Entries from September 2009 ↓

Q: We recently had a dispute over the fairness of a trade, which escalated into two of the owners calling the commissioner names and threats as well, along with alot of swearing and hostility. How should we go about resolving the issue of giving money back to replace the two owners, or is it even right to want to have tehm replaced?

A: Fantasy football is supposed to be fun so when tempers flare to the point that some owners are threatening bodily harm, your best bet is to forgot about the fairness of the trade in question and part ways.   It sounds like the situation is past the point of a peaceful resolution.   We recommend refunding the league fees to these two owner, deleting the teams and holding a supplement draft between the remaining owners to fairly distribute the vacated teams players.  Depending on the service you are using some leagues will automatically adjust the weekly schedule to account for the change in total teams – which is only necessary if you are in a head to head league.   If that is not possible, you could also allow the two teams to exist as ghost teams, preserving the current schedules.   The commissioner could simply ensure that these ghost teams are substituting out bye week players if they have suitable replacements on their rosters although any further strategic roster adjustments would be too subjective and should be avoided.

Q: Alleged Waiver Wire malfunction.  Owner 1 got Knox, WR, CHI and has told me that he should have been Manningham, WR, NYG because he put Manningham first and the site missed it (claimed that he didn\’t try to drop a WR so it would have been an illegal roster).   Owner 2 got Manningham, WR, NYG but had Smith, WR, NYG as a 2nd Waivers claim.   Owner 3 got Smith.   if we believe owner 1 (i don\’t have any reason to not believe him), then making a change hurts owner 3.   My position is that i should give owner 1 manningham, owner 2 smith and owner 3 knox.  i have pretty broad power as commish but i am concerned that i create bad precedent.

A: Unless owner 1 has screenshots or some other form of proof that they had Manningham set as their top waiver claim, we recommend not making any adjustments after the fact.   True, it is possible for the site to make a mistake but it is our experience that it is much more probable that this is human error and the mistake was made by the owner.   In the absence of proof, leave the waiver wire pickups as is or risk opening the floodgates to more “he said, she said” disputes for the rest of the season.

Q: One guy wants to trade Anquan Boldin and Brandon Jacobs for Devery Henderson and Patrick Crayton.  The league vetoed the trade now the guy who was going to get Boldin and Jacobs is about to quit because he thinks everyone is against him.  Thats why I am here to get an unbiased opinion.  I know this trade sounds stupid but I need a third party opinion on paper.

A: Thanks for the inquiry.  We would let this trade pass.   Looking at the names involved it at first appears that the team getting Boldin and Jacobs is the clear winner.   While we’re only two weeks into the season, the stats tell a much different story.  Based off ESPN scoring leader rankings the ranks by position for the players involved in this trade are as follows:  Jacobs (40), Boldin (61), Henderson (10), Crayton (14).    Do we think that Devery Henderson is going to be a top 10 receiver at the end of the year?  Probably not.   But both teams could potentially benefit from this trade, and assuming this is not collusion, there are really no grounds to veto the trade.

Q: My question is whether Fred Jackson\’s attempted lateral of the football after time expired should be scored as a fumble.

My league\’s scoring system gives -2 points for a lost fumble and -1 points for a fumble that is not lost.  The purpose of this rule — as previously discussed by league members — is that a fumble is considered a negative play whether or not the ball is lost.

In Jackson\’s case, he was attempting to keep the ball alive so that his team would still have a chance to win.  Thus, while the lateral was unsuccessful and the ball hit the ground, the play itself should not be considered a negative play deserving negative points.

The league we use, however, scored the play as a fumble, which resulted in my team losing by .10 points.  My league has not previously discussed whether a scoring decision can be challenged.    Should my league be bound by the technical scoring system that the league program uses, or should the scoring be overturned or at least challengable by league vote?

A: Thanks for the inquiry.   It is definitely a shame that you received a week 1 loss on such a trivial play.  We don’t think your league should be bound by the default technical scoring system – meaning you league members should review and potentially change the existing scoring format – at the end of the season.   Once that scoring system is establish before a season, however, we recommend strict adherence.

Setting the precedent that your scoring system can be challenged throughout this season will open a pandora’s box of subjective bickering throughout your season.   If a league member has an issue with a given rule, it should be brought to a vote in the offseason.

In this particular case, we also do not agree with the “negative play” argument, simply because it is so hard to define “negative”.

Sure, Jackson was trying to keep the ball alive for his team to win.   But he failed to do so, resulting in a fumble.   If you only take away points when a player is “trying” to do something negative, all interceptions and fumbles would be up for debate.

