Archive
New Fantasy Judgment decision – fantasy baseball trade rejected (Cole Hamels, again)
SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
4 Ponies v. Beaver Hunters
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE INCONTINENT LEAGUE
Decided June 15, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 37 (June 2011)
Factual Background
A rotisserie fantasy baseball league (hereinafter referred to as “Roto league” or “The Incontinent League”) utilizing an auction-style draft and transaction platform seeks an evaluation of a trade made between two teams within the Roto league. This is an NL-only keeper league where each team is permitted to maintain up to ten (10) players during each off-season with each individual player allowed to be kept for a maximum of three (3) years. Each team is also permitted to keep two minor league players which are in addition to the ten players kept. This Roto league also has a $36.00 in-season salary cap that is applicable for all teams.
As with many rotisserie leagues, the subject Roto 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 4 Ponies have made a trade with the Beaver Hunters. The 4 Ponies traded Jhoulys Chacin (SP-COL), Jordan Lyles (SP-HOU), and Randy Wolf (SP-MIL) to the Beaver Hunters in exchange for Cole Hamels (SP-PHI) and Leo Nunez (RP-FLA).
Previously, the Court rejected a trade between these two teams for the same players minus Randy Wolf. See 4 Ponies v. Beaver Hunters, 3 F.J. 26 (June 2011) (holding that the package of Jhoulys Chacin and Jordan Lyles was not sufficient compensation for Cole Hamels and Leo Nunez, thus undermining the best interests of the league due to the inequity of the trade). Now, the Court is being asked to consider this trade with Wolf being added to balance out the equitability of the deal. The Court was made aware that several members of The Incontinent League challenged that trade as being too lopsided, and the Court subsequently agreed.
Issue Presented
(1) Should the modified trade between the 4 Ponies and the Beaver Hunters 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. The Court has not been presented with any evidence of such malfeasance, so assumptions will be made that this is not an issue.
The Court has always held that the approval or rejection of a trade is based purely on its fairness, free from collusion, and in the best interests of the league. Whether a trade is intelligent or popular will not be part of the analysis. The virtue of a trade is measured in both quantifiable criteria and subjective needs of the teams involved. See Carson City Cocks v. Stud Muffins, 3 F.J. 23, 24 (May 2011).
At first glance, the trade of Jhoulys Chacin, Randy Wolf and Jordan Lyles in exchange for Cole Hamels and Leo Nunez does not look even. The reason for initial pause is identical to the rationale from the previous incarnation of this trade. See 4 Ponies v. Beaver Hunters, 3 F.J. 26, 27 (June 2011) (holding that the trade did not appear even on its face because Hamels is unequivocally one of the top pitchers in both real and fantasy baseball, and any trade he is involved in should likely have a player of equal or approximate value on the other side). Additionally, Nunez is one of the top closers in the National League which makes him anything but a throw-in in the deal. The package in return includes three starting pitchers with varying degrees of success and consistency. As stated in the previous case, Chacin is the best pitcher in the package and he has only had a modicum of success in his brief professional career. He is certainly worthy of being designated an up and coming prospect, but hardly worth a player of Hamels’ stature alone. Lyles has impressed the Astros enough to remain in their starting rotation, even after Wandy Rodriguez was activated. This was not anticipated when the Court previously denied this trade, so the Court recognizes that Lyles’ value is marginally greater than before due to his remainder on the big league roster. The addition of Randy Wolf is what the Court is being asked to consider as the balancing factor in the deal. In general, Wolf has never been more than an average pitcher in both real and fantasy baseball. He is a crafty veteran that is neither a short-term solution or part of the long-term plan on a keeper league fantasy baseball team. The Court now provides a statistical comparison amongst the players:
|
Player |
Wins |
ERA |
Strikeouts |
WHIP |
Saves |
|
Cole Hamels |
9 |
2.49 |
97 |
0.92 |
0 |
|
Leo Nunez |
0 |
3.30 |
32 |
1.20 |
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jhoulys Chacin |
7 |
2.90 |
74 |
1.09 |
0 |
|
Randy Wolf |
4 |
3.20 |
65 |
1.23 |
0 |
|
Jordan Lyles |
0 |
4.15 |
12 |
1.21 |
0 |
From looking at these players’ current statistics, it can be argued that the numbers amongst the starting pitchers is equivalent because their totals are not far apart. In fact, the Beaver Hunters would be getting back more wins (13) collectively than Hamels has attained on his own (9). But that cannot be the lens in which this trade is viewed. Hamels currently leads the National League in both wins and WHIP. As stated earlier, Nunez leads the National League in saves with 19. In this NL-only fantasy baseball league, they are arguably two of the most valuable players in the entire league. Loading up multiple players whose cumulative statistics equal or surpass one individual’s superstar statistics does not necessarily make a trade fair or even. Granted, Chacin has been impressive and looks to be a legitimate pitching prospect. But he is hardly a sure thing and cannot be considered equivalent value for Hamels.
