Eli Manning confirms that Tiki isn’t wanted back.

After I previously wrote about Tiki Barber’s legacy and the fact that his career with the Giants is over due to his own verbal diarrhea, Eli Manning essentially confirmed this on the Dan Patrick Show. Manning said during a radio interview that the team would likely welcome back WR Plaxico Burress before RB Tiki Barber. “I think Plaxico would probably be welcomed back a little quicker,” Manning said. Manning added Barber left the team on a bad note, including multiple public criticisms of Tom Coughlin and the rest of the Giants coaching staff. On the other hand, Burress has fond memories of winning the Super Bowl. Unfortunately for him, he literally and figuratively shot himself in the foot.

Manning said he was effected by Barber’s criticism as a broadcaster after he left the team, although the criticism may have helped him become more vocal as a leader. Barber claimed that Manning’s speeches in the huddle were comical and non-assertive.

All of this simply confirms what we already knew. Barber did too much damage that is beyond repair.

New Fantasy Judgment decision – fantasy baseball trade (Bastardo/Motte)

SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT

Road Runners v. Urban Achievers

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE ANGERTHAL LEAGUE

Decided June 28, 2011

Cite as 3 F.J. 47 (June 2011)

Factual Background

A rotisserie fantasy baseball league (hereinafter referred to as “Roto league” or “The Angerthal League”) that was formed in 1988 and utilized an auction-style draft seeks an evaluation of a trade made between two teams within the Roto league.  This is a twelve-team NL-only keeper league where each team has a $260.00 salary cap to draft 23 players.  During the season, there is no limitation on players’ salaries.  Teams are permitted to retain between 7-15 players during each off-season with each individual player allowed to be kept for three years before they must either be signed to a long-term contract (“LTC”), play, or be returned to the free agent pool. 

Players with a LTC have a progressive salary structure of (Base Salary + ((N-1) * 5)) where N = the number of years a team wants to sign the player. Once a player is signed to a LTC, there is a real monetary penalty (which depends on the structure of the salary of the player – if the salary is less than $10, then there is a penalty of $20; or there is a penalty of two times the player’s salary if he is released early from a LTC). All money collected for penalties is placed into the pool for prize money.  After a LTC is completed, the player is not eligible to be signed again and must be placed back into the free agent pool for the next season’s draft. Teams that finish in 1^st through 4^th  place in the Roto League will win money prizes at the end of each season.   

As with many rotisserie leagues, the Angerthal League uses the standard 5×5 scoring categories to determine the standings and prize money.  For offensive players, the five categories are: (1) batting average; (2) homeruns; (3) runs batted in; (4) runs scored; and (5) stolen bases.  For pitchers, the five categories are: (1) wins; (2) earned run average; (3) WHIP (walks+hits/innings pitched); (4) strikeouts; and (5) saves.  Statistics are cumulative throughout the course of the season and there are no head to head games contained within the Roto league.

Procedural History

The Road Runners have made a trade with the Urban Achievers.  The Road Runners traded Jason Motte (RP-STL) to the Urban Achievers in exchange for Antonio Bastardo (RP-PHI).

According to the Angerthal League’s Commissioner, several other members of the league have challenged this trade alleging there is a significant disparity in the value of a potential closer in exchange for a middle reliever with no distinct inherent value.  Members of the league also argue that the Urban Achievers failed to explore other trade options that would have arguably netted them better compensation than Jason Motte.

Issue Presented

(1)   Should the trade between the Road Runners and Urban Achievers be upheld and approved?

Decision

The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment typically favors individual fantasy sports participants and teams’ ability to make moves, transactions, and trades.  The standard of review has been that people pay money to purchase a team in a league, draft their team, and manage it accordingly.  Whether success is bred from that individual’s decision-making is purely left to some skill, luck, dedication, and savviness.  The Court also acknowledges that the analysis for evaluating trades is much different in a keeper league than a non-keeper league.  A trade that may look uneven or lopsided on its face may receive a different opinion when it is involved in a keeper league.  The reasons for this are obvious, but must be restated.  In a keeper league, teams that are having unsuccessful seasons are more likely to continue to pay attention and make moves that will set themselves up for better success in the following season.  They can do this by acquiring young talent that is not under contract within the league, or by dumping salary (assuming it is an auction league) and allowing greater financial flexibility to sign key players in the next season’s draft.  In non-keeper leagues, there is no rationale for thinking ahead, nor is there any need to stockpile young, inexpensive talent.

Another factor that the Court must always consider is whether there is any collusion or under-the-table dealings going on between teams.  According to the league Commissioner, the league members involved in the subject trade are very close friends.  While several members of the league have challenged the trade, no one has outwardly accused the teams of colluding.  However, the general consensus of the league is that this is an instance of one friend helping another based on the impression that the Urban Achievers, currently in 11^th place, did not receive commensurate value for Bastardo from the Road Runners, currently in first place.  While that is a subjective point of view in determining the value exchanged in the trade, the fact remains that there is inconclusive evidence of any collusion that would warrant immediate denial of the deal.  The fact that the league members are close friends is not demonstrative in and of itself of collusion.  See Jetnuts v. Joker’s Wild, 2 F.J. 15, 16 (September 2010) (holding that family members should not be held under any additional scrutiny when making trades outside of evidence supporting a collusive effort).  The Court is not aware of any prior complaints or allegations of collusive conduct between these league members.  Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that there is no collusion in place or tacit agreements to share potential winnings between the team owners.

