Dispute ID is 4909
Text of dispute is :
Facts: Our league starts 1QB, 3WR, 2RB, 1TE, and 1Flex on offense. There is 10 teams and one division. My team is 4-5 and one game out of a playoff spot. Team Y is 7-2 and in first place overall. Team Y – QB: Roethlesburger, Cutler, Romo; WR: White, Moss, Marshal, Evans; RB: Jones, R.Brown, Mendenhall, Benson, Forte. My team – QB: Rodgers, Hasselback; WR: V.Jackson, Edwards, Harvin; RB: S.Jackson, K.Smith, Jacobs. Since Jacobs is on a bye, and Smith has a very bad matchup against Minnesota this week, I was seeking to get 2 RBs to replace them in my lineup. Furthermore, I consider this a must win situation as the other team I am playing this week is also 4-5. I offered V.Jackson, Harvin, Smith, Jacobs, and Hasselback to team Y for Marshall, Evans, R.Brown, Mendenhall, and Cutler. The trade was accepted and vetoed by the league within 8 hours. It takes 4 votes to veto the trade. I spoke with the league commissioner about it. He said that “noone wants to see his team get bette r”. He also said that since I am fighting for a playoff spot, that noone wants to see my team get better either. He implied that the trade was rejected based purely on personal motives and objectives, completely unrelated to the fairness of the trade. Furthermore, Team Z vetos every trade, as he believes that trading is morally inept and should not be permitted in the first place. Issues: Considering these facts, and the overriding fundamental fantasy interest in fairness and sportsmanship, was this trade wrongfully vetoed? Is it “fair” to veto trades based on purely personal motives unrelated to the underlying value of the trade itself? Should Team Z be reprimanded and suspended for the rest of the year for joining a league that clashes with his own moral values and then forcefully imposing those values to every other team’s detriment?
END——–
Response ID is 4909
Text of response is :
In response to the arbitration claim, I would ask that the arbitrator uphold the vote of the league and dismiss the dispute. I would first like to say that I have not been apprised of every detail of the dispute and therefore cannot completely defend against the exact allegations and arguments of the dispute. I am unclear as to how to properly counter those allegations without knowing them. The method in this league for evaluating trades is league vote. This method has been used throughout the entire season. In fact, several trades have been vetoed and several trades have been approved. Each member of the league joined the league agreeing to and knowing that this would be the method of approving trades. Each member has the right to vote how he chooses. This is supported by the fact that the vote is both available and an anonymous vote. We have made it known to the league that this is the case. To overturn the decision of the league would remove the efficacy of the vote. It would essentially be telling the rest of the league that the method to which every member agreed has no effect and no purpose. It would be just the same as an outside party changing the terms of the agreement assented to by each member of the league. Most courts have held in upholding arbitration awards that despite discontent with the terms of an agreement, the arguing party has no right to relief if the term was agreed to prior to the dispute. This is clearly the case in this dispute. Each league member cast his vote without violating the intent of the league vote method as agreed upon by the league. Furthermore, the motivation behind each vote is unknown. To assign to those votes a motive that an arbitrator finds inappropriate would be improper. How can an arbitrator overrule a democratic league vote based on allegations without knowing what could be very viable reasons for the vote? To even ask each member to provide a “proper” reason for why he voted would violate what we have agreed to and the anonymity of the vote. This method has been used the entire season. It has become the accepted practice of the league. Yahoo gave our league the chance to decide how to “do” trades. We chose the league vote over the other methods for a reason. Yahoo did not provide us with any exceptions to the method or tell us for what reasons a member may exercise his or her right to vote. What this boils down to is that a member of the league has now decided more than halfway through the season that he no longer likes the method to which we all agreed and utilized for nearly 10 weeks. Finally, the proper time to make such a change would be after the season is over. The members of this league, all friends, have discussed possible minor changes to how the league is run next year. To have an outside party overrule what we had agreed to prior to the season would completely change the landscape of the league. Does our system of voting matter anymore? What about those who had trades vetoed earlier in the season using the same method? Does each member send a claim to the arbitrator with the same objection? Needless to say, our league would turn into a mess and no longer be our need. If a majority of the members of this league wanted the method for “doing” trades changed, we would make that change; however, that is not the case. We agreed at the beginning of the season to “do” trades through the league vote system. It has been utilized numerous times with some trades going through and some trades getting vetoed. It was not until a party was denied a trade that a claim filed with the arbitrator. In closing, we were given the choice by Yahoo and chose as a league to vote on trades. That is what we have done for the entire season thus far. The votes were cast in conformity with the intent of the league’s agreement. To change what we agreed to would be wrong. We ask that the arbitrator dismiss the dispute. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
END——–
The trade that is disputed is Vince Jackson, Harvin, Smith, Jacobs, and Hasselback for Marshall, Evans, R. Brown, Mendenhall, and Cutler. Your ten-team league has chosen to allow trades subject to a veto vote by at least four teams. It is undisputed that those are your league rules, agreed upon at the beginning of the season, and relied upon for other trades that have taken place during the year. I will address the issues in the order presented.
1) Considering these facts, and the overriding fundamental fantasy interest in fairness and sportsmanship, was this trade wrongfully vetoed?
I won’t dwell on the pros and cons of a trade of Vince Jackson, Harvin, Smith, Jacobs, and Hasselback for Marshall, Evans, R. Brown, Mendenhall, and Cutler. There is no need to. Suffice it to say that the trade is not blatantly one-sided, nor is there collusion alleged between these two teams. The question is whether the other teams had a right to vote against the trade. In your league, the answer is “Yes.” All teams acted within the rules by voting to veto (or not voting to veto) the trade. The veto won, so the trade is void.
2) Is it “fair” to veto trades based on purely personal motives unrelated to the underlying value of the trade itself?
Duh! What did you expect when you adopted such a rule? Did you think the masses would vote out of a sense of altruistic fairness as opposed to whether they think the trade helps or hurts their own team? A vote based on self-interest is exactly what I would expect, and exactly what you got. As an aside, I think allowing other teams to veto trades based on a vote is a poor rule, for exactly the reasons stated in this dispute. I recommend you adopt (for next year) a Fantasy Sports Bill of Rights:
1st Amendment: Each owner shall play fairly and use good sportsmanship. Each owner shall make transactions with the intent of improving their own team.
Applying the Bill of Rights, your commissioner would be the only one judging the propriety of the trade, and it is assumed that your commissioner has been chosen for his strong sense of altruistic fairness. However, under the 3rd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, if an owner disagrees with the commissioner, he can submit the disputed trade to an impartial arbitrator. This results in a much “fairer” league, in my experience. But you can’t change the rules in the middle of the season (except by unanimous vote), so your team is out of luck on this one.
3) Should Team Z be reprimanded and suspended for the rest of the year for joining a league that clashes with his own moral values and then forcefully imposing those values to every other team’s detriment?
No. Team Z, who vetoes every trade, as he believes that trading is morally inept and should not be permitted in the first place, has every right to do so given your rules.
The trade has been properly vetoed in your league. It should not be allowed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com
Post a Comment