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.
The Art of Making a Fantasy Baseball Trade
Today I made a significant trade in one of my fantasy baseball leagues. This is the league where I am the commissioner of an 18-team, head to head, mixed, points league where pitching is the key to success. Thus far, my staff has not performed up to standards that are even below my mediocre expectations. I have Brett Myers, Wandy Rodriguez, Aaron Harang, Ted Lilly, Jhoulys Chacin, Javier Vazquez, Heath Bell, Carlos Marmol and Kevin Gregg. We start any six pitchers, and wins and saves are both worth ten points. Additionally, quality starts are worth five, strikeouts are worth two each, and there are negative points for losses, blown saves, walks, and earned runs allowed. I have suffered from poor production and some poor decision-making as I had Chacin on the bench for one of his big starts, and my unwarranted faith in Vazquez has led me to mock his being on the bereavement list.
Every year I tend to make at least one blockbuster acquisition, so I began thinking big in order to improve my pitching. I knew I would have to make an enticing offer to someone who needed some offense, so I decided to reap the benefits of Lance Berkman’s insane start to the season. I recently sang the praises of the Big Puma (see http://fantasyjudgment.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/passing-judgment-the-resurgence-of-lance-berkman/) as he has enjoyed a renaissance thus far in 2011. But the reality is that he cannot maintain this pace over the course of the season. He is very likely going to miss some time at some point due to injuries, and his 35-year old body cannot sustain playing everyday in the outfield. So I offered Berkman and Kevin Gregg for Cliff Lee figuring it would be rejected but hopeful there would be a counteroffer. Sure enough, my fellow league member preferred a starter and asked for Harang. It was a done deal for me.
Cliff Lee addresses the media at the press conference announcing that he has been traded to my fantasy team.
Cliff Lee is also a topic I have written about before (see http://fantasyjudgment.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/cliffs-notes-my-thoughts-on-the-cliff-lee-signing/). I made the arguments that Lee is a good pitcher, but his mediocre regular seasons in 2009 and 2010 seem to be forgotten due to his dominant playoff performances the last couple years. And for the purposes of fantasy baseball, the regular season is all that counts. While my thoughts on Lee remain the same, he is still a tremendous upgrade for me. He has been victimized by poor run support, but that should change going forward because Chase Utley, Carlos Ruiz, and Domonic Brown are not far away from joining the already respectable lineup. Even in a loss, Lee will still throw a quality start with a lot of strikeouts and few walks.
As I stated before, pitching is what wins championships in the OBFBL. I have won the league three times (1999, 2002, and 2007), and each time was because I had multiple dominant pitchers. This year is one of the only years I have ever gone with the multiple stud closer route (Bell and Marmom). With saves being worth as much as wins, they ranked near the top of all pitchers in 2010, so it was a relative no-brainer to draft them given who was available. Now adding Lee into the mix should give me a more formidable staff.
The beauty of making fantasy baseball trades is that there is always a nervous sensation you get because you wonder whether you are getting screwed or whether you will come to regret your decision. I have never regretted any trade I have ever made, even if things just didn’t work out. I don’t trade out of desperation or from a position of weakness. I target what my specific needs are and figure out the least I can give up to acquire that need. That is what I did here. Sure I will miss Berkman’s bat in my lineup, but I am counting on him tailing off at some point. Now I need to acquire another hitter, and with the pitching excess I have, that is the direction I will go.
The other key to making effective fantasy baseball trades is to be patient and have some self-restraint. I previously wrote about not over-reacting so early in the season (see http://fantasyjudgment.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/passing-judgment-dont-overreact-after-one-week/), and it directly applies to making smart trades and decisions. I was not happy with how my team performed after five weeks and seven games (we play divisional doubleheaders every few weeks), but I waited until the right opportunity presented itself to get the best deal possible. If I made this offer a few weeks ago, it likely would have been rejected because my fellow league owner would have wanted to wait and see how Lee would continue to do, and he may not have believed in Berkman after such a small sample. But now 20% into the season, there was a large enough body of work to convince him that Berkman was worth acquiring for a #1 fantasy starting pitcher. It also helped that Harang has been so good thus far because he would have had no value earlier in the year. So, in the words of the great Jedi master, Yoda, “Patient must you be.”
