Archive
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 1st through 4th 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 11th 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.
New Fantasy Judgment decision – fantasy baseball issue (FAAB)
SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
A-Holes & Pujols v. Mad Cow Disease
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALL-STAR FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE
Decided June 27, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 44 (June 2011)
Factual Background
A rotisserie fantasy baseball league called the Southern California All-Star Fantasy Baseball League (“SCAFBL”) is a mixed NL-AL non-keeper league comprised of 12 teams utilizing 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.
The SCAFBL operates under a written Constitution which outlines all of the league’s rules and guidelines. Each league member was provided with a copy of the Constitution prior to the league’s draft which took place on March 27, 2011. Included in the rules are provisions regarding the process and method of inputting transactions, including add/drops, placing players on the disabled list, and making trades with other teams. The SCAFBL employs an auction bidding process for free agents where each league member was allotted $100 to use in bidding for available players throughout the season. The following represents a condensed and concise summary of the pertinent Constitutional language that governs the transaction process:
- Each team is given a budget of $100 to use on players available on the waiver wire.
- Teams are restricted to a maximum of five transactions per week.
- All bids on free agents must be made before the conclusion of the final Sunday night game of the week.
- Teams must make their transactions in conformity with the league’s roster and lineup requirements.
- The bidding process will be managed, controlled and administered by the CBS Sports internal commissioner service.
- The bidding process is blind and no team shall have access or knowledge of other teams’ bids.
- The SCAFBL commissioner shall not have access to other teams’ bids.
On Saturday, June 25, 2011, A-Holes & Pujols placed a bid on free agent Dustin Ackley (2B-SEA) for $12 using the CBS Sports free agent auction bidding process. As his corresponding move, A-Holes & Pujols sought to drop Ben Francisco (OF-PHI). A-Holes & Pujols made no other free agent auction bids or any other transactions for the remainder of that week.
As usual, the free agent auction bidding process was run by CBS Sports on Sunday night, June 26, 2011. Once the auction was complete, Mad Cow Disease (also the SCAFBL Commissioner) was awarded Dustin Ackley by winning the auction with a bid of $14. As a result, A-Holes & Pujols’ bid for Ackley was denied and Francisco remained on their roster.
Procedural History
On Monday, June 27, 2011, A-Holes & Pujols sent out an email to the entire league accusing the Commissioner of abusing his power and outbidding him for Ackley. The basis for A-Holes & Pujols’ contention is the allegation that the Commissioner has access to everyone’s bids and can manipulate the system where he can outbid any team for a free agent he so desires.
In response to this email, the Commissioner emphatically denied such accusations and reminded the league of the provisions laid out in the league’s constitution (which are also delineated above in the Factual Background). A majority of league owners responded to the emails as well affirming the Commissioner’s decree and lashing out at A-Holes & Pujols for the undeserved accusations.
A-Holes & Pujols still refused to accept this explanation and requested a league vote to resolve the issue. The Commissioner rejected this request, so A-Holes & Pujols have contacted the Court to rule whether the Commissioner’s acquisition of Dustin Ackley should be upheld due to his alleged capability to see all competing bids.
Issue Presented
(1) Should the Commissioner’s acquisition of Dustin Ackley be upheld?
Decision
The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment is a strong advocate for having written Constitutions that govern fantasy sports leagues. See John Doe v. Fantasy Football League Commissioner, 2 F.J. 21, 22 (October 2010). Having a written league constitution or charter helps ensure that “all league members are aware of the rules and guidelines in place, and it shifts the burden onto the league members to read, understand, and adhere to the rules that are delineated.” See Shawn Kemp is My Daddy v. Fantasy Basketball League Commissioner, 2 F.J. 24, 25 (October 2010). Here, the rules explicitly stated what the procedures are for the FAAB process, including the fact that the bidding is blind and not even the Commissioner has access to other teams’ bids. Not only were they delineated by the Commissioner in the league’s Constitution, but they are also the fixed settings set forth by CBS Sports in their League Commissioner package. See Green Eggs & Hamels v. Megan Fox is Hot, 3 F.J. 4, 6 (April 2011).
