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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Text of dispute is :
This is a traditional 5×5 league based on points. There was recently a trade executed in our league as follows: “Stopes” traded to “Sac Grabbers”: Grady, Sizemore, Lance Berkman, and Garret Atkins for Evan Longoria. After the league vetoed the trade, it was revised as follows: “Stopes” traded to “Sac Grabbers”: Grady, Sizemore, Lance Berkman, Garret Atkins, and Mike Hampton for Evan Longoria and Adam Wainwright. The Commissioner’s posting was as follows: “Stopes and Adam, adjusted their deal. Stopes gets Wainwright and Langoria for Berkman, Atkins, Sizemore, and Hampton. I spoke with both gm’s and there was no collusion. I think that it is a fair deal. If anyone still has issues with it, please feel free to speak with me, Adam or Stopes, we are all open for any questioning. In every deal there is a winner and loser, I think that Langoria is an MVP candidate this year, Wainwright a real quality SP on a solid team, Sizemore is a stud and Berkman is old and declining while Atkins I feel has as much value as Tulo or Helton and I picked both of them up on waivers. Thats just my take on it, I am sure we all have our own takes on the deal.” My team did not participate in the deal. I feel that the revised transaction was a slight help but still heavily favors “Sac Grabbers”. From my perspective, Berkman is still a top quality fantasy player who has averaged 30+ hr, 100+ RBI, and a 300 average the last 3 years. Atkins is a solid player who has 1B/3B eligibility and has averaged 25+ hr, 100+ RBI, and a 300 average the last 3 years. Sizemore is a stud period. I am confident Longoria will not out produce those 3 and there is a decent chance by year end he does not out produce Sizemore or Berkman on an individual basis. I would like your unbiased opinion as to whether or not the revised trade should be reversed. Thank you!
END——–
THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:I’m not considering the trade without Hampton and Wainwright, since that trade was vetoed and is irrelevant at this point.Grady Sizemore has 6 homers, 22 RBI, 17 runs, 5 SB’s and is batting a lowly .233. Berkman has 7 homers, 16 RBI’s, 14 runs, no SB’s and is similarly struggling at .194. Atkins has 3 homers, 13 RBI’s, 12 runs, no SB’s and is also underperforming with a .225 average. Hampton is 1-3, with 26 K’s, a 4.91 ERA and 1.55 WHIP.Evan Longoria is playing out of his mind with 8 homers, 35 RBI’s, 21 runs, 2 SB’s and batting .358. Wainright is 3-1, with 30 K’s, a 4.08 ERA and a 1.61 WHIP. Based on total statistics in this 3 for 1 offensive player trade, the numbers are fairly even, but that is not really the pertinent anyalysis. Stopes can still grab a couple of decent players off the waiver wire to make up for his player deficit, so it is always better to get one stud player over three mediocre ones. I agree with you when you argue that Atkins, Berkman and Sizemore’s numbers will come way up and by year-end, and therefore I also agree that I’d rather be the Sac Grabbers in this deal. However, owners have to be allowed to take risks. It appears that your commissioner duly deliberated over this trade, and most critically, determined “there was no collusion.” No evidence has been offered to rebut the commissioner’s finding as to lack of collusion. I can’t say this trade is so one-sided as to upset the balance of the league.Therefore, I agree with your commissioner. The trade should be allowed.
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.
Text of dispute is :
Trade: Tim Hightower, Ike Bruce and Brady Quinn (Team A) for Brandon Marshall (Team B) As an attorney, I drafted the rules which state that if you are mathematically alive you can make trades. Further, a $100 penalty is issued for finishing in last place. Our league is ultra competitive. Hence, no one wants to lose. Our league starting lineup requires 1qb, 2rb, 3wr, 1te, Team B has Portis on a bye this week and Team B can only start Lendale White, since his other rbs are injured for the year. Also, Team B does not have a QB to start since it lost Schaub to injury and Derke Anderson to demotion. This is a 12 team league with 20 roster spots and 4 IR spots. hence, no one worth salt is avilable via free agency. Further, Team B’s record is 3-6 and is 4 games out of the wild card or division with 5 games to play. Hence, Team B is still mathmatically alive. Further, Team B does not want to lose and be subject to the $100 basement fee. Team B views this trade as follows: It will get Hightower, which as of now is averaging 11.2 ppg and is the 21st ranked rb in our league, with only starting last weeks game, where he scored 18.2 points. (portis is the #1 rb in our league and is avging 18 points ppg) now, hightower is the definite starter on arguably one of the best offenses in football. Plus, Arizona is in the weakest div. in football (ease of schedule) and they play San Fran this week. Thus, Team B loves Hightower for this week and the remainder. Team B’s plan is to trade Lendale White next week after Portis gets off the bye. however, Team B is not thrilled with lendale since he doesn’t get that many carries and has to split with chris johnson. Also, team B is getting Brady Quinn who will start for his team. Quinn plays this week against Denver Dee, which is an easy matchup. Plus, Quinn has a nice repoire with Braylon and Winslow. While Hightower is the main reason for the trade, Quinn serves a huge need since Team B has no qb to play this week or for the remainder of the year, due to the injuries and demotions. Also team B is getting Ike Bruce, who is the 34th ranked receiver (12 team league that requires 3 starting wrs) and is avging 9.5 ppg. Ike