Petitioner, the LEAGUE MANAGER, on behalf of the LEAGUE, brings this fantasy football dispute in the COURT OF FANTASY FOOTBALL seeking review of a bid submission that, strictly speaking, does not conform with the proper form pursuant to the rules posted by the League Manager.However, for the reasons set forth herein, this Court rules in favor of ICE and upholds the bid.This is a case of first impression so we rely on no precedent in reaching our holding.
ANALYSIS& DISCUSSION
The fantasy football dispute presented here is whether or not the bid was legitimate.
This calls into question the rulebook, as set forth in a league-chat, which provides:
All bids will be made here. A bid may not be edited. If it is edited it will not count.
Free agents will be open for bidding at 3 a.m. on Tuesdays. Bidding will conclude atp.m. on Wednesday.
Each team will have a $100 budget for the first half of the year. Budgets will reset afterweek 7.
All bids must be made in whole dollars, otherwise they will not count.
If an owner is over his allotted budget at 7 p.m. on Wednesday all of his bids will be disqualified.
At 7:01 p.m. on Wednesday I will post the auction winners and they will be allowed to add their players. At this time, all remaining free agents become fair game.
If an owner picks up a player before 7 p.m. on Wednesday or picks up a player that he has won an auction for, he will be fined $20 free agent dollars and will lose a roster spot for that week.
All teams currently have their full $100 budget.
ALL posts are to be made using this format: (Example)Tom Brady $1
The relevant evidence was reviewed and instructive in reaching our decision.
Through the course of the season the league members established a norm that deviated from the strict rule above (although, the rule did not prove strict)—that bids would be recognized even if they did not conform with the rule—First name, Last name $. The league members earlier in the season challenged a bit of “Moore 45” which was upheld in awarding the bidder Mewelde Moore using $45 from his budget.The Court suspects that numerous other nonconforming bids were made, accepted and not challenged.
And so the bid at issue now is Colts 6. ICE submitted the name of the “player” (Colts) and a dollar value (6). Yes, it was not in the "proper form”, which would have been Colts $ 6 (a sub-issue, the absence of “D/ST” discussed supra).
As noted above, the League Manager indicated to the Court in its letter that more than one bid had previously been recognized that did not follow form. In light of that, it would be wholly unfair to penalize ICE in this instance for making a bid (and ultimately winning) that indeed wasn't in "proper form", but in a form that had previously been accepted.Effectively, this matter has been decided by the League’s own prior ruling.
Curiously, the bid was actually accepted and this challenge to its legitimacy comes after a playoff game was decided by the Colt’s D/ST point total.Indeed, this ruling is based on the doctrines of equitable estoppel, whereby this challenge comes too late as ICE has already relied on the bid acceptance in setting his roster, and acquiescence/ratification whereby the nonconforming bid form had been previously accepted and therefore the League cannot deny it now based on circumstance.
Significantly, part of the argument against the bid suggests that the absence of the "D/ST" after "Colts" is part of the problem. But nothing in the League Manager’s petition or the evidence indicates that a player's position is supposed to be part of the bid. The example was not "Tom Brady QB $1". Rather, it was "Tom Brady $1". And so this Court cannot agree that the presence (or lack of presence) of "D/ST" from the bid has any effect whatsoever.
HOLDING
For reasons set forth herein, this Court rules that the free agent bid should be upheld.
Petitioner Doug M. and Respondent Adam S. are competitors in the Bring Back Favre Keepers League, a head-to-head fantasy football league that is hosted by the CBS Sports “Commissioner” service.The league only has a rudimentary constitution, which was created using a CBS Sports template.However, the league involves a significant amount of money.The league entry fee is $175 per team, with prize payouts of $1400 to the league champion, $350 for the runner-up, and $220 for the team with the best regular season record.
Last weekend, Doug M. and Adam S.’s teams met in the first round of the bracketed playoff tournament.Astoundingly, the game ended in a tie.The league is now unsure of how to proceed.
Heading into last week’s games, Adam S.’s team had a better regular-season record, but Doug M.’s team had more points.Both argue on those grounds that there team should advance into the next round.
