Fantasy Dispute

Dispute ID is 4494
Text of dispute is :
Subject: Carl Crawford Keeper Status Our Yahoo! league is a 5 or 6-year-old league that has been set up as follows: teams are allowed to keep up to 5 players per year. Each keeper has a three-year keeper contract, and one player per team is allowed to be “franchised,” whereby that player can be kept for longer than 3 years. In years past, when a keeper was traded midseason, his contract went with him, just as it would in real life. When 3 year keepers were not franchised in our league, they re-enter the next years draft with a new 3 year contract with whichever owner selects them. This brings us to our dispute. Carl Crawford had been kept for 2 consecutive seasons heading into the 2008 season. Crawford was kept by his owner, beginning his third and final contract year. Had this team owner wanted to keep Crawford for the 2009 season, he would have needed to be “franchised.” The owner of this team was in a fight for a top league spot, and did not have room on his roster for the injured Crawford. So he cut him. I picked up Crawford (as a free agent, not off waivers) under the assumption that his “contract” was broken when the prior team’s owner cut Crawford, and that Crawford’s keeper eligibility was re-set – much in the same way a keeper’s contract is re-set when he is allowed to re-enter the next year’s draft. When I made my case to the league, they believed Crawford’s status as a third-year keeper heading into the year should have extended throughout the entire year, making him draft eligible heading into the 2009 season regardless. I believe their claims to be built on a foundation of sand, and that their objections to my pickup were made simply because they had not thought of this first. It should be noted that no league by-laws exist. Our commissioner has ruled with a meaty, iron fist to this point. No one has questioned him until this day. I stipulate that when the team’s owner cut Crawford, his contract with the league was ripped in the process, and that I should be allowed to keep Crawford for the 2009 season, with full (3 years) eligibility as I would any other free agent I was fortunate enough to pick up the prior year. Our league has voted in favor of bringing this dispute to fantasydispute.com in order to arbitrate. Our fair, yet beefy, commissioner has agreed that any ruling by fantasydispute.com will be final. Submitted to you this 10th day of February, 2009, The Spoontang Clan
END——–

Response ID is 4494 Submitter email is : Respondent email is :
Text of response is :
Many of the arguments that are put forth by the Spoontang Clan are in fact correct relative to his claim. One oversight on his part was the fact that each year after the draft I (as commissioner of the Idaho Guacamole League) distribute a list of all five players that were kept for the season. On said spreadsheet the players are identified and color coded based on the number of years they now have remaining on their contract going forward (i.e. 2 years(green), 1 year(yellow) or needs to be franchised going forward (red). The purpose of this email is to clearly identify each players status for the year when considering any roster moves a manager may make. To date everyone has understood the purpose of this email and has acted accordingly in managing their team. This year’s situation with Carl Crawford presented a challenge to the league when the Spoontang Clan attempted to try and exploit the principals-based nature of our league’s bylaws with a rules-based dispute. The fact of the matter is all members of our league understood that Carl Crawford could not be kept for the 2009 season unless he was franchised which is precisely why he cleared waivers. It was only after this occurred that the Spoontang Clan decided that it was worth a shot to pick up Carl Crawford and try to attempt that he deserved a new contract. I will not dispute that it was a savvy move by him and was worth a shot. The main issue to me and my fellow owners is that this event would change the fundamental structure of our league and require that we document all rules that prior to this were understood by all and followed accordingly. The Clan’s arguments are without merit and should be summarily dismissed. We thank you for your consideration of this matter and look forward to hearing your decision.
END——–

 

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS: Very interesting!  I understand the dispute and have enough information to make a decision.  Spoontang Clan makes a strong argument in support of his claim to Carl Crawford. When a team drops a player under contract, and that player clears waivers, his contract should be voided.  The team that drops a contract player to make room on his roster for a non-injured player (in a push to win the league) should be aware of such risk, and think twice before making the move.  Therefore I agree with Spoontang Clan as to how your rules should be implemented going forward, and encourage the commissioner to write some bylaws accordingly.  However, that does not resolve this dispute.   It appears uncontroverted that all teams (except perhaps Spoontang Clan) were playing under the impression that your (unwritten) league rules prevented such a scenario.  The intent of your (unwritten) rules take precedence over the the literal (especially unwritten!) rules.  I find the evidence that Crawford cleared waivers compelling evidence that the entire league (including Spoontang Clan) understood the rules as the Commissioner explains them below.   I see no prejudice to Spoontang Clan’s team in preventing him from acquiring Crawford through the “add” process with a fresh 3 year contract—he is in the same position as all the other owners who will have a shot at him in 2009.  Owners should be rewarded for finding gems like unknown players, not unknown rules. Crawford is draft eligible for the 2009 season. IT IS SO ORDERED. Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com.