Fantasy Baseball Dispute No. 8163-T: SportsJudge.com Approves Trade of J. Shields (year. 1 of 3, $25) for W. Davis (year 2 of 3, $6)

SPORTSJUDGE.COM

COURT OF FANTASY BASEBALL

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	x	Index No. 8163-T Date Rendered: July 13, 2010 Date Issued: July 15, 2010 League Type: ROTISSERIE Dispute: TRADE REVIEW Authoring Judge: ED STUART SHIFFMAN TRADE BETWEEN STUMPS & MAULERS IS APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER OF BEER BATTER LEAGUE Petitioner, - against - STUMPS & MAULERS Respondent	: : : : : : : : : :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	X

The Commissioner of the Beer Batter Leagues brings this claim in the COURT OF FANTASY BASEBALL to determine the status of a proposed trade between the Stumps and Mark’s Maulers. The trade proposes that the STUMPS send P James Shields, (year 1 of 3, $25 salary), to the MARK’S MAULERS in exchange for P Wade Davis (year 2 of 3, $6 salary).

This court accepts the proposed trade.

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). A trade reasonably benefits both teams if it allows both teams a reasonable chance of moving up in the standings. (See Unpublished Opinion No. 468-T, Commissioner Gary Benik v. Ever-Lastings and 2 Legit 2 Quit).

If the league is a keeper league, as is the case here, this Court will also consider a team’s likely performance in future years, especially with respect to the team currently ranked lower in the standings (See Unpublished Opinion No. 3704-T, Commissioner Paul Schultz v. Snakes & Blutos). This Court recognizes that team owners may have different strategies in terms of short-term and long-term goals; and that while one team may try to maximize its chances of winning prize money this year, another team may play for the future (See Unpublished Opinion No. 3731-T, Commissioner v. Muleskinners & Southsiders; see also Unpublished Opinion No. 3797, Commissioner v. Foo Dogs & Maulers).

In addition to the general rules applicable to fantasy baseball trades, the BEER BATTER LEAGUE constitution has specific rules regarding trades involving certain classifications of players. In pertinent provisions of the Official Rulebook of the Beer Batter League adopted in March 2010, player trades are governed by the following rules:

SECTION 5. PLAYER TRADES

Subdivision A. In-Season Player Trades

(1) Trades Allowed. BBL teams may exchange players in equal numbers during the regular season, subject to the provisions of this Subdivision.

(2) Asterisk Player Defined. An “asterisk player” is a player currently in the final year of his contract or a player with a salary of $25 or more.

(3) Regulations. The use of an independent arbiter shall be used to approve or veto player trades, subject to the following regulations:

(a) If a trade does not involve any asterisk players, then no independent arbiter approval is necessary. All such trades shall be allowed.

(b) If a trade does involve asterisk players, no independent arbiter approval is necessary if the BBL teams involved in the trade exchange an equal number of asterisk players and the total salary exchanged is 73.0% or greater. All such trades shall be allowed. “Total salary exchanged” is measured by taking the respective sums of annual player salary to be exchanged by each team involved in the trade and dividing the lesser total salary package by the greater total salary package. The 73.0% salary threshold is a literal requirement and not subject to approximation.

(c) If a trade does involve asterisk players but fails to satisfy either the asterisk player equality requirement or total salary exchanged requirement of Subdivision A(2), then independent arbiter approval is necessary.

(4) Independent Arbiter. Prior to every BBL season, the identity of an independent arbiter to be used for trade approval and veto under Subdivision A(3) of this Section shall be agreed upon by majority vote of the league ownership. The independent arbiter shall not be replaced until the conclusion of the season, unless circumstances prevent the independent arbiter from performing said services. Parties to any BBL trade that is subject to independent arbiter approval shall jointly and severally be responsible for any fees or costs associated with the use of the independent arbiter. Parties to any BBL trade subject to independent arbiter approval shall comply with any procedural requirements of the independent arbiter that are necessary to obtain a decision. In every case, however, said parties shall provide to the independent arbiter a written copy of this Section in its entirety.

(5) Responsibility of Independent Arbiter. Any decision of an independent arbiter under this Subdivision must take into consideration the long-term and short-term best interests of the BBL teams involved in the player trade, while also respecting the best interests of the league and the integrity of a fair and uncorrupt pennant race. In all cases, the independent arbiter shall balance the rights of individual BBL owners to operate their teams in their own discretion with the rights of the league ownership as a whole to fully and fairly participate in healthy competition with one another.

Because James Shield is an “asterisk” player, approval of independent arbiter is required.