The Commissioner does subject himself to added scrutiny simply by having such inherent power as making the rules and having access to the league’s internal structure and settings. However, those who choose to participate in a fantasy league run by a Commissioner should presumably have implicit trust and faith in that Commissioner – otherwise it would be foolish to entrust one’s money and time in a fantasy league run by someone that is not trustworthy.
Here, the Commissioner is also a league member, which is often the case. As Commissioner, he must make decisions that are in the best interests of the league. However, he is also entitled to manage his team to the best of his ability and try to win. The Commissioner is subjected to the same rules that apply to everyone else, including the provisions of the free agent auction bidding process. The Commissioner is allotted the same budget as the rest of the league, and he must go through the same bidding process as everyone else. Additionally, there is no way for the Commissioner, or anyone else in the league, to have access to other people’s bids pursuant to the settings that were input. Any bid placed by the Commissioner is as blind as A-Holes & Pujols, and every other member of the SCAFBL.
Further, there is no way for a team to track when another team actually makes their bid. A-Holes & Pujols stated that he placed his bid for Dustin Ackley on Saturday, June 25. It is unknown when Mad Cow Disease placed his bid. Irrespective of that, it simply does not matter when the bids are placed so long as they are placed prior to when the auction runs, which is typically just after 1:00 AM EST. At that point, the only thing system cares about when running the auction is who bid more for a certain player. Based on the blind bids placed on Dustin Ackley, Mad Cow Disease won the auction and successfully acquired the Mariners’ young second baseman.
A-Holes & Pujols went to the rest of the league to appeal this. The Commissioner, despite being involved in the situation, denied A-Holes & Pujols’ request for a league vote on the issue. The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment advocates for league Commissioners to have a certain amount of authority and autonomy to run and administer fantasy sports leagues. See FlemishUSA v. League Commissioner, 2 F.J. 35, 36 (October 2010). In this case, the Commissioner appropriately ruled on the issue by denying the request for a league vote, and instead adhered to the clearly established rules and guidelines that govern the league and the FAAB process.
The league’s FAAB rules clearly demonstrate that Mad Cow Disease (a.k.a. the league Commissioner) properly acquired Ackley. The Court hereby upholds the Commissioner’s decision and rules that the subject transaction should be upheld.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
New Fantasy Judgment decision – fantasy baseball trade (Carlos Pena/Geovany Soto)
SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
Carson City Cocks v. Moneyball
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE INCONTINENT LEAGUE
Decided June 27, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 41 (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 Carson City Cocks have made a trade with Moneyball. The Carson City Cocks traded Geovany Soto (C-CHC) to Moneyball in exchange for Carlos Pena (1B-CHC).
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trade between the Carson City Cocks and Moneyball 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 Geovany Soto in exchange for Carlos Pena looks fair and even. Both players have had success in the past and have fallen on hard times over the last couple seasons. Soto had emerged as a top fantasy option at the vacuous catcher’s position only a few years ago. However, injuries and lack of production have relegated him to merely a second or third tier option in terms of fantasy value. However, in a roto format, he still does possess the potential to contribute in power categories. Carlos Pena is coming off of one of the worst seasons an everyday player can have when he failed to hit .200 during the 2010 season. He still produces 25+ homeruns and will drive in 80-90 runs, but he is a death wish for the batting average category. That being said, his value as a first baseman is commensurate with Soto’s value as a catcher. They both play every day for the Chicago Cubs and have the ability to capitalize on the friendly confines of Wrigley Field during the summer months. Neither player will hit for a high batting average, score a lot of runs, or steal many (if any) bases. Their value lies in the homerun and RBI categories.
