Fantasy Dispute

Commissioner should not add players for negligent owner

Text of dispute is :
On Sunday morning, the commish of the TABC league processed a waiver request for team Duck & Cover allowing her to acquire WR – Torrey Smith (BAL) outside the normal waiver process. Our league’s website can be found here: xxx Prior to the transaction, team Duck & Cover carried four wide receivers. Two of which were on bye in week 11. The other two (Stevie Johnson & Eric Decker) were both healthy with no injury concerns heading into the week. With two viable WR options on their roster, team Duck & Cover did not submit a waiver request to acquire any additional WR help this week. However, for extraneous reasons, team Duck & Cover DID FAIL to set their lineup prior to the start of the week 11 game, meaning that WR – Eric Decker (who played on Thursday night) was not inserted. Citing team Duck & Cover’s “inability to submit a competitive lineup” as the reason, our commish processed a transaction on Sunday morning whereby team Duck & Cover was allowed to pick up an extra player to make up for their oversight. I believe this transaction should have never been processed and should be immediately reversed for the following reasons: 1) There is no provision in the league bylaws granting Adam the power to make this move. Nowhere in the rules does it state that the commish has the ability to grant any team a player (for any reason) outside the normal waiver process 2) In the past, despite their being no rule validating the decision, Adam has subjectively decided to allow players to pick up players (kickers, defenses, or TE’s) when they carried no other options on their roster. HOWEVER, this was not the case this week. Jenn had Eric Decker on her team and neglected to submit him into her lineup (even with me playing his QB – Tim Tebow). A quick look at transactions allowed outside the waiver wire period shows that this judgment has been exclusively used for positions that most owners only carry one of: (search under “Reports” then highlight “Franchise” and click on “Transactions”) *If you need a password to view, log-in as my team (xxx) For all of these transactions, these owners had no other options without acquiring a player on waivers. This was not the case this week. Therefore, team Duck & Cover should not be rewarded for forgetting to set their lineup and should have never been given the option of picking up a player when they had the “ABILITY TO SUBMIT A COMPETITIVE LINEUP,” but failed to do so. !NOTE, the above text was the email that was sent to the commish last night. He replied as follows: Owners, I will set up a poll on our website to for you to vote on the issue Jay has brought forward. Please vote by the end of today. 6 votes will reverse my decision and strip me of the power to make after hours moves. While the bylaws do not grant me the authority to perform waiver moves after processing, nor do they prohibit it. I have tried to be as accomodating to owners as possible to enable complete roster submissions. As Jay pointed out, I have been performing these moves for quite some time. Almost every week in fact. I had thought that if these moves were a problem, owners would have come forward when I began making them. **FINALLY, I would like to highlight what the league is voting on. Here is what was submitted to the website for owners to consider: “Should the pick up of Torrey Smith be invalidated and the Commisioners ability to perform “after hours” moves be eliminated?” I have contacted Adam objecting to the way this reads. Whether or not the commish should be able to process these transactions is a SEPARATE vote (see issue #2). My issue is the fact that he has not been consistent with his awarding of FA Torrey Smith (issue #1) and thus that move should be overturned. Owners might be influenced to vote “no” based on issue #2, especially if they feel they’ll lose a privilege they’ve come accustomed to. HELP!
END——–

Text of response is :
There are two issues in the Union Jackelopes complaint, the free agent move and the phrasing of the league poll. First, the FA move. As he stated there is no stipulation of our bylaws allowing the commisioner to make this move. First, a little background. I have been performing these waiver moves for several years outside of the normal waiver process in the interest of allowing teams to field competitive lineups. In last years playoffs as a matter of fact, the owner of the Union Jackelopes found himself without a viable quaterback and bylaws were vague on the point, but I allowed him to perform the waiver despite nothing granting me the power. In his own words he asked to pick up a player because it “directly impacts my ability to “field a competitive lineup,”. So last season he was more than happy with a bending of the rules to submit a competitive lineup to benefit his team. Now the clause in the bylaws a rely on to give me the power to make these moves. Section 7.1: Any disagreements over interpretation of the bylaws shall be settled by the commissioner. My being a part of the league and agreeing to the bylaws, he has essentially given me the power to settle the issue of competitive lineups. He also has recourse in section 7.2: If the other owners feel that the commissioner is not acting fairly and in the best interests of the league, a new commissioner may be elected by popular vote. This allows the Union Jackelopes to call for a vote of no confidence in my abilities and have me replaced. So far this season, any time an owner has requested a player after official waivers it has been granted to avoid a situation where they would have been unable to submit a full (competitive) roster. I also take exigent circumstances into account when rendering all decisions. In the case of Duck and Cover, they were working until 9:00 pm that Thursday (not a normal work schedule for them) and dealing with an infant with strep throat. If the decision is for Union Jackelopes for the first reason given “no power to do so”, then all previous after hours waviers moved must be reversed to allow for fair application of the rules. (I must point out here that the Union Jackelopes did not object to any of those moves despite full knowledge) However the excerpts from section 7.0 show that the commisioner does have the power to make these moves. The second reason the Union Jackelopes gives was that this method has never been applied to WR’s, only positions that the owners carry one of. While this is true, it is not due to my refusal to process others, simply the lack of requests regarding positions outside of Def/K/TE. The second issue, the phrasing of the poll. My reasoning here is simple. I have neither the time nor the inclination to defend waiver moves I make after the official period (a policy the Jackelopes supported last year when they benefited). So my phrasing was not intended to be a threat to sway, rather a notification so that no one can scream and yell when the policy changes.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

There are at least four issues here— 1) should the Commissioner be allowed to set an absent owner’s lineup; 2) should the Commissioner be allowed to add players to an absent owner’s team, 3) should the acquisition of Torrey Smith be allowed under your league rules, and finally 4) what to make of your league poll trying to resolve all of the above.

