol the signed negotiated agreement is what the arbitrator is enforcing. He has no other authority.
DBoys wrote:d-train wrote:DBoys wrote:Your response is predictably extremely-NBAPA-sided ...and the idea that the NBA had "no case" in asserting that a negotiated, signed agreement should be enforced as written is goofy (and simply wrong from a legal standpoint).
lol the signed negotiated agreement is what the arbitrator is enforcing. He has no other authority.
Actually he isn't ...which is what makes the ruling so odd and unexpected. The CBA says one thing (which has already been well outlined in this thread), and he says "Nah, it should have said something else, so let's go with that". Reportedly the NBA will take it to court.
DBoys wrote:Actually he isn't ...which is what makes the ruling so odd and unexpected. The CBA says one thing (which has already been well outlined in this thread), and he says "Nah, it should have said something else, so let's go with that". Reportedly the NBA will take it to court.
Nanogeek wrote:The reason the arbitrator came to the conclusion he did is because there is a "loophole" (at least from the league's perspective) in the definition of "Prior Team" within the CBA. Normally, you'd think that if a player moved from the Knicks to the Sixers and then the player's contract expired that the player would have two separate and distinct Prior Teams - the Knicks and the Sixers. However, based on the structure of the CBA, it appears the player has only one Prior Team - the Knicks AND the Sixers. Further, one might argue that this is not a result inconsistent with the CBA because in other instances where a player moves from one team to another while under the same contract (a trade) the player effectively has only one Prior Team because the player's years with the pre-trade team are effectively inherited by the post-trade team (akin to a successor concept). I suspect this is what the arbitrator looked to in determining that the conclusion that he did - that such a conclusion was the one most internally consistent with the CBA. In fact, I find it hard to defend any other conclusion on this matter. The league might take this to court because it has to as a matter of diligence on behalf of the owners but I think their chances of prevailing are dim at best. The league lawyers didn't tighten the language sufficiently and now the league is left holding the bag. Its a classic lawyer screw up not dissimilar to the screw up with JPM realized they had provided an open ended guarantee to Bears Stearns before acquiring them that would have lasted in perpetuity even if they never acquired Bear Stearns.
Nanogeek wrote:DBoys wrote:Actually he isn't ...which is what makes the ruling so odd and unexpected. The CBA says one thing (which has already been well outlined in this thread), and he says "Nah, it should have said something else, so let's go with that". Reportedly the NBA will take it to court.
That's quite absurd. An arbitrator is never left to just make up something. An arbitrator effectively uses the principles of statutory construction when evaluating a legal document. The first question is whether or not wording is unambiguous and are all terms clearly defined? If not then the second question is can the principle of noscitur a sociis be applied to less than clear terms that are embedded in otherwise unambiguous provisions. If the structure of the provision is unclear but the terms are clearly defined then the arbitrator must determine the intent of the parties. The first document to appeal to is the agreement itself. Are there other areas in the document that inform as to the intent of the provision in question. If not then are their documents or material external to the agreement that inform as to the intent of the provision in question. If there are no external materials whatsoever then the arbitrator looks to the governing law of the document to determine how provisions must be construed - in favor of one party or the other - for example, the "reasonable person standard", etc. If there is still no conclusion after all this then the arbitrator looks to what conclusion flows most naturally from the agreement, i.e., what conclusion would be least disruptive to the agreement. Only in this last area is the arbitrator exercise any real discretion - before that he or she is just following where the law takes the matter. And with a document as heavily lawyered as the CBA I'm quite certain the arbitrator never got to that point.
DBoys wrote:Where do you think the term "Prior Team" is contradictory? The CBA explicitly defines one Prior Team, the team immediately prior to free agency. Where is there a conflict?
“Prior Team” means the Team for which a player was last under Contract prior to becoming a Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent or a Non-Qualifying Veteran Free Agent.
You said: "Normally, you'd think that if a player moved from the Knicks to the Sixers and then the player's contract expired that the player would have two separate and distinct Prior Teams - the Knicks and the Sixers. However, based on the structure of the CBA, it appears the player has only one Prior Team - the Knicks AND the Sixers. "
I don't think any of that or find that to be "normal" - particularly when the term itself is defined for me. In my normal understanding - which is the same as the CBA definition - when a player is a free agent, their prior team would be the one just before free agency, that the player was with when the contract ran out.
because there is nothing within the agreement the classifies what a player is that moves from the Waiving Team to the Claiming Team.
Sham wrote:because there is nothing within the agreement the classifies what a player is that moves from the Waiving Team to the Claiming Team.
That's as may be, I couldn't say. It surely does not need to, however. The definition of early qualifying free agent stipulates that a player has to be traded to retain their rights, and the definition of traded explicitly states that it is not the same as the waivers process. It's all pretty clear cut, which is why the decision is weird.