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 one catcher and one first baseman. Prior to the trade, the Carson City Cocks lost Albert Pujols (1B-STL) to injury for four to six weeks due to suffering a fractured wrist. Clearly this left a void at first base or corner infielder, so it is obvious why the Carson City Cocks sought to acquire Pena. Trading Soto does not leave them without viable catching options as they also have Jonathan Lucroy (C-MIL) and Josh Thole (C-NYM). Conversely, Moneyball had depth at first base with Lance Berkman (1B/OF-STL), Freddie Freeman (1B-ATL) and Ty Wigginton (1B/2B/3B-COL). This depth made Pena expendable. Moneyball’s catchers were Miguel Montero (C-ARZ) and Eli Whiteside (C-SF), so acquiring Soto made sense as an upgrade for his second catcher. The combination of Montero and Soto has the potential to be one of the most productive duos at that position. 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. Both Soto and Pena are in their first year under contract with their respective teams. Soto is worth $1.20 while Pena is worth $2.00. Moneyball, currently in sixth place, will gain $0.80 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 Moneyball’s 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 – 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 (Castro/Desmond)
SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
Stud Muffins v. Nub Vader
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE INCONTINENT LEAGUE
Decided June 8, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 34 (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 Stud Muffins have made a trade with Nub Vader. The Stud Muffins traded Starlin Castro (SS-CHC), Matt Lindstrom (RP-COL), and Wilson Ramos (C-WAS) to Nub Vader in exchange for Ian Desmond (SS-WAS), Koyie Hill (C-CHC), and Ricky Nolasco (SP-FLA).
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trade between the Stud Muffins and Nub Vader 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 Starlin Castro, Matt Lindstrom, and Wilson Ramos in exchange for Ian Desmond, Koyie Hill and Ricky Nolasco looks fair. None of the players involved can objectively be considered stars, so there is no need to analyze whether the trade “shocks the conscience” as it would have had the trade included a player such as Albert Pujols or Roy Halladay. None of the offensive players in the trade will contribute much in terms of homeruns and RBI. Castro and Desmond are respectable options at shortstop and each will contribute in terms of runs and stolen bases. Ramos is by far a better hitter than Hill, who is a career backup and has only received playing time with the Cubs due to Geovany Soto’s struggles. Ramos is the primary catcher in Washington and has shown some ability to handle the bat. He was a highly touted prospect with the Twins and was acquired in 2010 in exchange for Matt Capps. Ramos will get every opportunity to play and learn from his backup, Ivan Rodriguez. Nolasco has never fulfilled his potential since a breakout season a couple years ago when he nearly struck out 200 batters. He is still a solid starting pitcher to round out a staff. Lindstrom is a setup relief pitcher and will only get saves when Rockies’ closer Huston Street needs a rest or is injured. His ERA and WHIP have been impressive as he looks like he finally learned how to pitch instead of just throwing 100 mph fastballs.
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 a pitcher, catcher and shortstop on both sides. As a result, there is no need to do a positional analysis of either team because the exchange is exact (except for the fact Lindstrom is a relief pitcher and Nolasco is a starting pitcher). The Court does note that it is peculiar as to why Nub Vader, the 11th place team, would trade off Nolasco in exchange for Lindstrom when starting pitching is clearly a weakness of his. The exchange is fair, but the Court recognizes the disconnect between the trade and the more prevailing needs of a team at the bottom of the standings.
Statistically, the trade favors Nub Vader on offense. In contrast, the Stud Muffins are getting the better pitcher in Nolasco who will contribute wins and strikeouts where Lindstrom cannot. The statistical comparison of the players is provided below:
|
Player |
AVG. |
HR |
RBI |
Runs |
SB |
|
Starlin Castro |
.301 |
1 |
26 |
31 |
5 |
|
Wilson Ramos |
.254 |
4 |
17 |
19 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Desmond |
.229 |
3 |
17 |
26 |
18 |
|
Koyie Hill |
.215 |
1 |
7 |
11 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Player |
Wins |
ERA |
K’s |
WHIP |
Saves |
|
Matt Lindstrom |
0 |
1.48 |
17 |
1.02 |
2 |
|
Ricky Nolasco |
4 |
3.99 |
65 |
1.30 |
0 |
Based on the statistical comparison of the players involved, the numbers are close enough to preclude the need for any deeper performance analysis.
In terms of keeper league status and salary cap value, this trade does not raise any red flags regarding a large disparity in salary cap value or keeper league contract status. Nub Vader will acquire $1.00 in salary cap room by making the trade and will have Ramos for two more years and Castro for one more. In contrast, the Stud Muffins will have the rights to Nolasco for another two years.