while not a stud is a serviceable #3 wr in our league on a pass happy team. Clearly, he has some value and is nto a throw-in that won;t be started. As to Brandon Marshall, he is the 11th ranked wr in our league and is averaging 15.2 points per game in our league. However, in the last 4 games Brandon Marshall has scored 3.7, 11.4, 13.3 and 4 pts in our league. this trade comes on the heels of reports that Marshall is pouting about being double teamed the last 4 games. Based on Hightower’s performance this last week and his potential, he will probably equal or exceed marshall’s production, plus Team B is gettign a starting QB (that he doesn;t have) and a starting #3wr. Now, we understand the argument that Hightower is a rookie and has only had one big game, but this argument fails for couple reasons. A, Hightower while a backup was averaging 11.2 ppg and last week was not his first big game, as a backup he had several big game. B. Fanatsy Football is about predicting the future (e.g. in week 8 last year Ryan grant was a nobody that ended up being 1 of the best rbs in ff)and Team B shoudl be able to predict the future with Hightower. Now, team A is doing the trade because it is in first place and is weak at wr and has alot of depth at rb. team A has barber, MJD, Torain, Ray Rice. 7 of 12 teams in our league suspiciously are against the trade (our league rules permit fantasy dispute to decide). They say main reason is that Team B is virtually out of the playoffs. however, (a) the rules permit trades by teams as long as they are not mathmatically out. and (b) not 1 team objected to trade by a 1-5 team’s APeterson for Slaton and Cotchery. (Slaton was unproven) Real reason for objection is b/c they don’t want best team to get better
END——–Text of response is :
This trade is simply not fair, and should be rejected – See the facts below Team B 3-6 – One more loss and he will be mathematically eliminated with 5 regular season games to play. Team A 8-1 – Leading his division and the overall league leader 1st of all, Team B does need a QB, however there are several free agent QB’s available via FA pick that are clearly more viable than Quinn: Flacco, Ferotte, Rosenfels (fyi – He has Schaub on IR) – So Team B in the oppositions’ view is actually receiving little to no value by acquiring Quinn is this deal. 2nd – Team B receives Ike Bruce – Besides Marshall his current WR’s are – T Holt, K Walter, Nate Washington and a bunch of scrubs – So again Team B in the oppositions’ view receives little to value by acquiring Bruce in this deal , as he is clearly at best on the same level as the other WR’s on his team. Obviously nowhere near the level of Marshall, and he would obviously be weaker at WR position going forward. We start 3 WR vs 2 RB – No flex option 3rd – Taking the 1st 2 points into account this trade really boils down to – Hightower for Marshall – 3a – Marshall is clearly the better fantasy player, thus we the opposition believe the trade can be rejected on this basis – no need for me to throw stats out at you 3b – Hightower when compared to Portis/Lendale White may at best be a slight upgrade to White (Questionable at best – who leads the league in TD’s? oh White) – Portis is again clearly a better option than Hightower – So Team B really gains nothing in the long-term while giving up his best WR by a significant margin – Another clear reason to reject this trade. 3c – The view from the 2 parties involved, that this helps him this week – This may be true, he does only have Edge James and Pierre Thomas to replace Portis on a bye. That being said, How does that justify him giving up Marshall, and not really improving his team for the remaining 5 games? 3d – Team B also has a reputation of trading for the sake of trading down the stretch when he is not really in contention. Conclusion, this trade is clear example of bottom feeding from a top team. Team B is all but eliminated, and not receiving anywhere close to value he should for Marshall. Some additional info – We are a 12 team league with an entry of $500, so the $100 for last is a joke – Also there is no weekly prize or money for winning your division – 3rd place does not even get their money back – It is all about 1st and 2nd place – 2 rounds in the playoffs – Weeks 15 & 16 – 4 teams make it 3 division winners and 1 wild card Thank you for your time and enjoy making your decision.
END——–THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:Team B IS mathematically alive. No rules were broken here, unless the trade was done without the intent by B to improve his own team. I don’t put much credence in the argument that Team B will be trading another RB after his bye week—anything can happen, and I can only look at this trade for what it is.Team A getting better (and he will) is of no concern. Presumably, another pro-active team could have offered more for Marshall, and apparently no one did. I agree this is primarily a trade of Hightower for Marshall, and the other Bozo’s are waiver fodder, but at least these are Bozo’s with some upside. Really though, I would loooooove to have Hightower on my team going down the stretch, regardless of my place in the standings. I’d look for several 15+ point games from him now that he’s replaced Edge, given the potency of the Cardinal’s offense. The point that Team B already has Portis/White in a 2 RB league is well taken, but in fantasy, you can’t have enough healthy running backs. And everyone concedes this is a good move for Team B this week.Most importantly, there is no evidence of collusion by either team, other than the scurrilous assertion that Team B has a reputation for “trading down.”There are good reasons for both sides of this trade, and no foul play has been proven. The trade should be allowed.IT IS SO ORDERED.