First, the Commish (and the league itself for putting up with this) has a created a monster in your league by deviating from the most simple and basic rules of fantasy sports—teams should make their own player and lineup choices within the deadlines or else suffer the consequences. However, your league Commissioner, and its owners by consent, have been complicit in ignoring this basic rule. So you are left with the much more complex and difficult decision as to what limits, if any, are on the Commissioner’s ability to make owner’s decisions for them.

I find no support for the Commissioner’s claim that your written league rules allow the Commissioner to make transactions for an owner that fails to do so for him or herself. Neither of the rules cited speak to such a scenario: “Section 7.1: Any disagreements over interpretation of the bylaws shall be settled by the commissioner. Section 7.2: If the other owners feel that the commissioner is not acting fairly and in the best interests of the league, a new commissioner may be elected by popular vote.” But that is not the end of the story.

While I find that your league has no express rule allowing the Commissioner the power to meddle in individual teams’ rosters, it is undisputed there is an unwritten, or implied, rule allowing such behavior. The evidence submitted shows that this has gone on not just this year, but in years past. Since the entire league allowed this to occur in the past, I conclude that in fact, your league does allow the Commissioner broad powers to add players and set lineups for absent (or in this case really busy) owners.

Even conceding that the Commissioner has the implicit power described in the preceding paragraph, Union Jackelopes tries to draw a distinction between setting lineups, adding players to fill “single player” positions like TE, K and Defense, and adding players in multi-player positions. I’ll have none of that. Your league is well past the “opening the floodgates” stage. Your league is full blown flooded. I’m not going to step in at this point and say that your Commissioner’s authority, which was too much to begin with, is too broad now. Your league has gotten exactly what was coming to it—ambiguous rules with uncertain results. Simply put, you can’t complain about this last transaction after the fact. Since your Commissioner has been allowed to meddle with what should be individual team decisions in the past, this one too should be allowed. The addition of Torrey Smith should stand.

Lastly, there is the poll issue. I agree that the poll question itself is compound. I won’t express an opinion as to what

a yes or no vote really means. But in my opinion, the Torrey Smith move should be allowed for the reasons stated above, and going forward teams should be responsible for making ALL their own transactions WITHIN the deadlines. Any other rule creates chaos, as more than amply proven by this dispute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com

2011 12 08

Keeper Trade– Aaron Rodgers for Matthew Stafford, Jahvid Best and Reggie Wayne

Text of dispute is :
We have an issue in a 12 team Keeper League. Team A is 4-6 and is basically out of the playoffs. He had Aaron Rodgers but due to league rules Aaron must return to the draft next year. He traded him for Mathew Stafford, Jahvid Best, and Reggie Wayne. All whom he could keep next year if he chooses. Team B the team he traded him to is 6-4 in a heated battle for the playoffs. Also, Team C was 2-8 and traded Mike Wallace(Again Cannot Keep) to Team D(Also 6-4) for Julio Jones and Denarius Moore. Do you see a problem with either of these trades? The issue is that because the teams are out of the playoffs several owners feel they should not be trading for next year.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

You are describing a typical dispute in keeper leagues. One team, obviously still in contention for winning this year, is trading lesser players — with potential for next year – to a team out of contention this year in exchange for top talent. Both Stafford and Best are young players with huge upside next year, and Reggie Wayne even has potential next year as a comeback player if Indianapolis can find a quarterback. I sympathize with the teams (probably the other teams still in contention for this year) that complain that this is unfair to them in that the 6-4 Team B will now have a pretty dominant lineup comprised of the other studs that got him into contention, plus now Aaron Rodgers, the top QB in the league. But that is the nature of keeper league trades. In keeper leagues, the teams that are out of contention will (properly, in my opinion) try to take advantage of the teams vying for the playoffs in order to build a team for next year and the future. Whereas this trade might very well affect the results this year, I would suggest that teams that are overly concerned with this year’s finish do not adequately appreciate the objectives in a keeper league—which is to try to contend not just once, but year after year.

I agree with the school of thought that the potential of a good keeper player (or several in this case) balances an otherwise one-sided trade. When evaluating the trade, you should focus more on whether there was collusion between the trading teams in an attempt to prevent another team from winning, as opposed to a good faith attempt to improve both teams, whether it be for this year or next year. I can’t say that the Aaron Rodgers trade, especially considering Stafford, Best (even considering the concussion issues) and Reggie Wayne are all serviceable players, is so imbalanced as to disrupt the fairness of the league in the long run. Teams must be allowed to take chances and build for the future.