As referenced in Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 34 (June 2010), the dichotomy between the Stud Muffins and Nub Vader’s 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 still likely approve 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. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby decides that the subject trade is fair and even. The trade should be approved as it comports with the best interests of the league.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
New Fantasy Judgment decision – fantasy baseball trade (Justin Upton)
SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
4 Ponies v. Nub Vader
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE INCONTINENT LEAGUE
Decided June 8, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 30 (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 Nub Vader. The 4 Ponies traded Brandon Beachy (SP-ATL), Domonic Brown (OF-PHI), and Logan Morrison (OF-FLA) to Nub Vader in exchange for Cameron Maybin (OF-SD) and Justin Upton (OF-ARZ).
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trade between the 4 Ponies and Nub Vader 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 Brandon Beachy, Domonic Brown and Logan Morrison in exchange for Cameron Maybin and Justin Upton looks fair. Justin Upton is the best player involved in this trade so the equitability of the deal will focus on him and what was given in return. Uptonhas emerged as one of the best all-around players in both real and fantasy baseball. What makes him so appealing in roto leagues is his power and speed combination that only a handful of players possess. Maybin was projected to be the same type of player but has yet to really put it all together in his young career. Clearly the 4 Ponies, currently in 2nd place, are looking to add more power and speed to their roster. In exchange, they have traded two other young outfielders in Brown and Morrison. Both of them are highly touted as well and have performed well in their brief careers. However, neither possesses the same power/speed combination that Maybin and Upton have. Despite that, Morrison has been entrenched as the Marlins everyday left fielder and is right in the middle of their lineup. Brown was only recently called up to the Phillies due to injuries and ineffectiveness of their current crop of outfielders. He has not played much against lefties, but it is expected that he will be worked into an everyday position as the season goes on. In addition to Morrison and Brown, Nub Vader is acquiring Braves’ starting pitcher Brandon Beachy. Beachy is currently on the disabled list with an oblique injury but is projected to come back within the next couple weeks. He had pitched well before the injury and will be a solid addition to Nub Vader’s staff which is sorely in need of help.
Statistically, the trade favors 4 Ponies by virtue of Upton and Maybin’s collective performance. However, it must be taken into consideration that Brown was only recalled a couple weeks ago and Morrison missed several weeks due to injury earlier in the season. This partially explains why their statistics are not nearly as close, which is demonstrated in the table below:
|
Player |
AVG. |
HR |
RBI |
Runs |
SB |
|
Justin Upton |
.272 |
11 |
30 |
36 |
11 |
|
Cameron Maybin |
.254 |
5 |
15 |
24 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domonic Brown |
.283 |
1 |
6 |
6 |
1 |
|
Logan Morrison |
.295 |
7 |
21 |
19 |
1 |
Over the course of a full season with full playing time and no injuries, all players involved in the trade are projected to have more equivalent statistics. The evaluation must take into account why there is such a discrepancy at the time the trade is made. As previously stated, Brown was in the minor leagues and Morrison was injured. Now that all players are active and healthy, the trade can be viewed through an appropriate lens which shows it is equitable.
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 four outfielders and one starting pitcher. The exchange of two outfielders for two outfielders essentially cancels each other out in terms of specific needs for each team. The fact thatUpton is in the trade and is the best player involved necessitated the inclusion of Beachy. Despite being injured, Beachy will be a welcome addition to Nub Vader’s pitching staff which is severely lacking in quality starters (he currently has J.A. Happ, Jeff Karstens, Jake Westbrook, Mike Leake and Joe Blanton).
In terms of keeper league status and salary cap value, this trade includes a large disparity in monetary value. Beachy,. Brown and Morrison cost $0.50 each. Maybin also costs $0.50 andUptoncosts $4.20. This means that Nub Vader is gaining $3.20 in salary cap space which represents almost 10% of the Incontinent League’s $36.00 salary cap for each team. In terms of contract status,Uptonis in the first year of his contract so the 4 Ponies will have him for another two years after this. On the other hand, both Brown and Morrison only have one year left on their contracts. Presumably, Nub Vader will be able to use his newly-acquired salary cap space to replenish his team in the 2012 draft. Beachy is in the first year of his contract, and given his youth and initial success with the Braves, Nub Vader will certainly benefit from having him locked up for another two years.