This court took jurisdiction to address the following two questions:
Is there are written agreement that determines which of these two teams shall advance into the next round of the playoffs?
If there is no written agreement on this issue, what is the fairest way to proceed?
ANALYSIS
I.Is There a Written Agreement about which Team Should Advance?
The first issue for the court to consider is whether there is a written agreement that determines which team should advance.The starting point (and ending point) for this review is always the language in the league constitution. (See Tom L. v. Commissioner, Index N. 2305, Oct. 29, 2008).However, here, all that exists is a very rudimentary constitution, created in conjunction with the CBS Sports Commissioner service.The only language in the constitution with respect to breaking ties states as follows: “"Ties in the standings are resolved in this order: Winning Percentage, Total Points."
I invited both parties to brief the issue about whether this clause is intended to apply to ties in a game, as well as to ties in overall record.Neither party chose to brief the issue.This court – upon its own best judgment – therefore concludes that the plain meaning of the text applies only to standings, and does not apply to deciding a single game. Hence, the writing in the league constitution does not address which team shall advance into round two of the playoffs.
II. Given the Constitution is Silent, What is the Fairest Way to Proceed?
Given the league constitution is silent on what team shall advance in the playoffs, this court next turns to equitable principles, and including custom, usage, past dealings, and, if necessary, the cy pres doctrine.
Custom, Usage and Past Dealings
As a general matter, when a contract is silent on any particular issue, a court turns to custom, usage and past dealing to determine what serves as the best default provision.(See Tom L. v. Commissioner, Index N. 2305, Oct. 29, 2008).In other words, the next question for this court to consider is what serves as the standard practice in the fantasy sports marketplace for breaking playoff ties.
Upon the court’s review, it takes judicial notice to the fact that both custom and usage on this issue are mixed throughout the fantasy sports.According to games hosted by ESPN, “in the event that two teams have the same number of points at the conclusion of their playoff game,the system tiebreaker awards the win to the higher seeded team.”(www.espn.com).According to Yahoo, the first tie breaker is “most touchdowns scored by entire starting roster.” (www.yahoo.com).Meanwhile, in CBS Money Leagues – a distinctly different product, with a distinctly different Constitution from CBS Commissioner Leagues – the team with the most combined passing, rushing and receiving yards proceeds to the next round.(http://football.sportsline.com/splash/football/spln/single/rules).Furthermore, a brief survey of my colleagues shared with me the wide range of tie-breakers they use in their leagues (playoff bench scoring, regular season winning percentage, regular season points, coin toss).
This all goes to tell you is that there us no standard custom, usage, or past dealing for the court to reply upon.Further, to adopt any one of these three standards to resolve a past event would be wholly arbitrary.Irrespective of what standard this court chooses, it clearly would not represent the parties’ spoken, or even latent, intent.
Cy Pres Doctrine
Given custom, usage, and past dealings each provide little guidance, the court has no alternative but to shift next to the doctrine of cy pres.The doctrine of cy pres means that the court recognizes that there is no perfect solution, and therefore it will adopt a solution that is as close as possible to the parties’ interests, goals and intent.
While so much of fantasy football is about competing against friends, this particular league is also clearly about money (a $175 is a real investment).With that it mind, the court recognizes that any cy pres remedy should be one that closest approximately the reasonable monetary expectations of each party based on the actual performance of the teams in round one of the playoffs.
While Israel’s great King Solomon once decided that splitting a baby is not the right way to resolve a dispute over the baby’s true mother, here the court concludes (sincerely no less) splitting a playoff bracket into two solves the problem just fine.Unlike a baby, a bracket is not alive.Two playoff brackets therefore can thrive alongside one another.
