Fantasy Dispute

Text of dispute is :
The other party hasnt agreed to use this service but the events that are occurred that no one disputes to is this: Two of the top 3 teams in the standings going into the last week of the regular season, we will call them Team A and Team B were facing other teams. Team A ended up winning the regular season. Team B finished 3rd in the regular season. Team B played a team that finished 10th place overall that we will call Team C. Team A had conversations with Team C explicitly telling him what moves to make, mostly through the use of pitcher streaming, which was common throughout the season. Some settings of the league were 12 team H2H, 7×7, top 6 make the playoffs, 5 moves per week. All players team C dropped in these moves were of little value. Team B is also the commissioner. When the news of these conversations came out, the commissioner has decided to disband the league and declare no winner. The commissioners claim is that this violates these 3 rules on Yahoo! http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/baseball/rules/brules-26.ht ml Even though fantasy games are meant to be a competitive experience for all involved, it is important to us that our users not lose sight of the rules of fair play and good sportsmanship. ….. 3. No owner will engage in any action that may be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other). 4. No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners. 5. No owner will take any action whose purpose is to, in any way, interfere with fair play in a league. The commissioner says these actions greatly affected seeding in the playoffs and therefore the whole league has to be broken up. Team A believes that this is not anything new in a H2H league and these rules number one don’t state an action of giving advice to another team on how to improve for that week rises to the level of collusion, as in the rule it says only one team benefits, he believes that the other team did benefit also as it was better than it would’ve been had the moves not been made. Number 2, there was no dumping of good players in the moves he had made, so the integrity of the league wasn’t hurt in that manner. Team A also thinks that the intent of such rules is very important here as they do not pertain to such a situation, the intent of these rules is to prevent bad trades, dumping players to higher waiver priorities, and player swaps. Also Team A questions the timing of this as this decision was made soon after the commissioner was eliminated from the playoffs. The questions asked to the court are this… 1. Did this violate any of the 3 rules listed above? 2.If it did, what should be the remedy in terms of money, and what should happen with the remainder of the league? 3. If it didn’t what should be the penalty, if any to the commissioner for abusing his power?
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

After re-reading your dispute a few times, I do get it.  Basically, Team A gave advice to Team C to field a strong lineup during the last week of the season, which enabled Team C to defeat Team B that week, which helped Team A claim the title.  I find no violation of the Yahoo league rules, either explicitly or implicitly.

I will analyze the Yahoo rules in order—

3. No owner will engage in any action that may be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).

Team A did assist Team C, but not in any illegal way.  All of Team A’s advice to Team B admittedly helped Team A (by helped Team C defeat team B), but also helped team C.  This is no different than if Team A had traded players with team C, giving both arguably better teams at the detriment of all other teams in the league.  This is permissible.

4. No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners.

All of Team C’s roster moves were done to improve Team C’s chances of winning that week.  The fact that this letdto Team B’s loss did not hamper his play—Team B just got beat by a better lineup that week.

5. No owner will take any action whose purpose is to, in any way, interfere with fair play in a league.

Team A’s and Team’s C’s actions were all done to improve Team C’s team.  This does not interfere with fair play, it promotes it.  It must be assumed that all teams will continue to play strong lineups throughout the season, even if they are eliminated from contention.

Note that my decision would be quite different if Team A played Team C that final week, and Team C, at the advice of Team A, purposefully fielded a weak team in order to give Team A the victorty.  That would be collusion, but it is not what happened here. 

Parenthetically, I encourage leagues to have some incentive for all teams to compete the entire season (e.g., rewarding a weekly high point winner), so that there can be no dispute but that each team is trying to play their best lineup week in and week out.  However, even if Team C was completely out of contention, with nothing to gain with a win over Team B that final week, he should still be trying to play all out to win.  If this means accepting advice from others, so be it. 

In your league, no rules were broken. The commissioner should distribute its normal awards accordingly.  