The trade of Wallace for Julio Jones and Denarius Moore falls in the same category. Both trades should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com

2011 11 19

Trade Involving the Commissioner’s Team

Text of dispute is :
I am the commissioner of a fantasy league for over 20 year. This is the first time we have ever had a trade dispute and it involves myself, so i thought we would try your website. Week 10. My team was 8-1 an i offered another team (who was 4-5) Matt Forte, Ben Rothlesberger, Roddy White and the Jets D for Adrian Peterson, Mike Wallace, SF D, and Andy Dalton. My reasoning was this, they have been starting Josh Freeman and Andy Dalton all year and were not happy with their QB so I figured i would try to upgrade my RB and WR at the expense of the QB (my backup QB is Alex Smith or Tebow)…Also i knew they had solid WR Depth (they have Jordy Nelson, Julio Jones, and AJ Green) so either they would counter with another WR or not even care. They are also huge JETS fans and were going to see JETS/PATS that night , so i threw that in as well. Saturday night one of their owners (Rob) said no to the trade, but the next morning the other owner said yes. I made sure he checked with his parnter and they both said to do it. I believe his rationale was that they needed a QB and they werent happy with their team and wanted to shake it up. Scoring system is , 4 pts for throwing, 6pts for rushing/receiving, 1/2 pt for receptions…and bonus points once yds go over 75 for RB/WR and 225 for QB. The team that started the dispute is in first place in the other division and has Aaron Rodgers. He immediatley suspected collusion as im sure that he feels that I was the biggest threat before the trade and after even more so. He cited that they were giving up a better RB and WR for a QB who is only marginally better…while the DEF was a push. He also cited that Rothlesberger had a bye coming up, all of which are true (he didnt mention that Wallace also has a bye). Also want to point out that the team i traded with, won last week making them 5-5 and only 1 game out of the playoffs with 3 to go. Also you get $20 for highest week and anyone who doesnt make the playoffs goes to a toilet bowl for a chance to make a small prize $50. League cost 200. So there is no reason ever to tank as it can cost you a little cash. Should this trade be reveresed.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

The disputed trade is Forte, Roethlisberger, R. White and the Jets Defense for Peterson, Wallace, Dalton and the SF Defense. At this point in the season, I basically throw out pre-season projections and look at players’ performance to date as the best indicator of a player’s worth, subject of course to injury issues.

Roethlisberger is a top ten QB. Dalton is a top 20 QB. Both Forte and Peterson are top ten RB’s. Wallace is a top five WR. White is a top 20 WR. The SF Defense is in the top five, the Jets are in the top 10. I agree with the team that questioned this trade that the commissioner is getting upgrades at key positions, and I think the commissioner’s team got the better end in this particular bargain. However, that is not the end of the story.

Teams must be allowed to take risks to improve their chances down the stretch, and there are plenty of valid reasons (like needing a better QB, Forte’s upside, and Minnesota’s difficulty in depending on the running game while losing so often) for the other team to make this deal. Also, the 4-5 team was still in contention when this trade was made, had and has a motivation to try to win down the stretch, and therefore this is not a situation where I’m convinced they have given up and were simply “dumping” players.

Most importantly, there is insufficient evidence of collusion. I do consider evidence offered that the commissioner is quite experienced, and apparently has not been involved in previous trade disputes. I put no weight in the fact that the 4-5 team won after the trade, as that happened afterward.The commissioner has offered credible reasons for making the trade, and I have been provided with no evidence (other than the teams’ placement in the standings) convincing me otherwise.

The trade should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2011 11 18

Trade between 7-0 team and 0-7 team?

