Should players use the "Van Exel/Camby/Slater" legal strategy?

Jonathan Abrams wrote in a grantland.com article that in 1998, Marcus Camby, Nick Van Exel and Reggie Later, who were under NBA contract at the time of the lockout, sought a court order that their individual contracts were no longer valid because of the lockout, and they should have been allowed to pursue European jobs without the condition that they must return to their old NBA teams when the lockout ends.

The court did not grant the relief but didn't reach a substantive decision on the legal issue-- "the continued validity of the players' contracts with the teams"-- either. Instead, the court rule that the issue need to be arbitrated under the player's individual contracts and other agreements.


The grantlan.com article is here:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6784931/the-national-basketball-association-european-vacation

And here' the report from NY times in 1998.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/31/s...layers-denied-clearance-to-play-overseas.html

The decision was reached in late December 1998, and the arbitration probably never got anywhere because the lockout ended.

The economics of that case was probably that a player can get much more money from a foreign team if they can agree to be there all year, rather than having to have an "NBA Out" when the lockout ends-- which would force the foreign team to find a replacement on the fly.

I wonder if a similar claim can be made by players today. One of the purpose would be to get the same thing that the 3 guys in 1998 said they wanted: to pursue a good foreign offer without an "NBA out."

Another thing I am thinking about though, is whether someone like Kyle Lowry should try to use the lockout as a basis for getting out of their current lowball NBA contract.

I don't know much about collective bargaining/labor law, but if we were just looking at the individual employment contract itself: If I signed a contrat to work for the Rockets for $5.7 mil a year, and the Rockets are refusing to pay me or let me work, it would seem to be a breach of that contract, which, if they continue to do it for some time, would enable me to terminate the contract if I so choose.

Now, we don't know whether the 3 guys from 1998 would have succeeded in arbitration and we don't know what the current player contracts are similar to the 1998 contracts... but if they are similar, and the 1998 guy had at least a colorable claim against "the continued validity" of their contracts, it would seem logical for someone like Kyle Lowry to talk to his lawyer about filing a lawsuit/arbitration to try and get out of his lowball deal.