Hope this helps.  Good luck in week 2.

Q: We play in an auction league where every team gets 100 dollars to bid on players that they want to have on their team.  We also do a silent auction during the season for free agents

Do to scheduling issues we held our auction early this year, right before the first round of pre-season games. During the auction a team won Shonn Green.  When the commissioner filled in everybody\’s roster he inadvertently left Shonn Green off that players team.  A whole month transpired before the first days of free agent acquisition started.  Another player in the league noticed that Shonn Green was available in free agency and won him in the free agent auction.  The first team still hadn\’t noticed that a player was missing and also filled in the empty slots on his roster with other free agents.  Then the first round of games started, and around kickoff time for the Sunday night football game Shonn Greens original owner finally noticed that he was missing from his team.  He notified the commissioner, and the commissioner sent out an email saying he was sorry for the error and he would be moving Shonn green from the team he was currently on to the team he was originally supposed to be on, and reimbursing the money that was spent in the free agent auction on him.

I have multiple issues with this.  I feel that there was way more than enough time for the first team to notice that a player was missing. I believe that every team should be responsible to check their roster and make sure all the players they drafted are there shortly after the draft.  On top of that, the original team filled up his roster with other players during free agency and if he has rights to Shonn green as well, he would have had more players on his team at the start of week 1 than the league allows.  This would give him an illegal lineup and he should be forced to forfeit his game.  The team that acquired Shonn Green in free agency also looses out because he bid on Shonn rather than other players, and now a player that he would have originally went after, might have been won by some other team in the league.

Our commish states that we have no rules on the books that cover this issue, and he was forced to make a ruling so his original ruling should stand.

Im I totally out of line for thinking that Shonn\’s original owner should be responsible for noticing the mistake and taken the proper steps to get it fixed before free agency started.  Or if he still does have the rights to Shonn green he should then have to forfeit his week one game?

A: Well, you are definitely not out of line for expecting one of your league owners to be held accountable for his roster.   But you also have to concede that there are multiple guilty parties here, and the original mistake that set this whole issue in motion, was the commissioner’s fault.    We believe this original mistake should supercede that owner is questions lack of awareness

Without pre-establish rules addressing any scenario, there is going to be some “grey area” issue that occur throughout the season.   But there is nothing grey about the fact that once a player is selected in an offline draft, the commissioner has an obligation to place the drafted player on the correct owner’s roster.

Do we think that any self-respecting fantasy owner should, given a month, notice an error with their roster.  Absolutely.   But you have to put this on one person or the other, and the issue would not exist without the commissioner’s oversight.    Our recommendation would be to place Green back on the roster of the team who drafted him, reimburse the other owner who picked him up as a FA, and either do your draft online next year or get a more competent commissioner.   Two other thoughts, the team who drafted Green should have no control over which player is dropped from his roster to make room for Green.   It should be the first player he acquired after the draft.   They also should not be reimbursed for that FA pickup as a penalty.  Call it negligence.

Q: 12 man, 2 qb league. I know, stupid. I doubled checked and triple checked the amount of starting qbs. Even took a pictue on my phone. After loading up on Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, and Jay Cutler, I get a text saying everyone had agreed this would be a 1 qb league and it had been discussed it the online draft chat. I checked the timestamps and indeed it was decided, 10 minutes before the the draft, the rules would be changed post draft. I said this violated common fantasy football sense and suggested a re-draft. We\’re split down the middle: re-draft vs \”edit league settings post draft based on a debatable \”consensus\” in a chatroom 10 minutes before.\” I guess the question is: should i be obligated to follow the chat for important, draft-strategy changing rule edits?

A: You definitely should not be obligated to follow the live draft chat room for rule changes – especially just 10 minutes before the draft.    It is a common problem with fantasy leagues, especially as owners become busier in their real lives, that league rules are not reviewed and discussed until the very last minute.

Now the problem here is that you will have a decided advantage over all other teams if you maintain the original 2 QB setup.    Redrafting is almost never an option, since it compromises all teams’ draft strategies.   Our recommendation is this.   Technically, the rule was changed prior to the start of the draft.   For a rule change to be made, it makes sense that a majority consensus is needed.  Did an actual majority agree to this change prior to the draft?   Assuming yes, lets address the “split down the middle” you mention below.   If a majority agreed to change the rule, and the subsequent discussions ended  in a split, then the original rule – in this case, the recent change to 1 starting QB, should stand.   However, if a majority did not agree to change the rule prior to the draft, the “split” should mean that the 2 QB format stands.