Text of dispute is :
i am the commissioner of a league. there are 12 teams in the league, each roster has 16 players in which you can start 10 players, at least 1 qb max of 2, 2 rb max of 3, 2 wr max of 3, 1 te max of 2, 1 kicker max 2, 1 def. scoring is as follows. FG – Field Goals 3 points Plus 1 point for a FG of 20 to 29 Yds Plus 3 points for a FG of 30 to 39 Yds Plus 5 points for a FG of 40 to 49 Yds Plus 7 points for a FG of 50+ Yds FL – Fumble Lost, Including ST plays 0 points Pa2P – Passing Two-point Conversion 2 points PaInt – Passing Interception -2 points PaTD – Passing TD 6 points PaYd – Passing Yards 0+ PaYds = 1 point for every 15 PaYds Re2P – Receiving Two-point Conversion 2 points ReTD – Receiving TD 6 points ReYd – Receiving Yards 0+ ReYds = 1 point for every 4 ReYds Ru2P – Rushing Two-point Conversion 2 points RuTD – Rushing TD 6 points RuYd – Rushing Yards 0+ RuYds = 1 point for every 5 RuYds XP – Extra Points 1 point Special Scoring for Tight Ends Setting Re2P – Receiving Two-point Conversion 2 points ReTD – Receiving TD 6 points ReYd – Receiving Yards 0+ ReYds = 1 point for every 4 ReYds Plus a 5 point bonus @ 30+ ReYd Plus a 3 point bonus @ 60+ ReYd Plus a 2 point bonus @ 90+ ReYd Scoring for Defensive Categories Setting DFR – Defensive/ST Fumble Recovered (ID/DT/DST) 5 points DTD – Total Defensive and Special Teams TD 6 points Int – Interceptions 5 points PA – Points Against, Total Points Scored 0 – 6 PA = 8 points 7 – 13 PA = 6 points 14 – 20 PA = 4 points 21 – 27 PA = 2 points SACK – Sack 2 points STY – Safety 6 points YDS – Yards Allowed 0 – 49 YDSs = 12 points 50 – 99 YDSs = 10 points 100 – 149 YDSs = 8 points 150 – 199 YDSs = 6 points 200 – 249 YDSs = 4 points 250 – 299 YDSs = 2 points i recently had a trade take place between a 7-0 team (MASTER T). and an 0-7 team (CASHIUS CLAY). the league suspects foul play and i would like to know if the trade should be vetoed. MASTER T’s ROSTER A. Rodgers QB E. Manning QB E. Graham RB L. Blount RB R. Torain RB R. Mathews RB R. Mendenhall RB W. Welker WR P. Garcon WR S. Smith WR (car) M. Wallace WR J. Ballard TE G. Olsen TE N. Rackers K Texans Dst Giants DST Cashius Clay’s Roster D. Brees QB T. Romo QB T. Jackson QB J. Addai RB S. Slaton RB R. Grant RB Chris. Johnson RB R. Meachem WR D. Nelson WR S. Holmes WR S. Rice WR A. Gates TE T. Gonzalez TE C. Barth K Fg S. Gostkowski K Steelers DST The trade that was made between the two teams is as follows: Brees, Drew QB NO – Traded from Cashius Clay Gates, Antonio TE SD – Traded from Cashius Clay Garcon, Pierre WR IND – Traded from MASTER T Manning, Eli QB NYG – Traded from MASTER T Olsen, Greg TE CAR – Traded from MASTER T Torain, Ryan RB WAS – Traded from MASTER T It is thought by the majority of the league that these 2 teams decided to stack master t’s team to ensure a championship. As the commissioner i am not sure if the teams are being shady or if its just a bad trade. i would like to know if this trade should be vetoed and allow the teams to renegotiate for the best interest of the league. Thank you, Mike Yearwood
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

I’m EXTREMELY sceptical of any trade between a last place team and a first place team this far into the season. In fact, I’d go so far as to say if Cashius Clay has been eliminated from contention, he shouldn’t be allowed to trade at all. At 0 – 7, he may or may not be mathematically eliminated. If he is, the trade is void, as there is no reason to make the trade on Cashius Clay’s part, unless there are some bonus winnings for weekly wins outside of making the playoffs.

Assuming however, Cashius Clay is not eliminated right now, it’s a tougher question. The trade is Brees and Gates for Garcon, Olsen, Manning, and Torain. Master T is getting a top five QB and perhaps a top TE in Gates, but with his foot injury, that is far from certain. Master T is giving up a top quality WR in Garcon, an average QB in Manning, a decent TE in Olsen, and a RB with upside in Torain, given Hightower’s season ending injury.

This is a tough call. Honestly, if these teams were close together in the standings, the trade is fine, because there are good arguments for both sides of the trade. But it really comes down to intent. If Cashius Clay’s intent is to stack Master T’s team, the trade needs to be invalidated regardless of the comparative value of the players. Since one team is so far down in the standings, I’m judging this trade with strict scrutiny. Evidence has been offered that a “majority of the league” thought these teams were colluding to help Master T win the championship. That is opinion and character evidence based on certain team owners’ perception of the others involved. I’m convinced by this evidence. It’s more likely than not collusion.

The trade should be vetoed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2011 11 04

Draft Do-over?

Text of dispute is :
We do our draft in person and only have a limited amount of pickups throughout the year. I didn’t have a sheet ranking kickers, so in the last round of the draft, I asked if someone could give me a couple of available kickers to select. Someone suggested Garrett Hartley, and I responded “the kicker for the saints” — they said yes, so I selected him knowing the Saints always have a high scoring offense. At the time this happened, no one in our draft knew that Hartley was hurt. My other kicker is off this week, and I don’t have a pickup left to use on a Kicker, so given the circumstances, I’ve asked our leeague if I could have an additional pickup to take a kicker…but I would only get to keep the kicker for just this one week when my other kicker is off. They said to take it to Fantasy Dispute…please let us know how you think this should be resolved. Thanks
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

Hartley was injured in a preseason game, but was still potentially going to be available to play a few weeks into the season. In fact, he was still on the Philadephia roster the first three weeks, as the Eagles hoped he might be able to play at some point. Only after week 3 did they place him on injured reserve, thereby ending his season. I am quite familiar with the Philadephia kicker situation, because I stupidly drafted Hartley in one of my own leagues. What I did not do was cry about it later.

Sorry, but I’m not too sympathetic on this one. You basically admit that you attended the draft unprepared, and then relied on the other owners (i.e., the “enemies”) for draft advice. The draft is the most sacred event of the year (and I’m including weddings and childbirth!). You need to have studied like it’s your bar exam. If not, your team unfortunately suffers the consequences. That’s the great thing about this crazy fantasy game of ours. It’s too bad you have limited pickups in your league, but those are the rules. It would be wonderful if the other owners were “nice guys” and allowed an exception to the rules in your case to allow a one-week pickup. But that is up to them, and I would be hesitant to have the league set a precedent in breaking its own rules. It can only lead to confusion and arguments later on when someone “just forgot” to set their lineup by the deadline, and then asks for an exception to the rules because “you got a break on that Hartley pick.”