Therefore, rather than arbitrarily picking one to advance between Doug M. and Adam S., this court rules the fantasy bracket shall be split into two – “Bracket A” and “Bracket B”.Both brackets shall be absolutely identical to one another in all respects, except that Doug M. advances in Bracket A, and Adam S. advances in Bracket B.The prize money for the winner of Bracket A shall be $700 to the league champion, and $175 to the runner-up.The same shall be true for Bracket B.Indeed, a single owner can, and probably will, win both brackets.In that case, that owner collects the full $1400.However, based on this setup, neither Doug M. nor Adam S. is eligible to win more than $700.This is the mathematically proper outcome, and a fair one to boot.(Indeed, should Doug M. and Adam S. both lose this week, the brackets again become identical and merge back into one).
This solution is completely fair for not only to Doug M. and Adam S., but also for all remaining playoff teams.Indeed, for the team that is forced to play Doug M. and Adam S. simultaneously this week, there is no disadvantage to doing so.In fact, that team is better hedged against risk because even if that team were to lose to one of its two opponents under the split-bracket format, that owner remains in the running for $700 of prize money in the other bracket.
Furthermore, even though this solution leads to one more team using the waiver wire in the upcoming weeks, the court finds this effect de minimis, especially since it has already instructed Doug M. and Adam S. to continue using the waiver wire all week.
Finally, setting up two brackets and keeping track of the results may at first sound a bit confusing to any league commissioner.Therefore, if you are not sure how to do so, please send me your current playoff bracket with the teams that remain, and I will provide you with the duel bracket to use moving forward.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this court orders the Bring Back Favre Keepers League playoff bracket shall be split into two playoff brackets “A” and “B,” with equal prize money funded to each bracket.All playoff teams shall be seeded identically in both brackets and shall be entitled to win all prize money from both brackets, except Doug M. shall be seeded only in “Bracket A” and Adam S. shall be seeded only in “Bracket B.”
Petitioner, The Wicked Threadz Fantasy Football League, brings this claim in the Court of Fantasy Football, seeking to overturn the trade of Brian Westbrook (RB-Eagles) and the Tennessee Defense from Real Men of Genius to Express in exchange for Ryan Torain (RB-Broncos), Jonathan Stewart (RB-Panthers), Tory Holt (WR-Rams) and Mushin Muhammad (WR-Panthers).
This court fully overturns this trade.The court further rejects the commissioner’s proposed alterative trade.
The Law on Upholding a Trade
This question of when a fantasy sports arbitrator should intervene to overturn a trade is extremely tricky.On one hand, a major part of the fun of fantasy sports involves making trades and taking risks.The minute an outside party steps into the shoes and takes away the right of an individual fantasy team owner to make his own choices, a big part of the game’s fun is lost.However, on the other hand, if an arbitrator approved every single possible trade without regard to the ethical underpinnings of the deal or its impact on the integrity of the league overall, fantasy sports "would deteriorate into nothing more than a collection of near-Ponzi schemes of side dealing, trickery, and deceit."(See Commissioner v. Teams A, B. C & D, Docket No. 1443 (C) (Sept. 9, 2008)).If that were to happen, owners would also lose interest in fantasy sports.This result would be equally problematic.
To allow individual leagues the maximum deference in setting their own criteria for trade approval, SportsJudge.com maintains a policy of first turning to a given league’s constitution to provide guidance about when it should overturn a trade. (See Public Opinion No. 409-T, Commissioner P.K. v. Cartman).Leagues from around the country have adopted a wide range of different language to instruct our court.Some leagues request that SportsJudge.com uphold any trade so long as there is no actual finding of collusion (this standard has led to almost a 100% trade approval rate).Other leagues request that SportsJudge.com reject any trade where there even is the slightest argument of inequality (this leads has led to under a 30% trade approval rate).
Where a fantasy sports league fails to provide SportsJudge.com with a constitutional standard about when to overrule a trade, the SportsJudge.com court becomes forced to apply our default rule.This default rule states that “any fantasy baseball trade shall be upheld as long as the trade adequately benefits both teams.” (See Public Opinion No. 101, Big Red Rockers v. Big City Bombers).
SportsJudge.com arbitrators have long interpreted this rule to mean that a trade shall be upheld as long as there is a reasonable basis that both teams would benefit.Historically, SportsJudge.com have upheld close to 90% of all submitted trades when using this standard.