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

In our league we start an offensive unit: The Scoring System defined on our rule sheet that was typed in 1988: Defense: Interception for TD: 2 points Fumble for TD: 2 points Safety: 2 points INT not returned for TD: .5 points Offense: Kick-Off Returned for TD: 2 points Punt Returned for TD: 2 points And last year a team got credit for a missed FG that was returned for TD as an offensive score. Week 2: The Arizona Cardinals are my offense and blocked a FG and returned it for a touchdown, but the commisioner says it counts as a defensive score because they didn’t have a guy back to return the kick. He also said, a blocked punt that passes the line of scrimmage and returned for a TD would qualify for an offensive score. (The kick was a 46 yd attempt which was returned 83 yards, meaning it passed the line of scrimmage and is a live ball). There are 4 ways to score a special teams touchdown in normal fantasy football leagues: Kick off return, Punt return, punt block, field goal blocked. In our league 3 out of 4 scenarios count as an offensive score, but commish is saying the FG blocked is a defensive touchdown. My argument is a blocked FG doesn’t count as a turnover, it crossed the lie of scrimmage and is now a live ball so it can’t be considered a defensive score. In my interpretation ,according to our scoring, once the ball leaves the kicking team’s foot, they are no longer on offense. It was explained on draft night that Punt and Kick TDs count as offense because the other team is trying to tackle them and they have the ball. We reward $ based on weekly totals and I lost 2nd place by .5 points
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

When interpreting the rules of a particular league, the first and foremost task is examining YOUR LEAGUE’s written rules or constitution.  If those rules are unambiguous, they control.  Only if they are ambiguous, is it proper to consider past precedent in the league.  So the first step is examining your league rules.  If your league rules are silent, then it is also appropriate to consult past precedent in your league.  If there is no precedent, then it is appropriate to consider external sources, such as NFL league rules, or “common law” established in most fantasy football leagues.

Per your written league rules: “Defense: Interception for TD: 2 points; Fumble for TD: 2 points; Safety: 2 points; INT not returned for TD: .5 points” and “Offense: Kick-Off Returned for TD: 2 points; Punt Returned for TD: 2 points.”  Therefore your league rules are apparently silent on how to score Field Goals returned for touchdowns. 

 Pursuant to the rules of interpretation, the next step is examining whether there is precedent in your league—while these are unwritten rules, they are still implied rules, since presumably the entire league was aware of the scenario and put on notice that the league would handle things this way in the future (unless and until a contrary rule was written into your league’s rules).

It appears undisputed that “last year a team got credit for a missed FG that was returned for TD as an offensive score,” since no reply was submitted in response to your dispute.  Therefor, I have no problem deciding that last year’s precedent controls this year’s situation.  To rule otherwise would allow confusion to reign.

Parenthetically, I note that per NFL official league rules, “Kicks from Scrimmage, Rule 13”:  Defensive team may advance all kicks from scrimmage (including unsuccessful field goal) whether or not ball crosses defensive team’s goal line. Rules pertaining to kicks from scrimmage apply until defensive team gains possession.”  And certainly in most fantasy football leauges (CBSSportsline, Yahoo, ESPN, etc.), the “default” rule (which again, is subject to change in any private league like yours) is that blocked field goals are scored as defensive or special teams touchdowns.  However, as stated above, your league’s precedent controls unless there is a contrary written rule adopted, which apparently never occurred.  Furthermore, you state (again undisputed) that “It was explained on draft night that Punt and Kick TDs count as offense because the other team is trying to tackle them and they have the ball.”

Therefore, considering your league’s undisputed precedent and verbal reinforcement on draft night, in your league, blocked field goals count as offensive scores. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

In our 6 member league i was proposed a trade of Randy moss (the other team involved) for C Palmer. I accepted the trade. A few of the other members are disputing the trade saying that it is an unfair trade. I believe that it is a fair trade. I already have t brady and j cutler as my 2 qbs. The other member has t edawrds and j flacco. He does not want to send a response.

I wanted to add that in our league the settings are qb 25 passing yards 1 point. tds 6 points pics -2 points WR 10 receibing yards 1 point, 10 rushing 1 point, tds 6 points the person who wants c palmer has trent edwards and joe flacco on his roster already. Our league uses a 2 qb 3 wr system. Its on yahoo on a head 2 head system.