My decision is that you are stuck with Hartley. And hey, it’s just a kicker. Best of luck in Week 7!

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2011 10 19

Rented player deal for one week

Text of dispute is :
I am the commissioner of the PFFL Pittsburgh Franchise Football League – by our rules if a trade receives 7 reject votes of 12 possible we send the trade to you. This trade in our Central Conference was rejected. Trade Offer Rejected: Snake & Shake gave up: Bradshaw, Ahmad NYG RB Jacobs, Brandon NYG RB Jenkins, Michael MIN WR White, Roddy ATL WR Frannie’s Train gave up: Johnson, Chris TEN RB Ringer, Javon TEN RB Thomas, Mike JAC WR Williams, Mike TBB WR The reason it was rejected was the week before these same two teams made this trade Frannie’s Train gave up: Bradshaw, Ahmad NYG RB Jacobs, Brandon NYG RB Green, A.J. CIN WR Snake & Shake gave up: Johnson, Chris TEN RB Ringer, Javon TEN RB Thomas, Mike JAC WR 6 “Approve” votes were made The background here is that the Snake & Shake team was 0-5 and in dead last going into the week and traded away CJ because he was on a bye and they obviously were desperate for a win. Now after winning their game this week they offered back the top trade to the same team and they accepted. The Frannie’s Train team trades heavily and he said he wanted Roddy White. Frannie’s is currently in 3rd and he told me he didn’t care that Bradshaw was off this week he wanted White. If you need to see rosters or anything else you can go to the link above and click on the Central Conference and at the top of the page choose Reports then rosters. The complaint from some of the other teams and mainly the team that S&S beat was this was a rented player deal for one week. The complaint is you shouldn’t be allowed to trade players back and forth. No we don’t have a written rule of such but we do have a written rule about collusion and some of the teams think that trading players back and forth this way is a form of collusion. We await your decision…
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

No one is challenging the relative values of the players involved, so I shalt not either. If I got the math right, it ends up being Michael Jenkins and Roddy White for A.J. Green and Mike Williams (TB). I can’t get my panties much in a bind over that one, and I don’t think anyone else in your league should, either.

But that’s not the whole story. There is an allegation that “this was a rented player deal for one week.” Although I do consider that your rules are silent as to trades that occur over more than one week, all leagues have rules (written or implied) against collusion, as does yours. In my opinion (and that’s what you’re paying for) swapping players over a two week period is clearly wrong for at least three reasons. First, it’s just wrong. Everyone knows that. But secondly, a trade should not be allowed unless it is publicly announced to the whole league (by email or through the league website) so that other teams can express their opinion and in your case vote to veto or not. The trade was not announced to the league in its entirety because no mention was made of the second week deal at the time of the first trade. This is not fair to the rest of the players. Other players may justifiably be making their own add/drops or trades based on assumptions of other teams’ rosters being what they appear to be. Thirdly, you can’t trade a player for a promise that the other team will do something else in the future. Suppose Frannie’s Train reneged on the second half of the trade meant for Week 6. What do you, undo the Week 5 trade? It’s chaos and unacceptable.

The more difficult question is whether this really was a multiple week agreement. Your evidence is a bit slim. But that was the accusation in your complaint, and notably there was no response. So I will find that that’s what happened since there was no denial by either team (and I would hope that these owners would ‘fess up), and a trade and re-trade of a majority of the players involved in this short time frame smells funny.

The trade should be undone.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Subject: Re: Decision: Fantasy Dispute ID #5191

I know you so ordered but I think I made a mistake here for talking for both parties and obvioulsy I didn’t state the trading parties side properly. Next time I will allow them to respond on their own. The trading parties empahtically stress this wasn’t a two week trade and I as commissioner know both and agree. As I stated the one is a furiuous trader and when the other party dangled Roddy White in the second trade he bit. I thought I made it clear that Roddy White was the object of the second trade. Please don’t judge this on the merits that the trading parties did not respond THEY DID – its my mistake for not stating their side properly. Could you please decide the case on these merits and if it takes another payment fine I’ll send it.

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

There is a motion for reconsideration of my decision based on new information that the parties agree should have been submitted originally. Namely, evidence is now offered that the parties involved in the trade did not originally agree to a two-week trade, but rather, agreed to two separate trades over a two-week period. More specifically, it is claimed that the second trade was not part of the agreement when the first trade was made and accepted.

This comes down to a credibility issue, which can be extremely difficult to judge. Fortunately, in this dispute, the commissioner has already heard from the parties involved and made a factual finding that there was no original agreement as to a two week trade. Given this determination, I will not substitute my independent judgement, which admittedly was speculation forced upon me by lack of evidence presented.

For the benefit of the other teams in the league, it is noteworthy that the original draft of my opinion read as follows, but I modified it in an effort for clarity and closure: “The more difficult question is whether this really was a multiple week agreement. Your evidence is a bit slim. But that was the accusation in your complaint, and notably there was no response. So I will find that that’s what happened since there was no denial by either team unless the commissioner after questioning the owners involved (and I would hope that these owners would ‘fess up if there was any funny business), and a trade and re-trade of a majority of the players involved in this short time frame smells funny is satisfied that at the time of the first trade there was no agreement for a future trade.