The Proposed Trade
The proposed trade is a 4-for-2.Express proposes to send to Real Men of Genius:
Player
Preseason Rotowire.com Rank
Current Actual Yahoo! Rank
Wicked Threadz Draft Position
Ryan Torain – RB
Not in Top 150
1692
Not Drafted
Jonathan Stewart-- RB
55
68
47
Tory Holt -- WR
35
181
26
Muhsin Muhammad -- WR
Not in Top 150
72
175
Real Men of Genius proposes to send Express:
Player
Preseason Rotowire.com Rank
Current Actual Yahoo! Rank (based on averages)
Wicked Threadz Draft Position
Michael Westbrook – RB
6
1
3
Tennessee Defense
Not Ranked
63 (third amongst defenses)
Not Drafted
Trade Analysis
Applying the review standard that considers whether this trade adequately benefits both teams, this court does not require that a trade be even; merely that both teams have a reasonable chance of benefiting.Essentially, this requires a level of good faith by all parties involved.It does not come nearly as far as requiring equality.
There is no doubt that Real Men of Genius benefits immensely from acquiring statistically one of the best running backs (Westbrook) and best defenses (Tennessee) in fantasy football this season.
However, unless Westbrook gets injured (and there is no reason to presume that event), there is less than an angstrom of chance that Express would ultimately benefit.Without the proposed trade, Express logically would be expected to start the following players at the applicable for the remainder of the season (factoring in teams that have bye weeks to remainder of the way, and presuming that Larry Johnson misses the rest of the season with a suspension -- a presumption that looks at the trade in its most favorable light):
Position
Week 9
Week 10
Rest of the Way
WR – 1
Roddy White
Roddy White
Roddy White
WR –2
Santonio Holmes
Santonio Holmes
Santonio Holmes
RB – 1
Jamal Lewis
Jamal Lewis
Jamal Lewis
RB – 2
Brian Westbrook
Brian Westbrook
Brian Westbrook
FLEX
Randle El
Henderson
Randle El or Henderson
Defense
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
After the trade, however, Express instead would start this team:
Position
Week 9
Week 10
Rest of the Way
WR – 1
White
White
White
WR –2
Holmes
Holmes
Holmes
RB – 1
Lewis
Lewis
Lewis
RB – 2
Torain
Stewart
Stewart
FLEX
Holt
Holt or Muhammad
Holt or Muhammad
Defense
WAIVER PICK
WAIVER PICK
WAIVER PICK
Stated otherwise, by making this trade, Express assumes a gaping hole at defense and a substantially weaker running back, while gaining little elsewhere.Even in terms of depth, any gains for Express are questionable.Two of the players that Express acquired are amongst the less than 33% of players in the league that still have their bye weeks lying ahead.
In addition, if you tabulate starting lineups based on average points per week thus far this season (and indeed, that is an imperfect method of projection), this trade will yield Express on average an astounding 15.54 point drop per week.
Old Player
Likely New Player
Average Difference Per Week
Westbrook (20.92)
Stewart (8.31)
Loss of 12.61 points/week
Tennessee (10.50)
Seattle (6.50)
Loss of 4.00 points/week
Holmes (8.59)
Muhammad (9.66)
Gain of 0.93 points/week
Loss of 15.54 points/week
With that said, there is absolutely no good faith argument that this trade could reasonably benefit Express.This trade is problematic from every possible angle.
The Commissioner’s Proposed Compromise
The second issue this court must discuss is the viability of the Wicked Threadz Fantasy League Commissioner’s good faith effort to produce a compromise solution that would allow for a more reasonable version of this trade. The Commissioner here has suggested removing the Tennessee Defense from the deal and approving this trade as a four-for-one.However, this compromise does not seem to solve the problem, nor is it permissible pursuant to the SportsJudge.com default rules.
While I commend the league commissioner for attempting to play Henry Clay, unless a league constitution explicitly gives a league commissioner power to involve himself in a trade, the commissioner does not have the right do so.While there is no doubt the commissioner had only the best intentions in mind, allowing him to intermingle himself in a trade produces too high risks that the commissioner will substitute his own self-interest for the needs of the respective teams.