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

The proposed trade is Randy Moss for Carson Palmer.  Moss has 165 receiving yards and no touch downs.  Palmer has thrown for 432 yards, with 3 touchdowns versus 4 interceptions. 

Currently, Moss is only in the top 25 among wide receivers in fantasy points, which is much lower than his projections.  But a close look reveals he has been targeted 23 times, which is in the top 5.  I think that is a better measure of his future value the rest of the season.

Palmer is currently only in the top 20 among quarterbacks, but he is showing signs of improvement after a horrible week 1, and a decent week 2 with 3 touchdowns. 

I’d rather be the team getting Moss in this trade, but that’s not the issue.  The question is whether there is any evidence of collusion between fantasy teams or if the trade is so one-sided as to upset the balance of the league.  No evidence of collusion has been offered, and after only two weeks, there is no way either team is out of contention and can be accused of “dumping” all their best players.  Teams must be allowed to take chances, and it is possible that Moss will regress to his Raider-days statistics, and Palmer will go on a tear.

The trade should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Text of dispute is :
Week #1: Team A fails to submit their lineup. Team B that is playing Team A would have clearly lost if Team A submitted their lineup. We do not have anything in our rules that currently addresses someone failing to submit their lineup. Who makes the playoffs are determined on our Win/Loss record then we proceed to points in a tie breaker scenario. Therefore, We have an argument that Team B who did submit their lineup should play against someone by drawing a name out of the hat or something like that to determine if they get a win or loss on the week. Argument being made by Team C is I would hate to miss the playoffs or not win my division knowing that Team B was just given a win due to Team A not participating with a lineup submission. Right now up for vote is 1) Team A loss and Team B gets win 2) Team A loss and Team B has to draw out of a hat to determine opponent (So Both teams could end up with a loss) 3) Team A gets win with everyone knowing his lineup would have beat Team B no matter what he submitted giving Team B the loss.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

There are rules and there are rules.  Although you state you “do not have anything in our rules that currently addresses someone failing to submit their lineup,” what you mean is your rules do not expressly state what happens in this event.  I have no problem finding that there is an implied rule that if a team does not submit their lineup, they get no points.  Team B surely scored more than zero points, so Team B wins.

                Although it is tempting in such a scenario to play the “what if” game, your league must resist doing so.  Whereas Team A would have won no matter what lineup he submitted, this is a dangerous precedent.  You do not want to speculate as to what a team owner would have done (if he hadn’t overslept due to his hangover and missed the deadline).  Team A didn’t set their lineup, Team A gets no points, period. 

                Many leagues have rules that state if a lineup is not submitted after week 1, the previous week’s lineup is used.  That should be your league’s default rules in the future, unless otherwise stated.  But there are no excuses for missing week 1, for crying out loud.

Team B gets a win, Team A gets a loss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Text of dispute is :
I have been in a keeper league for several years in which we have 5 keepers each year. The league was operated through Fanball.com. I was recruited into the league by Toby (Commissioner) and had the option of picking between two available keeper teams. Both teams were weak but I picked one and slowly built my team by picking young RBs in our annual drafts. In addition, I picked up Michael Turner prior to him leaving the Chargers thinking that he would go to another team the following year. I won the Championship last year (2008) with Adrian Peterson, Michael Turner, Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson, and Tony Romo. It’s the first time I’ve won and, obviously, I was looking forward to this year since this has always been a keeper league. However, recently I received a call from the commissioner indicating the league wanted to do a road trip and conduct a live draft. During this time, he mentioned the thought of starting from scratch and redrafting. In other words, no keepers. Obviously, I voiced my opinion in opposition. I built my team up and did not want to start over after it took me several years to built it. At some point, the commissioner mentioned possible having two keepers instead of the five we normally have. That would have been fine with me. However, subsequent emails to all members revealed that the decision had been made to start from scratch and redraft. Now I do understand that we have switched leagues from Fanball to ESPN and have added two new members so we went from ten teams to twelve teams but we cold have easily had two keepers and let the two new teams pick two from the ones left over. It should also be noted that there does not appear to be a “road trip” as was originally planned. In conclusion, it is my position that I am getting screwed on this deal. I had the best team and possibly would have for several years to come yet I see absolutely no justification to redraft. When I came in the league, I had to endure one team that had LT and Larry Johnson. Needless to say, this team dominated for a while. Isn’t that the whole premise of a keeper league? You draft to built your team. I would like a ruling on whether or not I am getting screwed over.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