So the order is clarified as follows: Multiple week trades are illegal, but there is insufficient evidence that that occurred here. Therefore, both trades should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Subject: Re: Decision: Fantasy Dispute ID #5191

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

So the order is clarified as follows: Multiple week trades are illegal, but there is insufficient evidence that that occurred here. Therefore, both trades should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2011 10 19

After the trade, Team A will be stacked

Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 4:39 PM
Text of dispute is :
12 Team League. Roster 2QB 2WR 2RB 3W/R/TE 1TE 1DEF 3 Bench 1 point PPR, 10yards per point WR/RB, 25 for QB. All TDs, 6 points. No negative points. 5 point bonus for 40+ yard td. League has a policy of trade voting, but the commishiner can overide a trade that was voted down. A little background, with the 2 qb format every starter is rostered and evena few backups. 0 players available at this time on the wire tha have immediate impact. Some owners have 2, some 3, and one owner has 4 Recent trade Team A Donavan Mcnabb, Amad Bradshaw, and Robert Meachem Team B Ryan Mathew, Dez Bryant, Brent Celeck Meachem and Celeck were fillers at Team B’s request. This trade was voted down and the argument I am trying to make is that Team B has 2 qbs. Michael Vick and Mark Sanchez. Team has 4 QBs, With all QB’s rostered they are at a premium. No other Team has more than 3 so pulling off a trade would be unlikely. Can you provide an unbiased analsyis of this deal. Would you allow the trade to pass if you were commish under the circumstances.
END——–

Text of response is :
Team B currently has Vick and Sanchez at QB and is giving up Dex Bryant, Celeck (eagles te), and Ryan Mathews for Mcnabb, Bradshaw and Robert fucking Meachem…McNabb would be the #3 guy on his new team only there for two bye weeks or injuries. After giving up Dez Bryant the Team B will have at his two wr spots two rb spots and flex: OCho-cinco, Meachem, Ced Benson, Forte, Harvin, Earl Bennett and Bradshaw. Thus he is pulling two starters from his team Mathews and Bryant who play well in this format for one new starter in Bradshaw and a guy in Meachem who has never caught 50 balls. It leaves Team A with Roddy White, Bryant, Hakeem Nicks and Mike Wallace at wr, with Mathews and Addai at rb. Celeck or Jordy Nelson as a 3rd flex…Celeck may play over current tight end Cook. I am the commish and refrained from voting, but w as prepared to vote no on the trade in balance. 4 other owners have voted no and the trade went down. Also, another owner that obstained from voting thought it was terrible as well, but he said that basically if Team A that was giving up Dez Bryant wanted to be a dumb ass, he was not sure it was his place to stop him. I would over ride the veto, but people in the league think that myself and owner of Team B are really close friends and scheme together. That is not the case in terms of scheming. I actually wish he would finish dead last and be so upset that he would piss blood for two weeks agonizing over it. Be that as it may I feel the “no” vote owners would feel I am showing favoritism.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

I have thoroughly reviewed the dispute as well as the response. First, as to the players involved: There are no stats yet to compare, but players can be grouped in terms of expected performance. I’d put McNabb as a 3^rd tier QB, Bradshaw as a 2^nd tier RB, and Meacham (notwithstanding his good performance in tonight’s game) as a 3^rd tier TE.

Ryan Mathews is a low 2^nd tier, or high 3^rd tier RB, Dez Bryant a 2^nd tier WR, and Brent Celek a 3^rd tier TE. I’d prefer Celek over Meacham, but team B is getting a slight upgrade from Mathews in Bradshaw. That leaves McNabb, a 3^rd tier QB for Bryant, a 2^nd tier WR. I do buy the argument that QB’s are more valuable in your league due to scarcity, even one as lame as McNabb. So I think the trade is fine.

I don’t put much credit in the argument that in effect, “after the trade, Team A will be stacked.” I am purely looking at the players involved in the trade, not the remaining rosters. If Team A ends up looking better, that’s because he drafted better players to begin with. Teams (such as Team B) ought to be able to take chances to improve their team, and there are many reasons to want this trade (Vick being a huge injury risk, for example). Trades should not be vetoed because it looks slightly one-sided in the eye of beholder. Now, if collusion was alleged, it would be a different matter, but at this point in the season, no one is claiming that.

I’m not a big fan of using league votes to veto trades, because inevitably teams vote out of their own self-interest instead of looking at the “fairness” of the deal. A good trade will benefit both teams involved, presumably helping those teams at the expense of the rest of the league—nothing wrong with that.

If I were the commish, I’d allow the trade.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2011 09 08

Team taking advantage of new owner?