In addition, allowing such a remedy encourages teams to propose the most uneven trades imaginable—knowing that if they are seen as too unfair the commissioner would just fix them.Ultimately, it could put the commissioner in the inevitable position of consistently needing to rework trades.
Final Thought
As a final thought, I wish to turn attention now to a comment on the message board from the owner of Real Men of Genius:
To [Another Team Owner]: I don't think its (sic) my responsibility not to [rip off] people. If they let it happen then its (sic) their fault not mine. You dont (sic) always have to give something good to get something better. The integrity of this league is still there.
Based upon the SportsJudge.com default rules, that statement is not accurate.While there is nothing wrong with a team making a trade that benefits them far more than their trade partner, our default rules will not allow a trade that does not even lead to a reasonable possibility that both parties would benefit.
If you wish if the future for SportsJudge.com to take a more hands-off approach to trades, you should write that standard directly into the league constitution for next season.That obviously, however, is an issue for you to discuss with your league mates.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reason, the commissioner rejects the proposed trade in its entirety.
Petitioner, the league commissioner, brings this claim in the COURT OF FANTASY FOOTBALL, seeking to determine the status of a proposed three-way trade between TEAM 1, TEAM 2, and TEAM 3 that was originally made over three weeks ago, on November 13, 2008.At the time the trade was made, TEAM 1 and TEAM 2 were both in playoff contention.TEAM 3 was already mathematically eliminated.This league is a non-keeper league.
The parties to this suit charged the court to answer three very specific questions?
1.Was this trade fair for all three teams?
2.Was TEAM 1’s receiving of Gonzalez and Rivers for Cooley and Ward fair?
3.What is the appropriate remedy?
The Law on Upholding a Trade
In this court, it is the general rule that any fantasy baseball trade shall be upheld as long as the trade adequately benefits both teams. (See Public Opinion No. 101, Big Red Rockers v. Big City Bombers). Where a league constitution provides alternative criteria for reviewing a trade, the alternative criteria may supersede the general rule. (See Public Opinion No. 409-T, Commissioner P.K. v. Cartman).However, where no league constitution exists, the default rule fully applies.
The review of a trade should be based on a reasonableness standard at the time the trade was made.(See Public Opinion No. 409-T, Commissioner P.K. v. Cartman) (redacted section).This means the court will place itself in the shoes of the parties at the time.It will not Monday Morning quarterback the deal based on subsequent events, such as injuries.
Finally, this court applies all equitable doctrines of law, including the Doctrine of Laches. The Doctrine of Laches states that a party is barred from bringing a claim as a matter of fairness if the party is unduly slothful in doing so, and a remedy at the later date would be improper.While this court is not ready to per se bar this claim, it acknowledges that it will be very difficult to fashion a meaningful remedy given the extended delay before the plaintiff brought the claim (the trade was consummated on November 10 and the dispute was not submitted until December 3).Given the amount of time the league has waited for the eggs to scramble, it has become all that much harder to now unscramble them.Recognizing the many subsequent free agent moves that the respective teams have made (or not made), there is no way to simply unwind this transaction.
Analysis of the Proposed Trade
The proposed trade is a three-way deal with players mixed and matched between TEAM 1, TEAM 2, and TEAM 3.Because the trade is complex, it must be reviewed separately from the vantage point of each team to determine whether each team adequately benefited from the deal.
Did TEAM 1 Adequately Benefit?
In this deal, TEAM 1 traded away Anthony Gonzalez (WR – Colts, No. 48 ranked WR according to Yahoo!) and Phillip Rivers (QB- Chargers, No. 6 ranked QB according to Yahoo!).He received Chris Cooley (TE – Washington D.C. Football Team, No. 5 ranked TE according to Yahoo!) and Hines Ward (Steelers – WR, No. 14 ranked WR according to Yahoo!).