Text of dispute is :
We are in the 3rd year of a Fantasy Football League (I’m a co-commish) on Sportsline, we use IDP’s. Sacks count as 5 points. For the first two years, 1/2 sacks were scored as 2.5 points. Before the season started our Commissioner sent out one email regarding scoring changes and the only item being changed was tackles, nothing else. In week 2, the commish and another co-commish noticed 1/2 sacks weren’t scoring any points. I believe the co-commish wanted to investigate further but the commish stated “I guess the site isn’t counting those points this year”. They never brought it to my attention or the League’s attention. During Week 5, I watch my player on TV record a 1/2 sack and I notice that my 2.5 points didn’t come up. I spoke to my opponent later that evening and I told him I wanted my 2.5 points but I did not call the Commish yet. After the MNF game happens, I wind up tying the game but my 2.5 points never hit. I sent an email to the League stating I wanted my points and all hell breaks loose and I wind up getting into a huge fight with the Commish. I try emailing sportsline on why this happens and they don’t give us a lot of info, they just tell us how to fix the problem and there were some “fixes” in the system. We are using the “ranges” formula, not the “scoring” formula which they recommend. We didn’t touch the formula since it was set up prior to year 1. Here is the formula: From “0″ to “+”, award “5″ points for every “1″ sack. This is the same formula that counted 1/2 sacks the first two years. A 1/2 sack (.5) is definitely more than “0″ so you should get credit for 2.5 points. The commish said I should call everyone and get a League Vote. The first 5 people I speak side with me stating the points should be awarded retroactively. My vote would make 6. Commish speaks to a few other people and the vote is 8-4 in favor of going retroactive with the points. A day after this, Commish emails everyone stating some people have changed their votes and it’s now 7-5 in favor of not going retroactive with the points. When I speak to someone, they side with me. When they speak to Commish, they side with Commish. Commish’s main argument is that “you can’t change scoring in the middle of the year”. I argue that you’re not changing the scoring, we’re correcting a system glitch, we’re not changing the scoring system. The 1/2 sacks have been in our scoring for the first 2 years so I see no reason why they should not go retroactive. I am a commish in another league in year 13 and I wouldn’t even have put this to a vote in my other league, I would have automatically updated the points the first time I recognized it. I spoke to 2 other commish’s with 10+ years of experience and they 100% agreed with me that the points should go retroactive. Bottom Line: IDP League Sacks are 5 points This is the 3rd year of our League, 1/2 sacks were 2.5 points the first two years The only documented scoring change sent out by the Commish was tackles, nothing about sacks were ever mentioned Formula on site never changed – From “0″ to “+”, award “5″ points for every “1″ sack. Issue noticed in week 2 by commish and another co-commish that 1/2 sacks weren’t registering. Commish decides to take no action and League is NOT informed The first time a 1/2 sack comes up in my game whether registered by me or my opponent was week5. I noticed this as it happened that I did not get my 2.5 points. Wind up tying the game and raising the issue. If you ask the commish, “Should 1/2 sacks count”, he says Yes Should we count the 2.5 points for 1/2 sacks retroactively?
END——–THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:Shame on the Commish and Co-Commish for not speaking up in Week 2 when they noticed the scoring discrepancy. The Commish needs to bend over backwards to be forthright and open with everyone in the league. It is unfortunate that some owners may have been playing with a misunderstanding of the true scoring system. But I have a few observations—first, the scoring issue is irrelevant to how teams have set their lineups. You can’t convince me that an owner would have set their weekly lineups differently had they known ½ sacks wouldn’t be scored. You might be able to make an argument that it would affect the draft positions (or bid values) of IDP’s versus other positional players. However, you admit that all players were the under same understanding (or misunderstanding) prior to Week 2 (when rosters were selected), so everyone was equally effected.Second, the “true” (no ½ sack) scoring system, although perhaps not accurately explained, was equally available to all owners under the CBSSporstline “Rules” link. Finally, I don’t like league votes… unless they are unanimous. Turning to the issue at hand, it wouldn’t be fair to change the scoring retroactively to Week 1, since this may affect the results of individual games, and therefore the standings. Teams make add/drop, waiver, and trade (or not to trade) decisions based on the standings. Therefore given this type of “mistake,” it’s not fair to go back retroactively to Week 1. The decision on whether to change the scoring for only this most recent week is more difficult, but still the same. It is not fair to change the existing (as calculated each week this season) scoring system without bringing the issue up to the ENTIRE league through a PUBLIC announcement BEFORE the scoring change (and it is a change) will take effect. Basically, by not bringing up this particular issue sooner, you have waived the right to complain for this one week. Your league should not count ½ sacks retroactively.IT IS SO ORDERED.