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 – Smittydogs vs. Stud Muffins (fantasy baseball trade)
THE SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
Smittydogs v. Stud Muffins
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
THE INCONTINENT LEAGUE
Decided April 22, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 10 (April 2011)
Factual Background
A rotisserie fantasy baseball league (hereinafter referred to as “Roto league” or “The Incontinent League”) utilizing an auction-style draft and transaction platform seeks an evaluation of a trade made between two teams within the Roto league. This is an NL-only keeper league where each team is permitted to maintain up to ten (10) players during each off-season with each individual player allowed to be kept for a maximum of three (3) years. Each team is also permitted to keep two minor league players which are in addition to the ten players kept. This Roto league also has a $36.00 in-season salary cap that is applicable for all teams.
As with many rotisserie leagues, the subject Roto league uses the standard 5×5 scoring categories to determine the standings and prize money. For offensive players, the five categories are: (1) batting average; (2) homeruns; (3) runs batted in; (4) runs scored; and (5) stolen bases. For pitchers, the five categories are: (1) wins; (2) earned run average; (3) WHIP (walks+hits/innings pitched); (4) strikeouts; and (5) saves. Statistics are cumulative throughout the course of the season and there are no head to head games contained within the Roto league.
Procedural History
The Smittydogs have made two trades with the Stud Muffins which can be evaluated concurrently. The Smittydogs traded Todd Helton (1B-COL) and Brooks Conrad (3B-ATL) to the Stud Muffins in exchange for Jason Motte (RP-STL) and Mitchell Boggs (RP-STL).
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trades between the Smittydogs and the Stud Muffins be upheld and approved?
Decision
The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment typically favors individual fantasy sports participants and teams’ ability to make moves, transactions, and trades. The standard of review has been that people pay money to purchase a team in a league, draft their team, and manage it accordingly. Whether success is bred from that individual’s decision-making is purely left to some skill, luck, dedication, and savviness. The Court also acknowledges that the analysis for evaluating trades is much different in a keeper league than a non-keeper league. A trade that may look uneven or lopsided on its face may receive a different opinion when it is involved in a keeper league. The reasons for this are obvious, but must be restated. In a keeper league, teams that are having unsuccessful seasons are more likely to continue to pay attention and make moves that will set themselves up for better success in the following season. They can do this by acquiring young talent that is not under contract within the league, or by dumping salary (assuming it is an auction league) and allowing greater financial flexibility to sign key players in the next season’s draft. In non-keeper leagues, there is no rationale for thinking ahead, nor is there any need to stockpile young, inexpensive talent.
Another factor that the Court must always consider is whether there is any collusion or under-the-table dealings going on between teams. The Court has not been presented with any evidence of such malfeasance, so assumptions will be made that this is not an issue.
At first glance, the individual trades of Todd Helton in exchange for Jason Motte, and Brooks Conrad in exchange for Mitchell Boggs look slightly uneven. However, when viewed in totality as if it was a two for two trade, the deal makes more sense. It should be noted that the Smittydogs acquired Ryan Franklin (RP-STL) earlier in the season, and he has since lost his job as the closer for the St. Louis Cardinals. Clearly this served as a motivating factor for Smittydogs to acquire two potential candidates that will be obtaining Franklin’s save opportunities. When analyzing the fairness and equity of a trade, the Court will consider each team’s individual needs to assess whether the trade subjectively made sense from each team’s perspective. See Cajon Crawdads vs. Carson City Cocks, 1 F.J. 41, 42 (June 2010) (upholding a trade for Jason Bay because of the Carson City Cocks’ desperate need for a starting outfielder due to the demotion of Cameron Maybin). Here, the Smittydogs were in need of saves due to Franklin’s demotion, so there was an inherent need to acquire potential replacements for him.