At first glance, the trade of Jason Motte in exchange for Antonio Bastardo looks fair and even.  The only reason there is potential inequity between the relief pitchers is the fact that Bastardo will be the Phillies’ closer while Ryan Madson is on the disabled list.  Both pitchers have had success this season as setup relievers, posting very similar numbers.  Another similarity between them is that their respective teams have had multiple pitchers serve as closer.  In St. Louis, incumbent closer Ryan Franklin blew several saves at the beginning of the season before he was replaced by Mitchell Boggs.  Boggs then struggled and was replaced by a committee until Fernando Salas emerged as the best option over Eduardo Sanchez.  Motte has remained in a setup role, although he does have the ability to close games if needed.  In Philadelphia, incumbent closer Brad Lidge began the season on the disabled list and still has not returned.  Jose Contreras was then given the chance to close games and was successful until he succumbed to injury as well.  Following Contreras, Ryan Madson was anointed the team’s closer and has been dominant.  However, he was placed on the disabled list and the role is now likely to be assumed by Bastardo. 

The following chart represents a statistical comparison between the two players in the relevant roto categories as of June 28, 2011:

Player	Wins	ERA	K’s	WHIP	Saves
Antonio Bastardo	3	0.96	33	0.85	2
Jason Motte	3	2.81	30	1.09	0

As can be seen from this comparison, both Motte and Bastardo have very similar numbers.  The difference is that Bastardo will now have save chances for a very successful Phillies team whereas Motte does not currently have such opportunities.  While this gives Bastardo additional inherent value, there is no guarantee that his success as a setup reliever will transfer to his new role as closer.  With few exceptions (i.e., Neftali Feliz), it is rare for a pitcher with such little experience as Bastardo to step in and immediately succeed as a closer.

When analyzing the fairness and equity of a trade, the Court will consider each team’s individual needs to assess whether the trade subjectively made sense from each team’s perspective.  See Cajon Crawdads vs. Carson City Cocks, 1 F.J. 41, 42 (June 2010) (upholding a trade for Jason Bay because of the Carson City Cocks’ desperate need for a starting outfielder due to the demotion of Cameron Maybin).  This trade involves two relief pitchers.  The Urban Achievers did not have any other closers on their roster – only mediocre middle relievers including Bobby Parnell and Brian Sanches.  It was apparent that he has “punted” the saves category, which is not an uncommon strategy in roto leagues.  Acquiring Jason Motte fits the pattern that the Urban Achievers had created.  The Road Runners already had Drew Storen and Mark Melancon as closers.  Neither is considered a high-end closer, but they are closers nonetheless.  The acquisition of Bastardo will help in the saves category assuming he is successful.  Based on the foregoing analysis, the needs of each team were clearly delineated and equally met with this trade.

In terms of keeper league status and salary cap value, this trade is almost equivocal.  Motte is an owned player with a salary of $2.00 and is eligible to be signed to a LTC.  Bastardo was not drafted.  He was added through the league’s free agent auction bidding process and his rights through the remainder of the season are controlled by the owning team.  The salaries and contractual status of both players are not significant enough to factor into the evaluation given the equality of the players involved.  See Smittydogs v. Stud Muffins, 3 F.J. 10, 11 (April 2011) (holding that a $0.10 differential amongst the players salaries in a league where each team has a $36.00 budget was not enough to factor into the Court’s evaluation).

As referenced in Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 34 (June 2010), the dichotomy between the Road Runners and Urban Achievers’ motivations is precisely why the Court must look at trades in keeper leagues differently than non-keeper leagues.  However, had this trade been made in a non-keeper league, the Court would still likely approve it. 

While this trade may not be the most intelligent deal that could have been made by the Urban Achievers, it is certainly not unfair.  It is not up to the Court to make a determination on what is considered intelligent.  Rather, the Court’s role in this jurisdiction is to evaluate the objective merits of a deal and ensure that the integrity of the league is maintained.  See Victoria’s Secret v. C-Train, 2 F.J. 32, 35 (October 2010).  Here, a trade was proposed and agreed to between two teams on the opposite ends of the standings.  While the potential value of the two players may not be exactly commensurate given Bastardo’s upcoming opportunities to gain saves, the trade is not lopsided enough to warrant an intervention.  Unwise decisions should not be scrutinized or vetoed merely because they are unwise.  See Id. at 35 (upholding the May 2010 trade of Justin Upton and Zack Duke in exchange for Raul Ibanez and Josh Johnson).   Additionally, the claim by the amicus plaintiffs that Urban Achievers should have solicited better trade offers for Bastardo is vehemently rejected.  Teams are not obligated to shop players around to appease skeptical league members.  Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby decides that the subject trade should be approved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.