You were screwed!  If there are going to be major changes in a keeper league, this must be announced a full year BEFORE the changes will take effect.  Changing the format this year is not only unfair to you, but to every team last year also, since they may have made (or decided not to make) trades near the end of the season on the assumption of what the player values were.  A player value in a keeper league is obviously much different than in a re-draft leauge, depending on their age and other factors. 

I am sympathetic to the other league owners that were obviously scared of the your team’s dynasty potential with Turner, Peterson, Fitzgerald, Johnson and Romo.  Turner, Peterson, Fitzgerald and Johnson are arguably four of the best ten players in the league, and Romo is a top five quarterback.  But that is the nature of keeper leagues, and a testatment to your skill in obtaining those players over the years.

This is quite shameful, but unfortunately, I don’t know what the remedy would be.  You were definitely screwed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Text of dispute is :
I am the commish of a Yahoo Head 2 Head Plus 7×7 1 Player keeper league/ 6 Teams make the playoffs (cat- H,R,RBI,SB,BA,OPS,HR/IP,W,L,S,K,ERA,WHIP) Manager F-Losing 2 Navas (Currently 14 games out of final playoff spot w/ 4 weeks to play in regular season) proposed a trade of Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Pena for Johnathan Broxton to my team Disabled Lust (currently in 2nd place). Note: F-Losing 2 Navas has only 2 closers and has lost the record in the saves catagory of 2-12-4. I accepted the trade on Monday. Waiting period is 3 days for trades to be processed. Trades can be protested and reviewed by Yahoo League office which takes 5 days. The league operated under Yahoo Standard Rules which are as followed:A trade consists of one manager exchanging a player or players with another manager in the same league. Once any trade offer is accepted, the entire league will be notified so that all managers will have an opportunity to review the deal. If a manager feels that the deal is unfair, he/she can lodge an official protest with the Yahoo! Fantasy Baseball PLUS League Office. Every protest, which must contain a description of why the protesting manager feels the trade should be vetoed, will be reviewed by members of the Yahoo! Sports staff. Any protest without a legitimate reason will automatically be ignored. In a Public League, all managers will have two days to protest a trade to the League Office. In a Custom League, the league commissioner can set the review period to be anywhere between one and seven days. If the League Office, in its sole discretion, determines that a protested trade is fair, the protest will be denied. If, however, the trade is clearly a product of collusion or is so one-sided that it is deemed to be unfair to the rest of the league, it will be overturned. It is not the purpose of the League Office to prevent managers from making unwise trades, but rather to simply ensure that all managers in a league are competing on a level and fair playing field. All decisions (of the Yahoo! League Office or the league commissioner) on trade protests are final, and no completed and approved trade will ever be reversed. Additionally, we will never re-examine and approve a vetoed trade… League has operated under the yahoo league office review for the past 3 years. In that time no trade veto has resulted in the league office denying a trade. 3 Mangers all playoff bound have taken exception to this trade feeling that it is so one sided that it is “ruining the integrity of the league”. These 3 managers have a habit of making this claim every time a trade is made. One manager rutinely threatens to quit league if trade goes through and viciously insults the manager that he feels is getting the lessor of the deal. It was also claimed that collusion occured due to the fact the F-Losing 2 Navas was an employee of mine and that he was making the trade to kiss up to his boss. What said manager was unaware of was that F-Losing had resigned over 2 months ago. In reaction to the accusation F-Losing proposed deals to the non-complaining managers that were completely one sided in an attempt to show that if I am going to be accused of compromising the integrity of the league then I might as well actually do it. As commish I changed settings and deleted all pending trades. I am now sending the original trade to you for a decision. Finally if trade is deamed valid a verbal agreement has been reached between myself and a non-involved manager of Alfonso Soriano for Chris Carpenter- Our trade deadline is Sunday, so a fast response is required so the 2nd trade can be proposed and accepted prior to the deadline. I await your decision as I feel both trades should be allowed.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

