Union files Appeal for Bird Rights for Lin and Novak

[I_Like_Dirt]

If the CBA states that waived players lose their bird rights, and the players agreed to said CBA I don't see what case they possibly have here?

This isn't nearly as cut and dried as people here seem to be suggesting. Even Larry Coon has gone back and forth on this one. I don't care enough to be bothered to look up the eaxt wording, but clearly the CBA doesn't have anything specific that states that players claimed off waivers lose their bird rights. The actual wording is probably a lot less clear than that. Even Larry Coon has been back and forth on this one. He initially stated that waived players would have their bird clock reset, however eventually changed his mind and tweeted:

A waiver claim is changing team by assignment, so he should be Early Bird, and the people I’ve talked to agree. But I haven’t heard an official ruling from the league on this, so I’m not 100% yet. It’s possible this hasn’t come up yet, and they have yet to make an official determination. I hope to find out for sure soon.

If somebody was actually willing to put in some real legwork (I'm not), I'm guessing they'd find the CBA actually speaks about a player only keeping his bird rights if he changed teams by assignment. The real question here would then be if players being claimed off waivers are actually changing teams by assignment because they don't have any say in where they play, or if it isn't considered to be by assignment since their former team also has no say in where the player plays.

In the end, the league is ruling that claiming a player off waivers does not constitute the league assigning where the player will play. I think the league will probably win this one, but that's more to do with gut feeling than any legal sense. I do think people might want to look a little closer at the details before assuming that the NBAPA is just making a dumb objection. I think they've probably got a pretty valid point here.

[Snakeyes]

Thank God, now we can finally put those Lin rumors to rest and focus on a proper rebuild.

what's the proper rebuild strategy btw?

The one without an overpaid one-hit wonder.

[StopitLeo]

Both Lin and Novak were claimed by the Knicks before clearing waivers. Thus Knicks inherit the players current contracts. This is the grey area in dispute.

This also effect Billups and Hickson.

Exactly. If they players had cleared waivers they would then sign a 'new' deal. However, when a team picks up a player off waivers before the player is cleared, that team obtains the player at his previous contract or at whichever amount was the highest bid if there's a bidding war.

In a sense, this is similar to a trade because the player does not have the option of which team he's allowed to go to before he clears.

I dunno guys, I think the union has a strong case on this one.

The union has no case. When a player is waived and claimed before clearing waivers their Bird clock resets.

Source: Larry Coon, CBA master (fourth point from the bottom) - http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q32

[joseph235]

Thank God, now we can finally put those Lin rumors to rest and focus on a proper rebuild.

what's the proper rebuild strategy btw?

Tank until we land a Lebron type. Might take 10 or 20 years...

At least getting Lin would make this team interesting....

[pierrot]

Here's the relevant text of the CBA, law-nerds. Given the language, the NBPA's case depends on proving that a waiver is a trade, which it clearly is not. On the other hand, judges enjoy interpreting language in funky ways, so you never know...

(2) Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent (“Early Bird”) Exception. A team may re-sign its own free agent to a first-year salary of up to the greater of (a) 175% of the player’s salary in the last season of his prior contract, or (b) 108% of the average player salary for the prior season, if he played for the team for some or all of each of the prior two consecutive seasons (or, if he changed teams, he did so by trade). A contract signed using the Early Bird Exception must be for at least two seasons.

[Laowai]

Both Lin and Novak were claimed by the Knicks before clearing waivers. Thus Knicks inherit the players current contracts. This is the grey area in dispute.

This also effect Billups and Hickson because they were claimed.

Believe Lin was waived twice not sure if 1st time he cleared waivers?

[I_Like_Dirt]

Source: Larry Coon, CBA master (fourth point from the bottom) - http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q32

He's backed off that particular statement, though - see my post above. Right now Coon will say it's right because that's the way the NBA has ruled, but it isn't nearly so cut and dry in the CBA as the FAQ makes it seem. If the actual language in the CBA were as straightforward as Coon's FAQ, there would be a lot less disputes over things like this - there'd probably be a whole host of other issues, but not these little questions that pop up. If you don't think the players have a case, I'd suggest you go looking for the specific passage that proves the players are wrong in the CBA rather than Coon's FAQ. The players definitely have a case. I don't know that they'll win because the owners also have a case, but that's the whole point of having something like this arbitrated. I can't actually find a publicly available complete document showing the entire new CBA, but I haven't looked very hard. Suggesting the players don't have a case without actually seeing the document in question seems like a less than smart way of going about things.

[Tim Horton]

Thank God, now we can finally put those Lin rumors to rest and focus on a proper rebuild.

what's the proper rebuild strategy btw?

The one without an overpaid one-hit wonder.

yeah, can't wait for the certified hits to come a-knockin' by July.

[StopitLeo]

Source: Larry Coon, CBA master (fourth point from the bottom) - http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q32

He's backed off that particular statement, though - see my post above.

Sorry, I missed your post. As you said it's not clear cut. Without the full CBA document to review I think there are too many details missing.

[TheDoctor]

This puts a wrench in the Knicks' planning process until its resolved. Interesting.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

This puts a wrench in the Knicks' planning process until its resolved. Interesting.

A wrench could only help, Doc.