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). Since this incarnation of the trade only includes an additional mediocre starting pitcher, the Court will adopt its prior reasoning in terms of the needs of each team and their respective rosters. See 4 Ponies v. Beaver Hunters, 3 F.J. 26, 28 (June 2011) (holding that no reasonable inference can be made as to how the Beaver Hunters benefit at all from the trade given how their current roster is construed).
In terms of keeper league status and salary cap value, this trade doesn’t make sense either. Nunez only costs $0.10 and is in his final year under contract, which means he will be available in the 2012 draft. However, Hamels is only in his first year under contract and can still be kept for an additional two years at $3.10. It must be considered where these players are in terms of their career which is helpful in analyzing possible motivation to perform. Hamels is arbitration-eligible after the season when his current contract expires with the Phillies. He is clearly motivated to justify seeking an arbitration award comparable to Tim Lincecum’s record-setting deal. After he likely agrees to a one-year contract with the Phillies, he will be pitching in 2012 as a pending free agent. This should serve as an extra motivating factor for him to succeed as he will likely be seeking Roy Halladay/Cliff Lee type years and dollars on the open market. The Beaver Hunters have him locked up under contract for these important seasons. To trade him away for unequivocal value in return is incomprehensible. Even assuming arguendo that Jhoulys Chacin’s potential is equivalent for Hamels’ current value, Chacin is only signed for one more year before he re-enters the Incontinent League’s draft. So the Beaver Hunters are missing out on one whole year of productivity in this exchange. From a financial standpoint, the Beaver Hunters are only gaining $1.60 in net salary cap space by making this trade (Wolf only costs $0.10 and still has two years left on his contract). In a league with a $36.00 salary cap, that does not represent a significant enough amount when dealing with a players of Hamels’ magnitude.
As referenced in Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 34 (June 2010), the dichotomy between the 4 Ponies and the Beaver Hunters’ motivations is precisely why the Court must look at trades in keeper leagues differently than non-keeper leagues. If this trade had been made in a non-keeper league, the Court would vehemently reject it.
It should be reiterated that the Court typically favors a league owner’s ability to make trades and manager the roster according to his/her own preferences and judgments. When a person pays money to participate in a fantasy league, the presumption is that he/she is permitted to make whatever decisions they feel are best for their team. However, when a trade such as this is proposed, it throws off the competitive balance of the league and creates a slippery slope for future trades. The Court has no issues with the idea of trading Cole Hamels and/or Leo Nunez. However, given what the Beaver Hunters were receiving in return, the Court cannot endorse such a maneuver due to the inequity of the return package. Even adding Randy Wolf to the trade does not even out the trade enough to prevent it from unjustly throwing off the competitive balance of the league. The Court must consider the impact and effect on the overall league when determining whether a trade should be accepted or rejected. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby decides that the subject trade, in this current incarnation is unfair, uneven, and should be modified again before being granted approval. The trade should be rejected as it still fails to comport with the best interests of the league.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
New Fantasy Judgment decision – fantasy baseball trade rejected (Cole Hamels)
SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
4 Ponies v. Beaver Hunters
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE INCONTINENT LEAGUE
Decided June 8, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 26 (June 2011)
Factual Background
A rotisserie fantasy baseball league (hereinafter referred to as “Roto league” or “The Incontinent League”) utilizing an auction-style draft and transaction platform seeks an evaluation of a trade made between two teams within the Roto league. This is an NL-only keeper league where each team is permitted to maintain up to ten (10) players during each off-season with each individual player allowed to be kept for a maximum of three (3) years. Each team is also permitted to keep two minor league players which are in addition to the ten players kept. This Roto league also has a $36.00 in-season salary cap that is applicable for all teams.
As with many rotisserie leagues, the subject Roto 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 4 Ponies have made a trade with the Beaver Hunters. The 4 Ponies traded Jhoulys Chacin (SP-COL) and Jordan Lyles (SP-HOU) to the Beaver Hunters in exchange for Cole Hamels (SP-PHI) and Leo Nunez (RP-FLA).
According to the Commissioner of the Incontinent League, several members of the league have challenged this trade as being too lopsided. There are no known issues between the two teams involved in the trade, or with other teams that have challenged the validity of the trade.