The proposed trade is Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Pena for Johnathon Broxton.  I don’t fully understand what the Yahoo league office has to do with this dispute, but you have asked me for an independent decision, which I will provide.

Soriano is batting .243, with 8 stolen bases, 19 homers, 51 RBI’s and 62 runs.  He’s having a down year (for Soriano), but is still an above average outfielder, and I would expect top fantasy numbers down the stretch. 

Carlos Pena is batting only .212, but has 31 homers, 77 RBI’s and  74 runs.   His batting average sucks, but you can’t complain about the homers.

Broxton has 25 saves, a 3.25 ERA, and a miniscule .99 WHIP.  He’s had a few recent struggles, but with LA in contention, he’s a top option for saves.

A trade of Soriano and Pena for Broxton is certainly fair on paper, especially given the need for saves by F-Losing 2 Navas.  The only other issue is whether there was some collusion by the teams involved in the trades.  There is an allegation of collusion, since F-Losing 2 Navas was formerly employed by the Commissioner.  However, this bare accusation is not supported by any other evidence, and the trade is fair on its face.  The trade should be allowed.

I agree that the subsequent trades attempted by F-Losing 2 Navas should have been deleted, as these were made out of spite, and were not legitimate.

I give no opinion on the Alfonso Soriano for Chris Carpenter proposed trade, as that would be a second dispute (requiring a separate submission to this website along with any reasons pro or con).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Text of dispute is :
One of our guys in a 3 man keeper league and who is out of contention wants Carl Crawford as a keeper. The team he is making the deal with is in 4th place and is trying to win the league. The out of contention team is dealing Clayton Kershaw, Jon Lester, Nate McLouth and Carlos Pena to the contending team for Carl Crawford, Ryan Sadowski, Jason Schmidt, and Brandon Wood. As commissioner of my league, both myself and my co-commish have voted against this deal, but have a rule with the option of trading teams having an independent site making a final ruling. There will be no repsonse from the teams involved and your decision is final. Please provide your final decision today if possible. Thank you. Regards, Derek

END——–

More to dispute:
The reason why we voted no was because we are trying to avoid teams on top receive the benefit to what we believe is a lopsided trade, just because the team who is no longer in contention is “giving up”. We feel it’s not fair to the teams in contention, especially if they do not have resources to make a deal to better their team. There were a lot of unhappy managers last season because of deals like this. Therefore, this is why we came up with our new rule.

Thanks again,
Derek

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

This is basically a trade of four fantasy studs (Kershaw, Lester, McClouth,  and Pena) for one fantasy superstar (Crawford) and three total long-shots (Sadowksi, Schmidt, and Wood).  I agree it is extremely one-sided (for this year), but I also take issue with your (implied) claim that just because a team is “giving up” this season, he can’t better his own team (for the future) at the expense of others still in contention this year.  

Keeper league trades are always the most difficult to judge.  Your league, being a “keeper” league, has to consider what the objectives of your league are.  Is it to win this year?  Win every year?  Win for the most number of years in a row?  Kind of tough to do all of them, isn’t it?  An owner who protests the “one-sided” deal in keeper leagues is usually just bitching because they are overly concerned about this year’s win.  But if the objective is to win a bunch of years, maybe this year’s winner isn’t really the best fantasy player.  Too philosophical for you?  Take a breath, and reflect on your league. 