[pierrot]

Source: Larry Coon, CBA master (fourth point from the bottom) - http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q32

He's backed off that particular statement, though - see my post above. Right now Coon will say it's right because that's the way the NBA has ruled, but it isn't nearly so cut and dry in the CBA as the FAQ makes it seem. If the actual language in the CBA were as straightforward as Coon's FAQ, there would be a lot less disputes over things like this - there'd probably be a whole host of other issues, but not these little questions that pop up. If you don't think the players have a case, I'd suggest you go looking for the specific passage that proves the players are wrong in the CBA rather than Coon's FAQ. The players definitely have a case. I don't know that they'll win because the owners also have a case, but that's the whole point of having something like this arbitrated. I can't actually find a publicly available complete document showing the entire new CBA, but I haven't looked very hard. Suggesting the players don't have a case without actually seeing the document in question seems like a less than smart way of going about things.

And what about suggesting that the wording in the CBA is unclear when you admittedly have no idea what that wording is? In fact, as many posters have stated, the wording itself is crystal clear. If the judge or arbitrator strictly adheres to the wording of the contract, the case will be over before it has begun.

The new CBA states that Early Bird exception applies to a player who "played for the team for some or all of each of the prior two consecutive seasons (or, if he changed teams, he did so by trade)."

The NBPA's lawyers will argue that a waiver is like a trade, because the player can't choose his destination and because the contract from the previous team is still in effect. It's possible they'll win, but not because of any ambiguity in the wording of the contract - if they win, it will be because the arbitrator chooses to ignore the plain meaning of word "trade."

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

On Hoopsworld Larry Coon hosted a chat yesterday and the question came up

Is the NBPA contesting players losing Bird Rights and Early Bird Rights when waived based on murky territory in the CBA? I thought it was pretty clearly spelled out waived players lose Bird and Early Bird rights when claimed off waivers.

Larry Coon
Here’s what the CBA says about this (and this is the second time I’m trying a lengthy answer on this topic — we’ll see how it goes this time).

The union wants Lin to have Early Bird rights, which means they want him to be an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent. Here’s how they are defined in the CBA:

“Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent” means a Veteran Free Agent who, prior to becoming a Veteran Free Agent, played under one or more Player Contracts covering some or all of each of the two (2) preceding Seasons, and who either exclusively played with his Prior Team during such two Seasons, or, if he played for more than one Team during such period, changed Teams only (i) by means of trade, or (ii) by signing with his Prior Team during the first of the two (2) Seasons.”

So let’s look at the rule — Lin will be a Veteran Free Agent (meaning he will have completed his playing contract — i.e., he rendered his playing services and wasn’t waived by the Knicks). He will have played under one or more contracts covering the two preceding seasons. He did not play exclusively with the Knicks during the two seasons, so we have to look at the last criterion: changing teams either by means of trade, or by signing with the Knicks during the first of the two seasons. He didn’t do either one of those, so he’s not an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent.

The key word here, of course, is “trade,” Lin was not traded — he was a waiver claim. Here’s the union’s argument: A waiver claim and a trade are very similar, where the player changes teams against his will. A definition that applies to a traded player should also apply to a player who was waived and claimed.

Here’s the league’s argument: It doesn’t say a waived player. In fact, it’s very specific to a player who is traded. When we mean to say “traded or changed teams by any other means that functions similar to a trade” we say “changed teams by means of assignment.” If we had said assignment, then it would apply to waiver claims. We didn’t say that — we said trade, and the union agreed to this language.

So I think the case is pretty cut & dried, but that said, there have been cases in the past that were arbitrated where the arbitrator’s ruling went against the strict language of the CBA. The moral here is that you never want to have a 3rd party determine what you meant. A decision could go either way, but it’d be surprising (again) if it went against the literal language in the CBA.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/nbasalary-cap-chat-with-larry-coon-51612

Now, before you say "hey It's Poopsworld" let me rant: lets stop calling it poopsworld and pretending everything from that site is less credible than any other site. It's just as good as any. There are some contributors more plugged in than other, but it's all about the source, and if Larry Coon is a well regarded CBA expert, who cares if his chats are hosted on ESPN, or some other entity. Jarred Rudolph can break stories for real gm is he's got the connects, and I see the hoopsworld guys in scums, and I believe them when they say, they've spoken to gms. It should be clear to any reader whether things are opinion or sourced, and the reader should consider accordingly. Okay, end rant.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

BUMP - FYI this goes to arbitration today.

[Los Manos]

Stern sounded very confident yesterday that the curent wording of the rule will remain and that the Union appeal will fail. We shall see.

[IMAN5]

As a big Knicks fan I would have loved for this to work out but I knew it was a slim shot. I don't see them going in the Knicks/other teams favor.

If it was infact changed to this way, this would def change the game. You would see more teams bid on players on waivers hoping to resign them to longer bigger contracts with Bird Rights. I think it's something beneficial to the players and teams with high salaries.

[fredericklove]

Thank God, now we can finally put those Lin rumors to rest and focus on a proper rebuild.

what's the proper rebuild strategy btw?

I hope it doesn't revolve around Jose and Bayless combo duo.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Bumped to show that portraying yourself as a knowitall doesn't actually make you one. Turns out it wasn't as blackjack and white as people thought.

[HolyMage110]

for sure the knicks are gonna sign lin again, keeping lin under nash for 3 years and once nash retires, lin would be a hell of alot better.

[Los Manos]

I'm shocked by the decision. No surprise to hear the NBA will be appealing it. I really don't understand how the wording of the CBA could be clearer and yet now we find out large sections are open to 'interpretation'. Stern must be fuming.