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.
` THE SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
John Doe v. Commissioner
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
AN ANONYMOUS FANTASY FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Decided November 24, 2010
Cite as 2 F.J. 49 (November 2010)
The plaintiff has submitted this case without providing any information about his league. The record is devoid of the following details: type of fantasy football league (i.e., keeper or non-keeper, salary/auction, etc.), platform where the league is hosted (CBS, Yahoo, ESPN), number of teams, roster requirements, point scoring system, records and rosters of the teams involved in the proposed trade, league rules or Constitution, league schedule, and trade approval and/or appellate process.
The plaintiff was offered Vincent Jackson (WR-SD) in a trade in exchange for Eli Manning (QB-NYG). Plaintiff accepted the trade which was then reviewed by the league’s Commissioner. According to the plaintiff, the Commissioner approved the trade on the basis that the trade was “fair for both parties.”
At an undisclosed time after the trade was approved, the plaintiff discovered that this trade had been cancelled. He was not contacted at any time by the Commissioner or the team he traded with. No reason was provided by anyone through any means of communication to explain what happened with the trade and why it was cancelled.
The plaintiff now seeks the Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment’s opinion on whether the subject trade should be put through and its cancellation overturned. There have not been any additional submissions, evidence or testimony provided by anyone else in this fantasy football league.
Assuming the Commissioner has sole authority to approve or reject trades, he did not provide any notice either verbally or in writing that he was overturning his own decision to approve the trade. The plaintiff did not provide the Court with the league’s rules on trading, so the Court will have no choice but to make reasonable and prudent assumptions based on standard and customary fantasy football practices.
(1) Should the trade between the plaintiff and unnamed league member where the plaintiff acquired Vincent Jackson for Eli Manning be upheld and enforced?
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. See Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 33 (June 2010).
Because the record is unclear, the Court must assume that the plaintiff and his fellow league members have paid money to participate in this fantasy football league. Therefore, the principles cited above will apply here where people are entitled to manage their teams how they see fit within the rules of the league and free from collusion.
The Court must always consider is whether there is any collusion or under-the-table dealings going on between teams. Since the Court has not been presented with any evidence or accusations of collusion, the Court concludes that there is no collusion between the plaintiff and any other league member.
At first glance, the trade of Eli Manning in exchange for Vincent Jackson looks fair and reasonable. Because the Court was not provided with the rosters of these two teams, it is impossible to determine whether the needs of both teams were met or whether each team was dealing from an area of strength and depth. The Court must look at the two players involved and what their fair market value is both before the trade and their projected benefits after the trade. Eli Manning is having a season with extreme highs and lows. He is on pace to shatter his previous personal records for yards and touchdown passes, but he is also on pace to throw more than 20 interceptions. Granted, several were not his fault as the Giants’ wide receivers were failing to catch passes and instead tipped balls to their opponents. But Eli Manning has never been known for his offensive prowess, especially compared to his brother. With the loss of standout wide receivers Steve Smith and Hakeem Nicks for the next several weeks, Manning’s value has decreased. On the flip side, Vincent Jackson is scheduled to make his 2010 debut with the Chargers on Sunday night against the Colts on national television. Having several successful years under his belt already, Jackson joins the team as the #1 receiver for one of the most prolific passing quarterbacks of this era in Philip Rivers. Jackson should immediately becomes Rivers’ primary target and the recipient of lots of yardage on Rivers’ way to reaching 5,000 yards by the end of the year.
Given that the trade was fair, the Commissioner approved the deal – which was the right decision. Then, for reasons unknown to this Court, the trade was cancelled, much to the chagrin of the plaintiff. Unless a trade is either offered or accepted under the influence of drugs or alcohol, coercion, violence, or threats thereof, people cannot undo their trades just because they may have second thoughts about it. A deal is a deal, especially with the Commissioner’s approval.
Based on the miniscule amount of evidence presented and the facts of this case, the Court holds that the subject trade should be allowed and enforced. The Commissioner’s decision to cancel the trade (or whoever else may be responsible) should be overturned.
IT IS SO ORDERED.