Text of response is :
This is the first time this player has been a commissioner. His lack of knowledge about FF and misrepresentation to this court shouldnt be held against him. He just had a baby and he really could use the money… Please dont ban him from ever playing FF again. Fact: The league was set up as a 10 team democracy, where-in a majority vote would be used to settle ANY and ALL disputes – not just trades. 6 out of 10 and we can make the commissioner hand over power or wear a dress to the draft. Contrary to the commissioner’s misleading statements we may just vote to impeach him for this shady move to the courts. I am glad its the courts and not the FF gods though, cause seeing my brother try to recover from a lightening strike for his dishonesty is not worth the $50 i still havent paid. Speaking of the draft – which was held the Wednesday before NFL kickoff Thursday – only 9 teams were confirmed. Fact: These 9 consensus drafted for the 10th person to be found later. Fact : Prior to the start of week 1 settings and scoring were never discussed. It was not mentioned that return yards were worth nothing, it was not discussed that playoffs would be only 4 teams. It was not discussed that my # 1 draft pick Andre Johnson would miss 6 weeks. In FACT it was after the COMPLETION of week 1 that the waiver setting was found to be incorrectly set. Fact: The commissioner had to involve the website which is hosting this league (Yahoo) to reverse the commissioners erroneous waiver setting. After this huge gaffe the commissioner said, and I quote “Man I hope the rest of the league doesnt hunt me down and tar and feather me for screwing up ALL the settings so badly.” The commissioner’s note about prize money is irrelevant and misleading as there will still only be 1 winner. Just a little character reference for ya… The 4 team playoff setting only became relevant as we near the time when teams look to see who will get a bye. Fact: the commissioner is in first place and scared he will lose to the 6th seed in the championship cause Rodgers will be benched and Forte finally broke down. In closing: just because OJ and Casey Anthony got away with murder doesnt mean this commissioner should – even if he is smarter and better spoken than I am and its true that I just moved in to 6th place… By the way, great idea on this website – for those that dont take the time to ensure all players understand what democracy means… Please be sure to send both sides in your “ruling” so I can involve the rest of the teams and we can all laugh together. So what if its only the 6 teams that are currently not in the playoffs…
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

I have carefully read both sides of this dispute, and I understand the issue presented, namely, “Should a  league vote change the playoff structure from a four-team playoff to a six-team playoff at this point in the season?”

The respondent claims that the commissioner is inexperierenced and has misrepresented facts to the court.  I ignore the name-calling, which is not particularly helpful in resolving the dispute. Similarly, the comments concerning the draft with only 9 teams present, the scoring rules for return yards, and Andre Johnson’s well documented injury are completely irrelevant. It is however, relevant that there were some rule adjustments soon after week one, and I accept that this was the fault of the commissioner for not completely understanding the sacred responsibilities of being the commissioner and setting the rules in stone before the draft, not to mention before the first week of the season. But it appears that the league recovered from some early growing pains, and functioned well enough until this controversy.

There is some dispute about when the 4 team playoff rule was decided. The commissioner claims, “From the day of the draft the playoff structure has been set to 4 teams.” Respondent claims that “it was not discussed” that the playoff would be only 4 teams, and it “only became relevant as we near the time when teams look to see who will get a bye.”  I assume that the 4 team playoff rule was merely the Yahoo league default setting for a ten-team league, which is quite ordinary and reasonable.  However, in any event, it appears undisputed that the league settings for the 4 team playoff was part of the league’s rules at least after week one, if not before.  Although it may be that playoffs were not discussed, I am certain that any of the teams could (and should) have looked at the Yahoo rules settings earlier than now.  So everyone was on fair notice that this is what the rules were, whether or not anyone checked before now.

The respondent alleges “The league was set up as a 10 team democracy, where-in a majority vote would be used to settle ANY and ALL disputes.”  Respondent further argues, based on this majority-vote rule, the league is free to do anything it wants. That’s where I disagree. The majority-vote rule must be interpreted to allow the league to resolve league disputes by majority rule. That is quite different from allowing a majority-vote to change the rules midseason.  It is a fundamental law of fantasy sports (and any other self-respecting game) that one can’t change the rules midstream. The result is chaos. Suppose before (or even after) the last game of the season, there is a vote to make the team scoring the fewest points the winner. Sound fair? Of course not. Simply put, a league vote is a reasonable way to settle ambiguities in the rules, questionable trades, and similar issues, but not a basis to change the rules. One exception would be if there is a unanimous vote to change the rules, which I have no problem with, but that is not what happened here. And by the way, the league can’t simply manufacture a dispute solely in order to change the rules. 

Your league rules have long provided for a 4 team playoff. Teams may, and should have planned accordingly, including adding players based on favorable matchups during the playoff weeks. It is too late to change this rule.  The league’s playoff should remain at four teams.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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. 

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

 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.

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.

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.

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