As referenced in Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 34 (June 2010), the dichotomy between the 4 Ponies and Nub Vader’s 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 still likely approve 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. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby decides that the subject trade is fair and even. The trade should be approved as it comports 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 – Miguel’s Mashers v. Detroit’s Finest (how to handle an abandoned fantasy baseball team)
SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
Miguel’s Mashers, et al. v. Detroit’s Finest
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
THE MOTOR CITY FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE
Decided May 6, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 19 (May 2011)
Factual Background
A rotisserie fantasy baseball league (hereinafter referred to as “Roto league” or “The Motor City Fantasy Baseball League”) seeks a determination whether the Commissioner can cede control of a team that has been allegedly abandoned. The Motor City Fantasy Baseball League (“MCFBL”) also seeks guidance on what to do with the abandoned team and its players. This is a twelve team, mixed AL/NL keeper league where each team is permitted to maintain up to five (5) 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 three minor league players which are in addition to the five players kept. The MCFBL utilized a snake draft and permits transactions through the free agent auction bidding process.
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.
Detroit’s Finest appears to have abandoned his team or at least has not made any attempts to make improvements through transactions, trades or lineup changes.
Procedural History
The MCFBL was formed in 2004 amongst friends from college. Of the twelve teams currently in the league, only two were not original members from 2004. One of these newer teams is Detroit’s Finest who joined the league in 2009 when an opening was created due to the departure of a league member who recently had a baby. Detroit’s Finest was brought into the league by the Commissioner whom he knew personally for several years. In 2009 and 2010, Detroit’s Finest finished near the bottom of the standings and typically did not make many transactions or engage in trade discussions. He made his league entry fee payments of an undisclosed amount in a timely manner, as did all other members of the league.
Entering the 2011 season, Detroit’s Finest elected to keep Tim Lincecum and Ryan Howard as his only keepers. He participated in the draft and acquired such players as Brandon Belt, Josh Hamilton, and Mariano Rivera. However, after Hamilton was injured earlier in the season, he never made any effort to replace him on his roster and in fact left Hamilton in his starting lineup every week accumulating no statistics as he is on the disabled list. Three separate teams in the league made trade proposals to Detroit’s Finest offering various outfielders to compensate for the loss of Hamilton, but no response was given to any of the proposals. Calls and emails from the league’s Commissioner went unanswered and unresponded to. Additionally, Belt was sent down to the minors yet Detroit’s Finest has not removed him from his starting lineup. The league Commissioner saw Detroit’s Finest in person recently and he evaded questions about his fantasy team.
Detroit’s Finest currently is in last place in the MCFBL’s standings, 18 points behind the next highest team. Several members of the league have complained to the Commissioner to do something about this. Some suggested solutions have been to abandon the team and redistribute the players in a supplemental draft, as well as to find a replacement owner to take over control.
The Commissioner has elected to do nothing at this point. Members of the league, on behalf of the Commissioner, now seek guidance in how to handle the situation going forward. The MCFBL does have a written Constitution, but it does not contain any provisions for dealing with this specific occurrence.
Issue Presented
(1) What should be done to handle an allegedly abandoned team?
Decision
The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment is a strong advocate for having written Constitutions that govern fantasy sports leagues. See John Doe v. Fantasy Football League Commissioner, 2 F.J. 21, 22 (October 2010). One of the primary reasons behind having a written Constitution is so that all league members are aware of the rules and guidelines in place that govern the administration and function of the fantasy league. See Shawn Kemp is My Daddy v. Fantasy Basketball League Commissioner, 2 F.J. 24, 25 (October 2010). When a league Commissioner writes out the rules and distributes them to the league, it shifts the burden onto the league members to read, understand, and adhere to the rules that are delineated. If a league member has an issue, question or challenge to one of the rules in the Constitution, they are welcome to raise this with the Commissioner before signing it or agreeing to its codification.