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trade between the 4 Ponies and the Beaver Hunters 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. The Court has not been presented with any evidence of such malfeasance, so assumptions will be made that this is not an issue.
The Court has always held that the approval or rejection of a trade is based purely on its fairness, free from collusion, and in the best interests of the league. Whether a trade is intelligent or popular will not be part of the analysis. The virtue of a trade is measured in both quantifiable criteria and subjective needs of the teams involved. See Carson City Cocks v. Stud Muffins, 3 F.J. 23, 24 (May 2011).
At first glance, the trade of Jhoulys Chacin and Jordan Lyles in exchange for Cole Hamels and Leo Nunez does not look even. The reason for initial pause is because Hamels is unequivocally one of the top pitchers in both real and fantasy baseball, and any trade he is involved in should likely have a player of equal or approximate value on the other side. One exception to this is in a keeper league where teams out of playoff contention are looking to build for the future by trading expensive, star players in exchange for cheaper prospects. It should be noted that this trade was made for Week 10 of the fantasy baseball season and no team in the Incontinent League has been mathematically eliminated from a playoff spot or precluded from a monetary prize. Another reason to question the trade on its face is the inclusion of Nunez WITH Hamels in the deal. Nunez does not possess the same name recognition as Hamels, but all he has done is lead the National League in saves thus far in 2011. Given the Incontinent League is NL-only, Nunez has considerable value now as the best closer in the league. On the contrary, both Chacin and Lyles are prospects in theRockiesand Astros organizations respectively. Chacin has almost a year’s worth of big league experience and has had some moderate success thus far. Lyles only recently made his debut and will likely be sent back down to the minors. Neither of them elicits the same projected value to warrant comparison to Hamels and Nunez collectively.
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 at issue involves three starting pitchers and one closer. Prior to the trade, the Beaver Hunters (in 10th place at the time) had a pitching staff that consisted of Hamels, Yovani Gallardo and Johnny Cueto as its best starting pitchers. They also had Nunez, Carlos Marmol and Craig Kimbrel as closers. Based on this, it can be justified why the Beaver Hunters would trade Nunez because they are still left with two top closers and can compete for points in the saves, ERA, and WHIP categories. However, removing Hamels from their staff significantly weakened their starting pitching. Additionally, the Beaver Hunters current offensive roster consists of Ryan Braun and a plethora of average platoon players. Granted, they have Ryan Zimmerman and Buster Posey on the disabled list which has affected their team. But the overarching commentary on the Beaver Hunters’ roster is that they are in desperate need of offensive help. Trading Hamels and Nunez would make more sense if the Beaver Hunters were acquiring commensurate players to improve their offense. Chacin is a young and rising pitcher who has shown flashes of brilliance early in his career. But he is hardly as productive or consistent as Hamels. Lyles is another young prospect with the Astros who recently made his major league debut due to injuries inHouston’s rotation. However, with Wandy Rodriguez set to be activated from the disable list this week, it is likely that Lyles will be sent back down to the minors as the corresponding move. Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Court cannot reasonably infer how the Beaver Hunters are benefiting from acquiring Chacin and Lyles.
In terms of keeper league status and salary cap value, this trade doesn’t make sense either. Nunez only costs $0.10 and is in his final year under contract, which means he will be available in the 2012 draft. However, Hamels is only in his first year under contract and can still be kept for an additional two years at $3.10. It must be considered where these players are in terms of their career which is helpful in analyzing possible motivation to perform. Hamels is arbitration-eligible after the season when his current contract expires with the Phillies. He is clearly motivated to justify seeking an arbitration award comparable to Tim Lincecum’s record-setting deal. After he likely agrees to a one-year contract with the Phillies, he will be pitching in 2012 as a pending free agent. This should serve as an extra motivating factor for him to succeed as he will likely be seeking Roy Halladay/Cliff Lee type years and dollars on the open market. The Beaver Hunters have him locked up under contract for these important seasons. To trade him away for unequivocal value in return is incomprehensible. Even assuming arguendo that Jhoulys Chacin’s potential is equivalent for Hamels’ current value, Chacin is only signed for one more year before he re-enters the Incontinent League’s draft. So the Beaver Hunters are missing out on one whole year of productivity in this exchange. From a financial standpoint, the Beaver Hunters are only gaining $1.70 in net salary cap space by making this trade. In a league with a $36.00 salary cap, that does not represent a significant enough amount when dealing with a players of Hamels’ magnitude.