The proposed Trade along with Current Statistics

As of July 14, 2010

STUMPS

James Shields 7 W 0 SV 4.87 ERA 1.367 WHIP

MARK’S MAULERS

Wade Davis 6 W 0 SV 4.69 ERA 1.404 WHIP

The Stumps are presently 10^th in the twelve team league, while Mark’s Maulers are 6^th but second in their division. They retain a possibility of either winning their division or achieving a top four finish and winning prize money for the season. The trade resembles a classic baseball trade where a team no longer in contention begins the process of trading higher salary players for youthful potential. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the integrity of a fair and uncorrupt pennant race has been negatively impacted by this trade. The trade appears to have value for both teams and therefore under the general law of fantasy baseball trades and the specific provisions of the Beer Batter League should be accepted.

Holding

Based on the foregoing, this court accepts the proposed trade of James Shields of the Stumps for Wade Davis of Mark’s Maulers.

Fantasy Football Dispute No. 5105: Proposed Pick-Up of John Carney Disallowed

SPORTSJUDGE.COM

COURT OF FANTASY FOOTBALL

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	x	Index No. 5105 Date: December 14, 2009 League Type: Fantasy Football Dispute: Injured Reserve Rules Authoring Judge: Marc Edelman Concurred By: Stuart Shiffman COMMISSIONER’S RULING UPHELD
DOUBLE Ds Petitioner, - against - COMMISSIONER NELSON Respondent	: : : : : : : : : :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	X

SUMMARY:

The plaintiff in this case, the Double D Fantasy Football Team (“Double Ds), has asked the SportsJudge.com Court of Fantasy Football to resolve the league’s fantasy football dispute and overrule Commissioner Nelson’s ruling that kicker John Carney is ineligible for injured reserve status pursuant to the league’s “OUT Rule.”

This court rejects the appeal, upholding Commissioner Nelson’s ruling that John Carney is ineligible for injured reserve.

The basis for the court’s ruling is that John Carney is not injured, but rather inactive due to what Carney’s real-life coach perceives as poor on-the-field performance. Demotion for poor on-the-field performance is not grounds for an injury replacement based on the clear reading of the league rule, nor was it necessarily one that the parties would have included within the scope of the rule had the issue been broached.

In addition, even if the rule is in some ways harsh, it was the rule to which the fantasy football league members had accepted, and a rule that teams had the opportunity to consider in setting their late season rosters (for example, The Take Down Fantasy Team carried two kickers for probably that reason). It is a rule that Double Ds should have considered more carefully when choosing not to select a backup kicker for the playoffs, even though each team is allotted a generous seven reserve slots.

FACTS:

A. The League Rules

Commissioner Ken Nelson has overseen his fantasy football league for the past 15 years. The league runs on a blind pickup system, in which each week teams submit bids for free-agent players. The teams that submit the highest bid gain rights to that player.

To prevent collusion risks, this league ends its regular free agent signing process after week 12, with rosters generally frozen at that point. However, the league maintains a limited exception to the free-agent freeze rule, which applies when a player on one of the teams’ rosters is injured and thus certain not to play. Under this rule, a team with an injured player may place that player on injured reserve (“IR”) and replace that player with another on that player’s same NFL team if that player is listed as “OUT” by ESPN, Sportsline, Huddle.com or Rotoworld.com. Thus, these four sources serve as the exclusive means of information about player status, and a listing of “OUT” is the only basis for initially moving a player to IR.

In addition, the rules for picking up an “emergency player” to replace an IR player after week 12 state as follows:

Your player must be listed as OUT as of each Thursday. THIS MEANS THAT IF YOUR PLAYER IS DOUBFUL ON THURSDAY THEN IS LISTED AS OUT ON FRIDAY - YOU'RE [OUT OF LUCK]

Further, once a player is placed on IR pursuant to these rules, the rules become somewhat more lenient on keeping the player on IR. According to the rules “[i]f a player’s status is moved from OUT to doubtful or inactive the next week - you can still keep them on IR - but if they PLAY - you will lose that player and get a ZERO for their position … YOU MUST EMAIL THE COMMISH ON THURSDAY OF THIS.”

B. The Fantasy Football League Dispute

The most recent dispute in this fantasy football league involves the issue of whether the Double Ds may replace kicker John Carney subsequent to week 12 in the season pursuant to the league “OUT” rule. What makes this proposal controversial is that John Carney was not in fact injured nor listed as “OUT” on any of the four approved websites. Rather, for each of the past two weeks Carney was designated as “inactive” 15 minutes before kickoff. This means Carney was one of the eight players on the Saints’ 53-player roster who was designated by his coach not to make the team’s starting lineup that week.

Upon reviewing this matter, Commissioner Nelson ruled that Carney was ineligible for replacement because “[a]lthough not explicitly stated in the rules, but certainly implied - IR moves and emergency pickups are set up for players Injured.” Commissioner Nelson went on to recognize that in his view this was “a fluke with regard to kickers” but not necessarily something leading to a need to change the league rules.