First, the Court recognizes the courage of the Commissioner to not make any rash decisions that could potentially call into question his integrity. The Commissioner very easily could have made a decision that somehow benefited him personally, but instead he has patiently sought the advice of the Court for guidance. The Court strongly frowns upon league Commissioners arbitrarily making decisions that do not benefit the league as a whole. See Flemish USA v. League Commissioner, 2 F.J. 35, 37 (October 2010).
On top of the fact that there is no language in the league’s Constitution dealing with this particular issue, there is also no language within the Constitution that discusses what the procedure is to handle an issue of first impression such as this. When a league Constitution is silent, the Court will defer to the default premise that a league Commissioner has the authority and discretion to handle an issue of first impression within the best interests of the league. See George v. LOEG Commissioner, 2 F.J. 42, 44 (October 2010). Normally, the Court does not advocate creating or amending rules in the middle of a season unless there are extraordinary circumstances involved, such as preventing a complete mutiny and subsequent meltdown of the league. See John Doe v. Fantasy Football League Commissioner, 2 F.J. 21, 22 (October 2010). Here, it is clear that several members of the league have requested the Commissioner take action in handling this situation. However, the record is devoid of any references to threats to quit the league or disband.
While it is never a positive scenario when a fantasy owner has purportedly stopped paying attention and managing his team. This leads to an unbalance in the standings because that abandoned team essentially guarantees a floor in a roto league or a bye in a head to head league. This obviously affects the standings and potential prize winnings down the road. However, Detroit’s Finest had already paid his league entry fee which will in turn be distributed to the league winners at the end of the season. It is well-established law that teams that pay to participate in fantasy leagues should be given the freedom to manage their teams accordingly. See 4 Ponies v. Carson City Cocks, 3 F.J. 13 (May 2011). Here, while it is unfortunate that Detroit’s Finest has inexplicably elected not to effectively manage his team, the fact remains that he paid for the ability to do what he pleases with his team, even at his own detriment. It is understood that this methodology does not necessarily comport with basic standards of competition and good faith. However, electing another option poses greater danger to the league in terms of overall fairness.
To cede control over Detroit’s Finest through fantasy eminent domain is not an ideal option. Giving control of the team to the Commissioner, another team, or the league overall simply creates more controversy than what already exists. Everyone’s own self-serving motivations would go into whatever decisions had to be made for that team. Disbanding the team and redistributing the players in a supplemental draft is not a good choice either because of the myriad of questions that are created in determining the draft order and comporting with everyone’s already existing roster requirements and limitations. The most ideal scenario is to find someone else outside the league to take over control of the team as it currently stands. Assuming this cannot be done, the Court rules that the status quo is what is best for the league. If Detroit’s Finest is destined to remain at the bottom of the standings, then that is not problematic. No matter what, one team will have to be at the bottom of the standings at the end of the year. In this case, the only difference is that it is likely a foregone conclusion which team that will be.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby decides that the Commissioner should not do anything in terms of taking control of Detroit’s Finest. Electing to maintain the status quo eliminates any potential impropriety or the advancement of further issues. It also leaves the door open for the owner of Detroit’s Finest to come back and take over control of his team again at a later date. In the best interests of the league, as well as comporting with the duties and responsibilities of being Commissioner, the Court concludes that nothing should be done in response to the alleged abandonment of the fantasy baseball team in the MCFBL.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
New Fantasy Judgment decision – Smittydogs vs. Stud Muffins (fantasy baseball trade dispute)
SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
Smittydogs v. Stud Muffins
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
THE INCONTINENT LEAGUE
Decided May 4, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 16 (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 Smittydogs have made a trade with the Stud Muffins. The Smittydogs traded Kerry Wood (RP-CHC) to the Stud Muffins in exchange for Mitchell Boggs (RP-STL).