As referenced in Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 34 (June 2010), the dichotomy between the 4 Ponies and the Beaver Hunters’ motivations is precisely why the Court must look at trades in keeper leagues differently than non-keeper leagues. If this trade had been made in a non-keeper league, the Court would vehemently reject it.
It should be reiterated that the Court typically favors a league owner’s ability to make trades and manager the roster according to his/her own preferences and judgments. When a person pays money to participate in a fantasy league, the presumption is that he/she is permitted to make whatever decisions they feel are best for their team. However, when a trade such as this is proposed, it throws off the competitive balance of the league and creates a slippery slope for future trades. The Court has no issues with the idea of trading Cole Hamels and/or Leo Nunez. However, given what the Beaver Hunters were receiving in return, the Court cannot endorse such a maneuver due to the inequity of the return package. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby decides that the subject trade is unfair, uneven, and should be modified before being granted approval. The trade should be rejected as it fails to comport with the best interests of the league.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
New Fantasy Judgment decision – fantasy baseball trade (Josh Johnson)
SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
Carson City Cocks v. Stud Muffins
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
THE INCONTINENT LEAGUE
Decided May 16, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 23 (May 2011)
Factual Background
A rotisserie fantasy baseball league (hereinafter referred to as “Roto league” or “The Incontinent League”) utilizing an auction-style draft and transaction platform seeks an evaluation of a trade made between two teams within the Roto league. This is an NL-only keeper league where each team is permitted to maintain up to ten (10) players during each off-season with each individual player allowed to be kept for a maximum of three (3) years. Each team is also permitted to keep two minor league players which are in addition to the ten players kept. This Roto league also has a $36.00 in-season salary cap that is applicable for all teams.
As with many rotisserie leagues, the subject Roto 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 Carson City Cocks have made a trade with the Stud Muffins. The Carson City Cocks traded J.J. Putz (RP-ARZ) and Kyle McClellan (SP-STL) to the Stud Muffins in exchange for Josh Johnson (SP-FLA).
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trade between the Carson City Cocks and the Stud Muffins 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. The Court has not been presented with any evidence of such malfeasance, so assumptions will be made that this is not an issue.
At first glance, the trade of J.J. Putz and Kyle McClellan in exchange for Josh Johnson looks peculiar. The reason for initial pause is because Johnson is unequivocally one of the top pitchers in both real and fantasy baseball, and Putz and McClellan are not household names. It is rare to see a superstar of this caliber involved in a trade that does not include either another top superstar or prime prospects for the future in keeper leagues. However, the Court has always held that its approval or rejection of a trade is based purely on its fairness, free from collusion, and in the best interests of the league. Whether a trade is intelligent or popular will not be part of the analysis. Clearly this trade will raise some eyebrows by other members of the league, but the virtue of the trade is measured in both quantifiable criteria and subjective needs of the teams involved.
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 involved two starting pitchers and one closer. Prior to the trade, the Stud Muffins did not have any closers on their roster. The relief pitchers they had were all set-up relievers, including Kerry Wood, Sergio Romo and Matt Lindstrom. Presumably, the Stud Muffins were near the bottom of the rankings in saves since these relief pitchers have not had, nor will they have, many opportunities to close games for their respective teams. In fact, they are set-up men for three of the best closers in baseball (Carlos Marmol, Brian Wilson and Huston Street, respectively). It is clear that the Stud Muffins were in need of a closer. They also had Matt Cain, Chris Carpenter, and Clayton Richard as starting pitchers, so dealing Johnson was not going to leave them completely empty. With respect to the Carson City Cocks, they could afford to trade Putz because they also have Joel Hanrahan and Vicente Padilla as closers. The addition of Johnson was more crucial to improve the Carson City Cocks’ starting pitching which only consisted of Jorge de la Rosa, Wandy Rodriguez, and Jordan Zimmermann.
The wild card in this trade is Kyle McClellan. He is a converted relief pitcher thrust into the Cardinals’ rotation due to the loss of Adam Wainwright before spring training. McClellan has been impressive thus far, despite losing his last start. The Cardinals have played better than was expected of them, thanks in large part to McClellan’s emergence as a reliable starter.