Text of dispute is :

On April 1, Team A traded Wilson Valdez, Donnie Murphy and Tim Redding to Team B for Shaun Marcum. This trade was disputed by one of the league owners and a veto vote came back 8-2 to overturn the deal. Last year, we voted to send disputed trades to an arbiter rather than vote to overturn (previously,

6 votes were enough to overturn a trade). – We play in a 12 team, NL only rotisserie league. – Team B is new to our league and is co-owned. One owner didn’t confer with the other owner before accepting the deal. They subsequently voted to overturn the trade. Further, the owner who accepted the deal thought we were playing in a head-to-head league because of the weekly scoring periods, so he thought filling a short term hole was a smart play. He is new to fantasy baseball but plays fantasy football. – At the time of the trade, it was assumed that Utley would be back within a few weeks so Valdez was only a short term starter. It was also known that Tim Redding would not be the Dodger’s 5th starter (although the owner of Team A wasn’t forthcoming with that information). – Team B was prepared to drop Tim Redding the day after the trade went through. Because our first scoring period went for 10 days this year because of the mid-week opening day, they still have him on their roster. – As commissioner, I am being true to our league’s vote last year to send disputed trades to an arbiter site. I believe the deal should be overturned for multiple reasons (two part time players for a starter who experts expect to have a great year is an unfair deal, Team A took advantage of Team B and was actually the third one-sided deal he made already this season, the league voted overwhelmingly to overturn the deal, Team B voted to overturn the deal). Thanks for your time.

END——–

Text of Response–

I am owner of Team A. I traded Wilson Valdez, Donnie Murphy and Tim Redding. At the time of the trade, there was no news on when Utley would be back. Valdez was starting 2b and had upside. Murphy was named starting 3b and is expected to be the entire year. Dodgers had not named a 5th starter and he was supposed to be the 5th starter. Last year, John Ely was an interim 5th and became the starter and put up good stats. On the other hand, Marcum was feeling soreness and there was a question if he would be on the DL.

Team ! Owners needed to replace two minor leaguers non starters on their starting lineup. No one has traded starting positional players because of the depth of our league–standard with 10 reserves. In a similar trade I traded Skip Schumaker, Jose lopez (who was not named starter unlike Valdez or Murphy at time) and Cashner ( a similar potential upside pitcher for Brandon Phillips (a top tier second baseman).

There was no collusion and how other owners voted is irrelevant. They were mad that I made the Phillips deal (and two others) this was 4th with 4 different owners and in every case they felt I got the better end. The fact that co-owners didn’t consult is irrelevant as well-we have co-owners in our league where managing owner makes decisions. The difference between roto and head to head actually supports upholding since the marginal difference between production in accumulating stats over zeros which they were starting is even more significant rather than just a one week hit. The fact that Valdez and Murphy are starting and playing well and that Marcum got rocked in his first start further confirms the fairness of the deal.

Just because someone may get the better end of the deal in peoples minds is no reason to overturn. Team ! Wanted to fill positional holes and drafted an abundance of starting pitching (Marcum may be his 4th or 3rd best starter) and needed offense. If Redding lost 5th role after trade that was risk he bore. Marcum coulf have gone on DL. In fact Team B originally offered me a deal for Murphy wand wanted him in a trade for a starter. I expanded a little to add Valdez and Redding for a better pitcher. There is no evidence Team B was not trying to improve his team and he did with hitting. Team B has rejected other peoples offers at the same time and has been active so its not as if Team B has not been evaluating trade options. Team B liked my offer and accepted. There is no reason to overturn.

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

I have read and carefully reviewed the original dispute, as well as the response which finally came in today. Interestingly, my decision would have been the same even without the response from Team A.

I will discuss the contentions in order. The disputed trade is Wilson Valdez, Donnie Murphy, and Tim Redding for Shaun Marcum. The trade occurred on April 1, so whatever has happened since then is irrelevant to my decision.

As for the 8-2 vote to “veto” the trade, I put little weight on the vote itself. I understand your league rules require submission to an arbiter such as FantasyDispute.com upon at least six votes. This is definitely a preferable rule than a pure “veto” vote, because most teams not involved in a trade will vote based on their own self-interest rather than the “fairness” of the trade itself. And most “good” trades, while presumably benefitting the owners involved, likewise will hurt the owners not involved (by the non-involved teams getting fewer points in the standings). Similarly, I view the fact that Team B voted to “veto” the trade he (or his co-manager) accepted is buyer’s remorse, and not particularly important.

As for the claims that Team B is “new” to the league, inexperienced at fantasy baseball, and confused about the league being rotissserie versus head-to-head, these are not particularly determinative. The trade should stand or fall on its merits. As for the claim that Team B’s co-manager wasn t consulted, I see that as an issue between the co-managers, not a reason to overturn a transaction that one manager executed with apparent authority to do so.

Now, turning to the merits of the trade itself… On March 30, the Phillies released Luis Castillo, opening up the everyday 2B positon for Wilson Valdez to replace the injured Utley in a potent lineup. I completely disagree that it was known that Utley would be back within a “few weeks” as stated in the original dispute. He was taking ground balls from a stool, for Christ sake.

The dispute submission also states that at the time of the trade, it was known that Redding would not be the Dodger’s 5th starter. That would be news to Don Mattingly, who publicly stated otherwise. Donnie Murphy, while certainly not a fantasy stud by any means, will get steady at bats as the Marlins regular third baseman.

