Fantasy Dispute

Text of dispute is :
10 team, 23 man roster, 6 keepers, 5×5 roto + OPS and K/9. Keepers cost the owner their original draft spot. My team (Chin Music) and another team (Flavor Savor) had the top 2 waiver priority spots. On 10/2, with neither of us in contention, I dropped CC Sabathia (4th round), Flavor Savor dropped Roy Halladay (10th round). We then put in waiver requests to add the player that the other dropped. This move was within the rules of Yahoo’s setup and not prohibited by the following portion of our league constitution: “Waiver priority will be the reverse of the draft order to start. Teams may drop any player and select another from the free agent pool. Dropped players will be added to waivers. Waiver time is one day. Limit? Trades are permitted and will be submitted to league review. Trades should only be vetoed upon both team managers unanimous request, or by reason of collusion. which an entirely unfair, onesided trade. Keeper value must be considered for this as well.” My main argument for allowing this can be summed up simply. It was a creative move, made within the rules of the Yahoo structure and the league constitution, **that did not jeopardize the competition of the season**, and that involved two players of equal value. The argument against is that all teams would now start doing it, and keeper value would not exist after some amount of time, be it a few weeks or years. The commish has also said that allowing this to go through would “set a precedent” and everyone could do it. I disagree. For one, this trade didn’t just happen — it took weeks of arguing to find something fair that we would both be happy with, so it wouldn’t be as easy as everyone thinks. There are still guys that you do and don’t want on your team (i.e. Flavor Savor refused to take Ryan Howard). Also, and more relevant to the commish’s point — in sports, law or anything else, when something is done within the law or rules that people don’t like, a rule or law is created or modified to stop it from happening again. That new rule/law sets the precedent that what just happened isn’t right according to the rule makers, however that rule is not retrofit to whatever previously happened. The spitball was outlawed in the 19 60s, PEDs were outlawed a few years ago. It’s evolution, baby. I think a better example is in golf. Equipment needs to conform to certain standards, recently in response to guys being able to drive the ball too far and control the spin too much. This is a result of believing that no regulation on the equipment degrades the quality of competition. A guy using a club over size X is not prohibited from using that club before the rule takes effect. There is even a crossover time between when the rule change is announced and implemented where guys are using equipment today that could be banned next weekend. The precedent is not set that everyone can now use an oversized driver — the opposite is true. The precedent is set that there needs to be a rule that regulates the size of the driver. I propose reviewing the rule, but you cannot retrofit the rule to stop this move, as it was within the rules and didn’t jeopardize the outcome of the league.
END——–

 

Text of response is :
Response from the commisioner. There is not a rule against it, but there is also no rule saying you can do it. They called it a ‘trade’ and the trade deadline has passed. I think the main problem with it is for the future of the league which is the main issue. Technically Flavor Savor and Chin Music struck a deal under the table to drop players and agreed to pick up the player the other dropped. It so happens that they have the top two waivers in the league. IF they did not have the top waivers this would never happen. What would be to stop an endless carousel of #1 and #2 people dropping their top keepers, picking them up in a ‘trade’ just like this one. All of a sudden the 120 keepers in our league are all exactly equal in the last 6 rounds of the draft. Bye bye keeper league. Much like the supreme court we need to rule fairly and also set a precedent for the future. The other teams have proposed allowing the trade to go through maintaining the original draft positions since trade was made to pickup the keeper value after the waiver pickup. If they are touting it as a trade that is fair then the original keeper value should be a fair option. I think they are really shorting the long term view of the league. I understand the ‘point’ of the trade but I really think they are not seeing the big picture. Chin’s owner, myself and another owner said that we would vote on the major issues and rule stuff. This is one of those situations and we have ruled 2 to 1. They could have done Morneau (Flavor) and Howard (Chin). Whats the difference between Morneau and Howard if you get to keep both of them at 23rd round value? No one else did it also because there were three days left in the season. If you think that everyone would not fully cycle through keepers your nuts. I really do not think the league should have the possibility of every keeper eventually being exactly the same be it two weeks, two months or two years away it will happen. I am not saying it was easy, or even uncreative move. It took nearly two full seasons for someone to find a hole in our keeper system. A CC for Halladay trade itself would not have throw the competitive course of the season off. Both Chin and Flavor has said they do not want it as a ‘trade’ either but that is how it was billed…A ‘waiver trade’ so I used that. Almost everyone knew the point of what they did. It was a move to maximize keeper value of the players. They were both were trying to pick up an extra 10-15 rounds of value on a guy. I dont necessarily agree with the fact that it should be allowed to go through then noone else can do it. Just because it is not specifically in the rule does not make it right or fair or good for the future of the league. We will never think of every possible merky scenario ahead of time. So that is where I agree with you that we need to define the process. We did say we would go three man committee and Chin actually called for that first. When that wasn’t good enough, they wanted a vote from the league, which also ruled against the move. While not in the constitution the three forefathers in the league agreed to something for a situation just like this though, and it was enacted.
END——–

 

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

 

This dispute is easy to resolve.  This was a trade– no ifs, ands, or buts.  Using the add/drop Yahoo function on the website was merely the mechanism to carry out the trade.   

 

Strictly speaking, the transaction also violated the Yahoo Fair Play and Sportsmanship Rule: “All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner’s team and/or its standing within the league.”  When Chin Music dropped CC Sabathia, that move did not improve his team.  Flavor Savor was not required to drop Halladay unless there was a “trade” agreement.  And the trade agreement was in violation of your league rules.

 

According to your undisputed league rules, the trade deadline has long passed.  Therefore this trade, however accomplished, is null and void, and must be reversed.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

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