Here is a statistical comparison of all players involved through May 15, 2011:
|
Player |
Wins |
Strikeouts |
ERA |
WHIP |
Saves |
|
Josh Johnson |
3 |
53 |
1.63 |
0.90 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kyle McClellan |
5 |
23 |
3.62 |
1.39 |
0 |
|
J.J. Putz |
0 |
14 |
2.40 |
1.13 |
9 |
As good as Josh Johnson is, he simply does not win a lot of games. This is not his fault, but rather as a result of poor run support or an inefficient bullpen. Johnson’s career high in wins is 15 back in 2009. In 2010, when he clearly had a better season all around, he only won 11 games and also suffered from some injuries. Currently, Johnson leads the National League in both ERA and WHIP. While his production in those categories is unparalleled, he is not a reliable source for wins for the aforementioned reasons. McClellan, still not completely proven, has at least demonstrated he will keep his team in games and last long enough to win. It would not be all that surprising if McClellan actually wins more games than Johnson in 2011. As we know, win totals do not measure the quality of a pitcher in real baseball. But in fantasy baseball, numbers and statistics are gospel (most times).
In terms of keeper league status and salary cap value, this trade is almost equivocal. All players involved are in their first year under contract with their respective teams. Johnson is worth $3.40 while McClellan is worth $0.90 and Putz is worth $2.30. The Stud Muffins, currently in seventh place, will gain $0.20 in salary cap space which is 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 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 Carson City Cocks and the Stud Muffins’ 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.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby decides that the subject trade is fair, equal, and free of collusion. The trade should be approved as it comports with the best interests of the league.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
New Fantasy Judgment Decision – Smittydogs vs. Stud Muffins (fantasy baseball trade)
THE SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
Smittydogs v. Stud Muffins
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
THE INCONTINENT LEAGUE
Decided April 22, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 10 (April 2011)
Factual Background
A rotisserie fantasy baseball league (hereinafter referred to as “Roto league” or “The Incontinent League”) utilizing an auction-style draft and transaction platform seeks an evaluation of a trade made between two teams within the Roto league. This is an NL-only keeper league where each team is permitted to maintain up to ten (10) players during each off-season with each individual player allowed to be kept for a maximum of three (3) years. Each team is also permitted to keep two minor league players which are in addition to the ten players kept. This Roto league also has a $36.00 in-season salary cap that is applicable for all teams.
As with many rotisserie leagues, the subject Roto 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 Smittydogs have made two trades with the Stud Muffins which can be evaluated concurrently. The Smittydogs traded Todd Helton (1B-COL) and Brooks Conrad (3B-ATL) to the Stud Muffins in exchange for Jason Motte (RP-STL) and Mitchell Boggs (RP-STL).
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trades between the Smittydogs and the Stud Muffins 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. The Court has not been presented with any evidence of such malfeasance, so assumptions will be made that this is not an issue.
At first glance, the individual trades of Todd Helton in exchange for Jason Motte, and Brooks Conrad in exchange for Mitchell Boggs look slightly uneven. However, when viewed in totality as if it was a two for two trade, the deal makes more sense. It should be noted that the Smittydogs acquired Ryan Franklin (RP-STL) earlier in the season, and he has since lost his job as the closer for the St. Louis Cardinals. Clearly this served as a motivating factor for Smittydogs to acquire two potential candidates that will be obtaining Franklin’s save opportunities. 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). Here, the Smittydogs were in need of saves due to Franklin’s demotion, so there was an inherent need to acquire potential replacements for him.
Todd Helton was once one of the premiere players in the league and a top option in terms of fantasy production. However, due to age and injuries, he has been sapped of the power and run production the fantasy baseball community was accustomed to for almost a decade. At this point in his career, Helton cannot be relied upon to play every day; nor can he be relied upon to contribute mightily in any of the roto categories. However, he is still capable of reaching .300 with 15 HR and 75 RBI if he remains healthy enough. He will be afforded every opportunity to play consistently for a Rockies team that is expected to contend for the National League West title. It makes sense that he would be desirable by the Stud Muffins in exchange for a couple of Cardinals relievers without a track record of success. The puzzling aspect of this trade is Brooks Conrad who is nothing more than a bench player. He was given significant playing time in 2010, and besides a game-winning grand slam homerun, he did nothing remarkable other than make errors filling in for Chipper Jones. Conrad’s role is solely as a reserve, and he hasn’t even been given an opportunity to start a game yet in 2011. That being said, his inclusion in these deals doesn’t increase or decrease their value.
None of the players involved cost significant salary dollars, and their values only net a $0.10 difference which is hardly enough to consider as a factor in the trade. Additionally, none of these players are projected to be long-term assets for either team.
As referenced in Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 34 (June 2010), the dichotomy between the Smittydogs and 4 Ponies’ 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.
These two trades were concurrently made and subsequently evaluated in totality for judicial economy and ease of reference for the parties. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby decides that the subject trades are fair, equal, and free of collusion. The trades should be approved as they comport with the best interests of the league.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