Notably, you did not mention the remaining players on the team acquiring Crawford. And more importantly, you have not offered any evidence of collusion between these two owners.  I can easily envision a scenario where the team acquiring Crawford has two other studs he plans on keeping that  are as good as or better than those he is trading away, and I can also imagine that the players he is trading away are not necessarily going to be among the top three keepers for any team.  Teams must be allowed to take chances to improve their team’s long range goals, and you have not convinced me that the team acquiring Crawford is not acting in his own self-interest, which is perfectly proper, even at the expense of this year’s results.  Perhaps your rules need re-visiting to conform to your league’s apparent obsession with the current year’s victory, such as eliminating keepers altogether.  But that is up to your league.  The issue before me is this trade, and I don’t find it is patently unfair in a keeper league.  The trade should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Thank you so much. Your points will definitely be considered in future rule makings.

The trade will be executed. Looking forward to working with you again!

Regards,
Derek

Text of dispute is :
Thank you for taking my request. I am the commissioner of a 10 man fantasy football keeper league. Our league allows for 2 keepers every year. Additionally, we allow for trades in the offseason that includes trading players that were on their roster as well as draft picks in future drafts. Last year, 2 of our participants, Shane and Louis, made a side wager, the terms of which were accepted by everyone in the league. If the Dallas Cowboys won the Super Bowl, Shane would be be allowed to pick any 2 keepers off of his and Louis’ roster. If the Steelers won, Louis would get to pick 2 keepers off of his and Shane’s roster. The Steelers won the Super Bowl, thus Louis can pick 2 TOTAL keepers from either roster (ie. Louis could keep 2 of his own players, 1 from his team and 1 from Shane’s, or 2 off of his own team). Just to make it clear, Louis can keep NO MORE than 2 players, regardless of which roster he takes them off of. Here is where the dispute comes into play. Keepers are due in our league on August 22nd. Shane owns Adrian Peterson. Everyone figured that Louis will select him as one of his keepers. However, Shane is attempting to trade Adrian Peterson for draft picks. This is not a slight to Louis, but Shane would rather try to get value for Peterson rather than having him simply plucked away. Owners have been given full autonomy to make trades in the past. Ultimately my question is this… should Shane be allowed to trade Peterson for draft picks before keepers are selected, or should Louis be allowed select his keepers before Shane begins to make his roster moves? Thank you, Scott

END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

I’m not a big fan of “side bets” that can affect one or two teams at the expense of others.  Having said that, it is undisputed that the side wager was accepted by everyone in the league, so Shane and Louis (as well as the the other owners) are now bound by it.

This dispute is fairly straight forward.  The key is applying your rules in the proper order.  According to your rules, a team can trade players for draft picks at any time during the off season.  However, no owner can trade a player that is not on his current roster.  While Shane owns Peterson, he can trade him for draft picks.  If Louis officially picked Peterson as one of his keepers, Peterson is on Louis’ roster, and it is too late for Shane to trade him.  I recognize this could get a bit tricky as Shane floats Peterson for trade offers, which would probably cause Louis to immediately pull the trigger and claim Peterson for his own team.  So the answer to this dispute depends on how transactions (trades or choosing keepers) are actually consummated in your league.  I would assume, and thus rule, that transactions in your league must be done in writing, by emailing the commissioner (or announcing to the entire league) that a trade has been made or keepers have been selected.  

If Shane notified the commissioner in writing that Peterson has been traded to another team before Louis notified the commissioner in writing that he was choosing Peterson as one of his keepers, the trade should be allowed. If, on the other hand, Shane was merely soliciting offers, and Louis got wind of it, and claimed Peterson as one of his keepers, Shane can’t trade Peterson as he is no longer on his team.  For the avoidance of doubt, if Shane and another team attempted to make this trade and the terms were explicitly defined (i.e., which pick Shane is getting in return), but the trade was delayed only because of this dispute (i.e., before Louis had made the keeper selection in writing), the trade should be allowed.  Similarly, if Louis publicly announced he was claiming Peterson in the manner keepers are normally selected (by email to the commissioner or the entire league) before Shane announced the details of the trade, Louis gets Peterson.