Todd Helton was once one of the premiere players in the league and a top option in terms of fantasy production. However, due to age and injuries, he has been sapped of the power and run production the fantasy baseball community was accustomed to for almost a decade. At this point in his career, Helton cannot be relied upon to play every day; nor can he be relied upon to contribute mightily in any of the roto categories. However, he is still capable of reaching .300 with 15 HR and 75 RBI if he remains healthy enough. He will be afforded every opportunity to play consistently for a Rockies team that is expected to contend for the National League West title. It makes sense that he would be desirable by the Stud Muffins in exchange for a couple of Cardinals relievers without a track record of success. The puzzling aspect of this trade is Brooks Conrad who is nothing more than a bench player. He was given significant playing time in 2010, and besides a game-winning grand slam homerun, he did nothing remarkable other than make errors filling in for Chipper Jones. Conrad’s role is solely as a reserve, and he hasn’t even been given an opportunity to start a game yet in 2011. That being said, his inclusion in these deals doesn’t increase or decrease their value.
None of the players involved cost significant salary dollars, and their values only net a $0.10 difference which is hardly enough to consider as a factor in the trade. Additionally, none of these players are projected to be long-term assets for either team.
As referenced in Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 34 (June 2010), the dichotomy between the Smittydogs and 4 Ponies’ motivations is precisely why the Court must look at trades in keeper leagues differently than non-keeper leagues. However, had this trade been made in a non-keeper league, the Court would still likely approve it.
These two trades were concurrently made and subsequently evaluated in totality for judicial economy and ease of reference for the parties. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby decides that the subject trades are fair, equal, and free of collusion. The trades should be approved as they comport with the best interests of the league.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
New Fantasy Judgment Decision – Smittydogs vs. Moneyball (fantasy baseball trade)
THE SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
Smittydogs v. Moneyball
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
THE INCONTINENT LEAGUE
Decided April 19, 2011
Cite as 3 F.J. 7 (April 2011)
Factual Background
A rotisserie fantasy baseball league (hereinafter referred to as “Roto league” or “The Incontinent League”) utilizing an auction-style draft and transaction platform seeks an evaluation of a trade made between two teams within the Roto league. This is an NL-only keeper league where each team is permitted to maintain up to ten (10) players during each off-season with each individual player allowed to be kept for a maximum of three (3) years. Each team is also permitted to keep two minor league players which are in addition to the ten players kept. This Roto league also has a $36.00 in-season salary cap that is applicable for all teams.
As with many rotisserie leagues, the subject Roto league uses the standard 5×5 scoring categories to determine the standings and prize money. For offensive players, the five categories are: (1) batting average; (2) homeruns; (3) runs batted in; (4) runs scored; and (5) stolen bases. For pitchers, the five categories are: (1) wins; (2) earned run average; (3) WHIP (walks+hits/innings pitched); (4) strikeouts; and (5) saves. Statistics are cumulative throughout the course of the season and there are no head to head games contained within the Roto league.
Procedural History
The Incontinent League’s draft took place on April 2, 2011. That day, the Smittydogs made a trade with Moneyball. The Smittydogs traded John Axford (RP-MIL) to Moneyball in exchange for Ryan Franklin (RP-STL).
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trade between the Smittydogs and Moneyball be upheld and approved?
Decision
This trade was not submitted to the Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment until April 18, 2011. The trade was made on April 2, 2011. In order to evaluate the fairness and validity of the trade, the Court will base its analysis as of the players’ status and team needs as they were on April 2, 2011.