In making this trade, Cooley (No. 5 ranked TE according to Yahoo!) immediately becomes a starting tight end for TEAM 1, replacing Heath Miller (No. 22 ranked tight end according to Yahoo!) in his starting lineup.This marks a substantial upgrade for TEAM 1 at that position.Meanwhile, TEAM 1 does not downgrade anywhere else in the process.Gonzalez was merely an end-of-bench reserve for TEAM 1, and the acquisition of Ward (who actually should start for TEAM 1) far more than offsets that loss.
Meanwhile, even though Phillip Rivers (No. 6 ranked QB according to Yahoo!) would be a very good starting fantasy quarterback for most other teams, TEAM 1 already has Jay Cutler (No. 5 ranked TE according to Yahoo!).While it is impossible to predict with certainty which of the two players TEAM 1 was starting at the time, a switch from Rivers to Cutler is at worst a wash for TEAM 1.So, barring an injury to Cutler, losing Rivers is not much of a loss.
In other words, TEAM 1 gains one and probably two starters in the deal.He loses nothing but depth.Therefore, he more than adequately benefits.
Did TEAM 2 Adequately Benefit?
In this deal, TEAM 2 traded away Tim Hightower (RB – Cardinals, No. 26 ranked RB according to Yahoo!), Brady Quinn (QB – Browns, unranked according to Yahoo!) and Hines Ward (WR – Steelers, No 14 ranked WR according to Yahoo!).He received Phillip Rivers (QB – Chargers No. 6 ranked QB according to Yahoo!).
Upon first glance, it seems like TEAM 2 gave up a lot of value to only get decent value in return.However, it is clear from his team roster that TEAM 2 also adequately benefited.Prior to the trade, TEAM 2 had a gaping hole at quarterback with the “three-headed non-monster” of Chad Pennington, Brady Quinn, and Carson Palmer.After the trade, he now has a bona fide starting quarterback in Rivers.In addition, the players TEAM 2 gave up were all likely reserves for him.The way I see the TEAM 2 depth chart, both before and after the trade, Brandon Jacobs and Steven Jackson are the starting running backs, Steve Slaton is the starting flex, and Larry Fitzgerald and Santana Moss are the starting wide receivers.
In other words, TEAM 1 gains one starter in the deal, and he loses nothing other than depth.Therefore, he more than adequately benefits.
Did TEAM 3 Adequately Benefit?
In this deal, TEAM 3 traded Chris Cooley (TE – Washington D.C. Football Team, No. 5 ranked TE according to Yahoo!).He received Tim Hightower (RB – Cardinals, No. 26 ranked RB according to Yahoo!), Brady Quinn (QB – Browns, unranked according to Yahoo!), and Anthony Gonzalez (WR – Colts, No. 48 ranked WR according to Yahoo!).
Although Chris Cooley is only one player, his loss is substantial to TEAM 3, as TEAM 3 does not have a back-up tight end.In addition, Cooley is having an exceptional year especially in terms of receiving yards.Given this is a deep, twelve-team league, it is very likely that TEAM 3 will find an adequate replacement for Cooley, much less any tight end, on the free agent waiver wire.
Meanwhile, the only player from the trade likely to crack TEAM 3’s starting lineup is Tim Hightower at running back, and, even there, Hightower is only a slight upgrade over Warrick Dunn (No, 29 ranked RB according to Yahoo).To further illustrate this point:
·TEAM 3 has Brett Favre as his starting quarterback (No. 11 ranked QB according to Yahoo! and improving weekly).Even as of the date of trade, November 10, Brady Quinn was not a likely choice to supplant him there.
·TEAM 3 has at wide receiver/flexMuhsin Muhammad (No. 32 ranked QB according to Yahoo!), Donald Driver, No. 26 ranked WR according to Yahoo!), and Marcus Colston (a 2007 Pro Bowler who in just his second week back from injury caught seven passes for 140 yards on the day before the trade was made).Anthony Gonzalez was not going to replace either of them.