I recognize this ruling puts pressure on Louis to announce his claim of Peterson (or whoever he might keep)  as soon as possible.  But  this is a fair result.  It is to Louis’ advantage to delay making his keeper announcement until as late as possible in order to avoid injury issues and the like.  But Louis delays at his own risk—Shane has every right to trade any of his players, including Peterson, before he is officially claimed by Louis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Text of dispute is :
Argument Against: The disputed trade involves maybe the top player in the American League, Miguel Cabrera. He is being moved from the 12th place Gophers to the seventh place Bees for Xavier Nady, a spare part even when he returns from a season-long injury, Travis Hafner, a former slugger who has been hurt more than he has played the past two seasons, and Shaun Marcum, a one-season wonder who in all likelihood will be out all season and is no guarantee to return to form when he comes back. Finally, the Gophers get three draft picks, including the Bees’ first pick next year, plus the Bees’ third and fourth rounders. We are in a 10 man, 12 team AL keeper league. The fifth place team receives the first overall pick. Hence, the Bees’ first pick next year could be first overall or a bottom-four pick. It’s our contention that a top-end hitter like Cabrera ought to bring something of comparable value in return. In this instance, that hasn’t occurred. The Bees are trading nothing of value – save the picks – in return for a top three player. To gauge the market in our league, Markakis was traded earlier this season for Vlad Guerrero, John Lackey and a second-round pick. As well, Carlos Quentin was traded before his injury for Luke Scott, Mark Buerhle and a first. That appears to be much closer to the market value for a top hitter. We are not alleging collusion, and we accept the idea of that some trades are “rip-offs.” Indeed, that’s part of the fun and owners who get the short end of the stick in some trades hear about it for years. However, in this instance, the balance of the league is being upset by a savvy owner fleecing a perennial bottom feeder, who, with all due respect, doesn’t follow goings on at the major league level with the same diligence as most other owners. Otherwise, the Gophers wouldn’t have moved Cabrera without receiving an A-level player or prospect in return. Argument FOR: Giving up my first round pick could be potentially giving the Gophers a superstar. If I finish in 5-7 place the Gophers could get one of the top 3 picks in the draft. These players are usually the players that come from the NL in the off season. This year Sabathia and Holiday were the first two selections. This years 3rd and 4th rounds saw the likes of Adam Lind, Russell Branyan and Luke Scott get selected. All of these players are excellent players. The players that the Bees gave up, may all have health issues currently, but next year they are all going to be counted on by their individual teams. Hafner’s OPS this season has been .924 His shoulder has been improving as evidenced by his 1 in 15 home run rate. Next season his shoulder will be even better than this year. Xavier Nady is going to be 31 at the start of next season. He had 25 hrs last year.The detractors of this trade say he is a part time player even when healthy. However, he did play 7 of the first 8 games of the season until he got hurt. He projects to be the starting left fielder for the Yankees when he returns to the lineup. Shaun Marcum was coming off 2 break through seasons with an ERA and whip among the best in the AL before he got hurt. He is projected to be back either at the end of this season or surely by the beginning of spring training. With Tommy John surgeries being as successful as they are these days there is no reason to believe that Marcum, who will be 28 years old at the beginning of next season won’t be back to form next year. It is a classic deal of a team in last trying to improve for next season, and a team who is trying to win it this year. The Bees are giving the Gophers 6 assets for next season and beyond. The Bees are getting 1 great asset. Some of the assets the Gophers are getting are injured now and may not be back to their best. However, that is a calculated risk that the Gophers are taking. You can’t judge a trade like this only now.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

Cabrera is one of the top five players in the AL under any fantasy measure.  Nady is on the DL and is average at best when he does play.  Hafner is having a good streak, but its only time before he pulls something.  Marcum is a long shot.  But, three draft picks are three draft picks, especially a first rounder. 

Most importantly, it is conceded there is no collusion.  (However, it would have been nice to hear from the alleged “fleecee” as opposed to the alleged “fleecer.”)  In any event, without collusion, what else is there? Risky decision making?  Playing for next year?  Either one is okay in my book. 

The trade should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.