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trade 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 trade of Kerry Wood in exchange for Mitchell Boggs looks fair and even. This trade involves two relief pitchers who are not likely going to contribute much in terms of saves. Rather, they could be effective for ERA and WHIP assuming they are both effective in a set-up role. However, Boggs has been in contention for the Cardinals’ closer job after Ryan Franklin was removed. Boggs had some initial success, but after a blown save just days after being named the likely closer, Cardinals’ manager Tony LaRussa has stated it will be a closer by committee situation with others such as Fernando Salas, Eduardo Sanchez and Jason Motte. This decreases Boggs’ value if he will not get opportunities for saves. On the other hand, Wood is the established eighth inning reliever for the Cubs setting up Carlos Marmol. Wood will only have save opportunities if Marmol is injured, unavailable, or in need of rest.
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, both teams have swapped players at the same position with relatively similar production. There is nothing out of the ordinary to indicate either team has any ulterior motives behind the trade to question its sincerity.
In terms of keeper league status and salary cap value, this trade is almost equivocal. Both players involved are in their first year under contract with their respective teams. Wood is worth $0.30 while Boggs is worth $1.00. The Stud Muffins, currently in third place, will gain $0.70 in salary cap space which is debatably 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 Smittydogs 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 – 4 Ponies vs. Carson City Cocks (fantasy baseball trade dispute)
SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
4 Ponies v. Carson City Cocks
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
THE INCONTINENT LEAGUE
Decided May 4, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 13 (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 4 Ponies have made a trade with the Carson City Cocks. The 4 Ponies traded Albert Pujols (1B-STL) and Geovany Soto (C-CHC) to the Carson City Cocks in exchange for Joey Votto (1B-CIN) and John Buck (C-FLA).
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trade between the 4 Ponies and the Carson City Cocks 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 Albert Pujols and Geovany Soto in exchange for Joey Votto and John Buck looks fair and even. This trade involves arguably the two best first baseman in both real and fantasy baseball. Pujols and Votto have multiple National League MVP awards amongst them combined and have put up crooked statistics on an annual basis. While Pujols generally has better numbers and has been producing them over a longer period of time, Votto has reached elite status with his production in a loaded lineup and a hitter’s ballpark in Cincinnati. Buck and Soto have many similarities between them as well. Soto has never come close to the production he had several years ago when he won National League Rookie of the Year. However, he is still a solid second tier option at catcher in an NL-only league. The same can be said for Buck, who has become known as a relatively prolific homerun-hitting catcher. Neither will provide much in terms of batting average, runs scored, or stolen bases.
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, both teams have swapped players at the same position with relatively similar offensive production. There is nothing out of the ordinary to indicate either team has any ulterior motives behind the trade to question its sincerity.
In terms of keeper league status and salary cap value, this trade is almost equivocal. All four players involved are in their first year under contract with their respective teams. Pujols is worth $4.70 while Votto is worth $4.60. Additionally, Soto is worth $1.20 and Buck is worth $0.90. The 4 Ponies, currently in second place, will gain $0.40 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).
Despite the fact that Pujols has struggled to begin the 2011 season, the Court admits into evidence his entire body of work over the last decade which unanimously delineates him the best player in baseball. That being said, Pujols’ value must be considered in totality of his typical yearly output, along with the fact he is a free agent at the end of 2011 and will likely produce his usual numbers as motivation to justify the richest contract in all of baseball. Below is a comparison using the league’s roto categories to further demonstrate the equality amongst these players in terms of their statistics as of May 3, 2011:
|
Player |
AVG |
HR |
RBI |
R |
SB |
|
Albert Pujols |
.230 |
7 |
19 |
22 |
2 |
|
Joey Votto |
.362 |
5 |
16 |
24 |
4 |
|
Player |
AVG |
HR |
RBI |
R |
SB |
|
Geovany Soto |
.239 |
2 |
10 |
12 |
0 |
|
John Buck |
.223 |
3 |
15 |
13 |
0 |
Despite the disparity between Pujols and Votto’s batting average, everything else is equal in terms of current production. As was stated earlier, the Court is discounting Pujols’ current batting average on the premise that it will significantly increase over time based on his historical averages and the underlying motivation of impending free agency.
As referenced in Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 34 (June 2010), the dichotomy between the 4 Ponies and Carson City Cocks’ 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.