In other words, TEAM 3 gets a slight upgrade at running back with the roster switch from Warrick Dunn to Tim Hightower.However, in the process he gives up one of the game’s elite tight ends, Chris Cooley.Plus, his team does not have a backup.The argument here that TEAM 3 benefits is exceedingly weak.Furthermore, making matters worse, given this is a non-keeper league and TEAM 3 was already mathematically eliminated at the time of the trade, calling into question his motives for even making this deal.
There is a bona fide question as to whether any trade TEAM 3 made could have ever allowed him to adequately benefit.While many play fantasy football for pride, and the league rules allow eliminated teams to make trades, there is no reason to void the trade just because TEAM 3 was eliminated.However, given how incredibly weak the argument is that TEAM 3 benefits from this deal, and given the fact that TEAM 3 was already mathematically eliminated from competition, these two reasons combine as sufficient for the court to conclude that TEAM 3 did not adequately benefit.
If this trade had been submitted to this court in a reasonable amount of time after it was consummated, this court would have reversed this trade.However, given the Doctrine of Laches, the delay makes that remedy infeasible.
Specific Questions
To now address the three specific questions this court was charged to answer:
Was this trade “fair” for all three teams?
No.While this trade adequately benefited TEAM 1 and TEAM 2, the trade did not adequately benefit TEAM 3.
Was TEAM 1’s receiving of Gonzalez and Rivers for Cooley and Ward “fair”?
Because the court applies the “adequately benefit” standard that evaluates a trade based on the gestalt, and this trade did not (and could not) have actually occurred because Cooley and Ward were on different fantasy teams, this court chooses not to address this issue.I believe the analysis above is sufficient.
What is the appropriate remedy?
Normally this trade would be overturned, however, based on the delay in filing a complaint, that remedy seems unfair under the Doctrine of Laches.There is no justifiable reason why it took the parties that were unhappy with this trade 22 days to file a complaint.This court will not overrule a trade more than three weeks later.
Nevertheless, because this trade provided what amounts to “free reinforcements” to TEAM 1 and TEAM 2, these shall not be allowed at first crack at the next set of reinforcements.Therefore, while it is only a minimal remedy, TEAM 1’s waiver priority should be reset to 12th.TEAM 2’s waiver priority shall be reset to 11th.
Holding
This trade does not adequately benefit all teams involved; however, because the league was unduly slothful in bringing this claim, the trade cannot be overturned.Therefore only a minimal equitable remedy is possible.
As that minimal, equitable remedy, TEAM 1’s waiver priority shall be reset to 12th and TEAM 2’s waiver priority shall be reset to 11th.
Finally, as a side note, this court recommends your league either pass a rule next year that prevents teams that are mathematically eliminated from making trades, or, in the alternative, push up the trade deadline to prevent a reoccurrence of this problem.
Disclaimer: Information contained on this site is for informational or recreational purposes only. Nothing written is intended to serve as legal advice or legal counsel.
Having a Problem with Your Fantasy League Commissioner?
SportsJudge.com is the leader in fantasy sports dispute resolution. Founded in 2001 by law professor Marc Edelman, SportsJudge has resolved hundreds--if not thousands--of league disputes.
SportsJudge.com Supports East Harlem Little League
SportsJudge.com is a proud supporter of Harlem RBI -- a charity that provides East Harlem youths with the opportunity to play Little League baseball.
Beginning in 2010, SportsJudge.com will provide free fantasy baseball dispute resolution to any league that donates 15% or more of their league entry fees to Harlem RBI. SportsJudge.com will also consider comparable arrangements for league owners who donate their time.
Are you a New Yorker Looking to Make a Difference?
New York Cares provides a great network of community service activities throughout New York City. It is a great way to have fun while making a difference.
Looking for More Sports Law Commentary? Check out Sports Law Blog
Only a percentage of SportsJudge.com's content is dedicated to sports law.
If you want more debate on the ongoing legal issues in sports, check out Sports Law Blog. Sports Law Blog includes commentary from law professors including Michael McCann, Richard Karcher, Geoffrey Rapp, Howard Wasserman, Gabe Feldman and SportsJudge.com's own Marc Edelman.
Posts