On April 1, Shaun Marcum was returning from a shoulder problem, which is a risky thing for a pitcher. All in all, there are good reasons for both teams to make this trade. Owners must be allowed to take chances to improve their teams, and in your league, which is admittedly quite deep, starting players like Valdez and Murphy are hard to come by. Most importantly, there is no evidence of collusion. The trade should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2011 04 09

Yahoo! Scoring Change Changed The Winner

Text of dispute is :
To whom it may concern, query We write to you in this somber month of March for several reasons. First, in an attempt to quiet our post fantasy doldrums that are in full swing following Super Bowl weekend. Second, and most pertinently, we write to you in the hope of bringing closure to a season that closed in controversy. Essentially our problem stems from yahoo’s week late stat corrections: Team A and Team B meet in the finals on week 16 of the regular season. Down to the final play, Team B capped off a Monday night comeback with a Ryan Longwell extra point that pushed them ahead, leaving the final score 99.81-99.35. We celebrated the season with an end of the year gathering a few days later (five to be exact) in which the winnings were dished out (200 for 1st, 100 for 2nd and 50 for 3rd) and post-season awards were distributed. The manager of team B, having promised to buy the league a trophy with his winnings, anointed himself the first ever winner our Seattle Bomber Bowl. The real controversy presented itself two days later, when the stat corrections were posted. The only correction of the week: 1 point added for Dallas DEF for a sack that had been miscounted. In fitting style, Dallas DEF was on team A and the added point pushed them now past Team B, leaving the final score 100.35-99.81. Our question is as follows: Having had our ceremony, and Team B having spent a portion of his winnings (50$) on a trophy in which he would not have purchased had he taken second place, what action do we take? Is Team B the winner of our league because we donned him the winner in our ceremony and presented him the money? Or is Team A the winner because he is the rightful points leader? If Team A is the winner, how does the redistribution of money work since Team B spent a portion of the winning on a trophy? Is he now forced to pay for that out of pocket? Also, who’s name should be the first inscribed on the new Bomber Bowl, Team A or B? In the time since the correction there has been much panic, debate, and even threats of retirement from both owners. Because of this we have decided to seek a third party medium in the form of your most excellent legal analysis. Your decision shall be the word in our league, so please take care to make it a well thought out and insightful decision. It would be an understatement to say the hopes and dreams of two vexed and anxious owners lies within your grasps. Many Thanks Seattle Bomber Commissioner
END——–

Text of response is :
As commissioner, I thought that team A[Judge: I assume you mean team B here], the original winner should be awarded the team trophy for several reasons. 1. The stat correction was too late. On such an important week as week 16 for the title to be decided on a stat correction 6 days after is absurd. 2. In that period of time, the proclaimed winner unselfishly spent the winning to buy a much needed league trophy, there was also an end of the year celebration proclaiming him as the winner. So in light of the original winners actions it would be ideal if the original winner was proclaimed champion and the stat correction nullified because of the tardiness of the correction and the celebratory events which took place during that time.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

Yahoo! Fantasy Football has a topic posted on this subject at http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/sports/fantasysports/football/

And reprinted here:

Scoring Changes and Corrections

Last Updated: December 22, 2009

In order to provide the most accurate scores possible we process scoring corrections as we receive them from our data provider. While this can result in frustrating losses it can also result in unexpected wins.

Note: The NFL makes scoring corrections for players every week. We typically receive the stat corrections every Thursday from our data provider, at which time the corrections are updated and applied to all leagues.

You can click Stat Corrections from the Players tab to view a list of corrections that have been processed in your league.

Any statistical changes that are made will impact head-to-head matchups if they are made before the first game of the following week.

Your dispute occurred after Week 16 games were played on December 25 and 26, 2009. Note that the Yahoo! posting was December 22, before the dispute in your league occurred. It would certainly be possible for a league to have a rule in its constitution that states, “No NFL stat changes will affect scores after x number of days.” I am assuming your league constitution is silent on this. Therefore I have no problem following Yahoo!’s guidance, which is quite clear on the subject: “In order to provide the most accurate scores possible we process scoring corrections as we receive them from our data provider. While this can result in frustrating losses it can also result in unexpected wins.” (emphasis added)

Your league results, therefore, were not final until all stat changes were received by Yahoo! So it is incorrect to state that Team B had ever won. Team B appeared to have won until the stat correction was made. This is consistent with the object of fantasy sports, namely, to accurately predict a player’s performance (or statistics). Team A’s defense made that official sack, it just took a while for the NFL (or Yahoo!) to acknowledge it. So Team A needs to be rewarded with the points attributable to that sack, even if those points were late to arrive.

As for the argument that the stat change was “too late,” I disagree. If there had been league activity such as add/drops, waivers, trades, or any transaction that may have been effected by the posted (yet incorrect) standings, I might very well have ruled that the stat change was too late because some of the teams would be prejudiced by the scoring change (and corresponding change in the standings, which can effect waiver order, for example). However, purchasing a trophy was simply premature, not “prejudice” to Team B related to the fantasy game.

So the winner of the league is Team A. Team A deserves the 1^st place winnings, and should be paid accordingly. Team B gets the 2^nd place winnings.

As for the expense of the tropy, there is no reason Team B should still be on the hook for it. The league (all teams equally) should reimburse Team B for the trophy cost.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com

2010 03 25