Thereafter, Double D’s put forth an extremely thoughtful and well-written brief, seeking to appeal on three separate grounds: (1) league rules are ambiguous on IR moves, internally inconsistent and unenforceable based on their spirit and intent; (2) the emergency pickup rule was intended to protect teams such as Double D from an “unforeseen event,” and (3) even under the literal interpretation of the rules, the IR move should be allowed because Carney was inactive for the prior week’s game.

HOLDING:

A. General Ruling

While recognizing the language in the league constitution is at times imperfect, this court upholds Commissioner Nelson’s ruling, agreeing that the plain meaning of the league rule limits the emergency pickup to a player who has been listed as “OUT” by one of the four approved websites. See Commissioner Mike D. v. Sweaty Baseballs, Index No. 3466-C (June 9, 2009); see also Hermann’s Head v. Commissioner of Yale Football League, Index No. 247 (Sept. 1, 2006) (noting that clear language in league constitution trumps all other considerations).

The rule does not even allow moving to IR a player who is listed as doubtful. Indeed, the league constitution states in no uncertain terms that “THIS MEANS THAT IF YOUR PLAYER IS DOUBFUL ON THURSDAY THEN IS LISTED AS OUT ON FRIDAY - YOU'RE [OUT OF LUCK]” (emphasis provided). Thus, it is clear the rule was contemplated to be both narrow and specific in scope, and hence should be applied as clearly written.

In addition, this court believes that even Commissioner Nelson gave too much importance to this matter by noting it as “a fluke with regard to kickers.” While John Carney may be the first discussed fantasy player demoted from starter to inactive for reasons other than health issues, this same problem could plague a team such as Beetle who is not carrying a backup quarterback to Aaron Rodgers, especially if a late-season Packers game proves meaningless in the season.

Recognizing the possibility of a healthy player being deemed inactive at any time, a properly prudent owner would have used his seven reserve slots to carry a backup at every position. Indeed, the team Take Down properly hedged for this risk at kicker by carrying two at that position. It would be unfair to a team like Take Down who properly hedged all positions at the risk of depth at wide receiver, running back or defense to now compensate a team that chose not to hedge.

B. Double Ds Defenses

While Double D’s defenses are each interesting and extraordinarily well presented, none overrides the clear language of the league rule, even where the language of the league rule is at times imperfect.

First, this court rejects the contention that the league rules are ambiguous on the issue of whether a non-injured player is eligible for IR status, and finds the issue of whether the rules are ambiguous in other areas entirely irrelevant for purposes of this dispute. While it may be true that official injury reports are not released until Friday thus making it a plausible argument that no player is ever eligible for IR status, this matter is particularly about the IR status of a non-injured player and not when official injury reports are released. The court will not get lost in that red herring analysis. Moreover, according to league rules, “OUT” status is determined by four chosen websites and night by the league’s official injury report per se. Thus, it is possible a website may deem a player “OUT” even if the official injury report has not yet done so.

Second, based on the clear reading of the league OUT rule, there is no reason to believe the rule was intended to cover any type of unforeseeable event. Rather, the rule seems intended only to cover a single type of unforeseeable event—an injury that occurs prior to Friday. While this may not seem logical to Double Ds, there is certainly an argument that demotion for poor play is more foreseeable than an injury. Indeed, with respect to Carney, various websites including Rotowire had been warning for weeks that would potentially lose his starting job due to inconsistent kicking. Thus, one could make a stronger argument that Double Ds should have hedged Carney by signing a backup kicker than that a team should have hedged a player who was performing well but injured during a game.

Finally, Double Ds argues that even under the literal interpretation of the rules, the IR move should be allowed because Carney was inactive for the prior week’s game. While this court finds this reason to be the most compelling grounds of the three, the problem with this reasoning is that the rules, as written, do not allow a player that was inactive in a given week to be placed on IR for the following week. Rather the rules only mention the term “inactive” in one place, where they state as follows:

If a player's status is moved from OUT to doubtful or inactive the next week - you can still keep them on IR - but if they PLAY - you will lose that player and get a ZERO for their position

In this context, the court believes inactive status is relevant only for “keep[ing]” a player on IR that is already on IR, and not placing the player on IR in the first place. However, if Double Ds is able to present evidence that the court in the past has allowed inactive status in a prior week as a basis for placing a player on IR, the court would be willing to reconsider this aspect of our ruling based upon this practice.

JUDGMENT:

For the foregoing reasons, unless Double Ds can present irrefutable evidence of Commissioner Nelson allowing a team in the past to place a player on IR (rather than keep a player on the IR) based entirely on the player’s inactive status from the previous week, Commissioner Nelson’s ruling shall stand and Double D may not pickup a replacement kicker for John Carney.

It is so ordered.

---