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 John Axford for Ryan Franklin looks fair and even. This trade consists of two middle-tier closers for teams projected to be competitive and successful in 2011. Axford secured the role as closer for the Brewers in the 2010 season where he accumulated 24 saves, along with a staggering 8 relief wins, 2.48 ERA, 76 strikeouts, and 1.19 WHIP. Coming into the 2011 season, the Brewers are expected to compete for the National League Central title with the acquisitions of Zack Greinke and Shaun Marcum. This improved starting pitching projected well for Axford to have an abundance of save opportunities. Ryan Franklin, the closer for the Cardinals, is entering his third full season as a stopper. A converted journeyman starter, Franklin has been a solid second tier closer since 2009 and is projected to continue this trend into the 2011 season despite the devastating loss of Adam Wainwright. However, there is some concern about Franklin beginning a downward in comparing his statistics from 2009 to 2010. Franklin only had 27 saves over a full season, along with a relatively high 3.46 ERA. His WHIP was an impressive 1.03, but he only had 42 strikeouts which is demonstrative of his pitch-to-contact capabilities. That being said, Axford is still unproven after only having one half of a season as a closer. There are risks involved with both players, as there are with most closers in baseball.
In terms of the players’ salaries and contract status, it does not appear that either team is gaining a tremendous advantage either way. Franklin costs $1.20 and is the final year of his contract, meaning he will be eligible for the draft in 2012. Axford costs $1.00 and is in the 2nd year of his contract with only one year remaining before he is a free agent again. This equality also helps prove that the trade is fair and equal.
As referenced in Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 34 (June 2010), the dichotomy between the Smittydogs 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. Neither of these players are long-term solutions or top-rated prospects. The typical keeper league analysis of projected future value is not necessary in this transaction. The Court would like to reiterate that the analysis and evaluation of the trade is retroactive to April 2, 2011 when the trade was consummated. Had the trade been evaluated as of the present date, the analysis could be different due to the ineffectiveness of both players, especially Franklin who is likely to lose his role as closer on the Cardinals. Should Franklin be relegated to set-up relief and not have opportunities to gain saves, his value will severely plummet. Regardless, the trade was evaluated based on when it was made.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby decides that the subject trade should is fair, equal, and free from collusion. The trade comports with the best interests of the league and should be approved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Passing Judgment – Adam Wainwright out for the year.
The bad news became official today when it was announced that St. Louis Cardinals ace pitcher Adam Wainwright will need season-ending Tommy John surgery. After sustaining what Cardinals’ officials called a “significant elbow injury,” it was highly speculated that this meant Wainwright would require surgical intervention. This is a devastating loss for the Cardinals who relied on the 1-2 punch of Wainwright and Chris Carpenter to lead their pitching staff. Over the last three seasons, Wainwright has established himself as an elte pitcher and a top candidate for the Cy Young award. It will be impossible to replace his value and statistics, so somehow the Cardinals will have to be creative and hope for the best as they deal with this situation.
From a fantasy baseball perspective, this is obviously devastating to anyone who already has Wainwright in a keeper league. If you haven’t had to commit to keepers yet, then Wainwright will likely be thrown back into the pool. For leagues that use a fresh draft, Wainwright’s name can be crossed off of all lists as he will be out for the entire season with goals and aspirations of pitching in early 2012. This means that arguably one of the top five pitching options is now off the board. It also bodes well for players on opposing teams in the NL Central who no longer have to worry about facing Wainwright so many times during the season.
If you have the option of keeping him in a keeper league, I would think long and hard about holding on to him. While he will miss this whole season, he is still young and will be pitching with extra motivation and incentive when he returns. Tommy John surgery is no longer as complicated and risky as it once was. So many pitchers undergo the operation and come back just as good, if not better, than before an injury. Wainwright is still young and will have plenty of opportunities to regain his stuff. Right now, assuming that things don’t progress as quickly as the Mets would like, it is possible that Johan Santana could miss most of this season as well. That means that when 2012 comes around, we could see Stephen Strasburg, Adam Wainwright and Santana all back and looking to prove themselves after serious injuries. Could be interesting.