Anyway you slice it, the commissioner dropped the ball allowing such an important last minute rule change without notifying all teams.   This will most likely have a negative effect on your season and it is only fair that you are compensated.    We propose, that if the format is indeed changed to 1 QB, that you receive priority – free of charge – for the first (and possibly second) free agent pickups after Week 1.   Even in a 12 team league there are always some surprise undrafted players after the first week of play.   Having first crack at FA pickups won’t offset your focus on QBs during the draft, but it is something – and you can still always work a trade with a team that is weak at QB.

Q: I’m in a 12 team standard ESPN league.  I was just involved in a trade that was vetoed.  In it I was going to get Matt Ryan, Maurice Jones-Drew, and Nate Burleson for Tony Romo, Ahmad Bradshaw, and Kevin Walter.

The other guy went into this trade because he wanted to upgrade his QB and already had Westbrook and Portis in addition to MJD and no depth at WR (Burleson, Housh, and Braylon Edwards are his only WR).

I on the other hand have stud WRs in Steve Smith (the good one) and Boldin, along with Turner as my #1 back.  I also have back-up RBs Beanie Wells and Donald Brown and back-up WRs Lance Moore and Josh Morgan.

So essentially he’s giving up one of his big 3 RBs for a better QB and depth since he has no bench and older players and I’m trading some of the depth I have and taking a knock at QB to get a better starter.  Were they right to veto this?

Also I initiated the same trade but without Burleson.  If the other trade is not “fair” is this one?  Thanks.

A: Sorry, we agree with the veto.   While we believe that owners should be allowed the freedom to take risks when managing their rosters, it just doesn’t seem like you are paying enough for a top 3 RB like Jones-Drew.   Based off ESPN’s 2009 position rankings, Romo and Ryan are 7 and 8 respectively – essentially a wash.   Walter is the 29th ranked receiver.   While this is a significant advantage over Burleson (48th), it is not enough to offset Jones-Drew (ranked 3rd at RB) for a backup RB in Bradshaw (ranked 30th at RB).

Q: In a 12 man keeper league, where each team may keep 1 player from their previous roster in exchange for their pick in the same round that they were previously selected in, an issue has divided our league.

Basically, pre-draft, Team A, selecting 5th overall, and Team B, selecting 11th overall, want to swap their first and second round draft picks.  Team A would then pick 11th overall and 14th overall, and use the 11th pick for his 1st round keeper.  Team B would then pick 5th overall and 20th overall, and use the 20th overall pick for his 2nd round keeper.

There is no evidence or any allegation of collusion, but the argument against is that Team A and Team B have to forfeit their original picks for their keeper, not a traded pick.  Team A and Team B argue that they have to forfeit any pick in that round.  Otherwise, that puts them in the situation where they have to hope for a worse draft position (10-12) rather than 1-3.

If it is relevant, there is a minimum cost of a 10th round pick, and an elevator clause where each pick goes up by 3 rounds after the second year they are kept.

A: This is a tough one.  It’s not collusion because each team is acting in their own interest.   Since your league does not have a previously established rule preventing the trading of either draft picks and/or keepers, these two savvy owners have found a mutually beneficial loophole.   There are really no grounds to overturn this trade.

Here are your options:

1.  Let the trade pass since no actual rules were violated
2.  Bring the issue to an extremely subjective league vote where majority prevails

We recommend option #1, as much as it hurts to do so.   Allowing this trade may open a pandora’s box of similar trades to go through as other owners attempt to take advantage of this loophole but an issue with your league rules has been exposed so you may have to deal with it until you can amend your league constitution for next season.  Remember, anything can happen in fantasy football and while the draft is arguable the most exciting part of the season is by no means the most influential in terms of success.   Luck, injuries, and waiver wire pickups will determine who wins your league, not the swapping of these draft picks.

Going forward of course you have a number options to prevent this issue from ever occurring again such as locking keeper draft position, outlawing the trading of draft picks, or allowing teams to only trade one draft pick in a given trade.

Q: With 2 hours and 25 minutes left before the draft (on a Friday evening) the league commisioner changed the yards per completed pass from \’0.033\’ to \’0.05\’.

Five of the participants were notified in person before the draft (they were their live).

Two partipants were out of the country, didn\’t pre-rank their players and were having their computers draft for them.

The final three live out of state and drafted remotely via the Internet.

The commissioner did send out a text message and posted on the league board which also sends an email to all league owners.

At least one owner missed the notices and complained about not having adequate time to review them.

Was enough time and notice given to review the rule change?

A: Your commissioner definitely dropped the ball by not providing more lead time for league owners to update their draft strategy based on this rule change.   However, the change was posted on the league message board.   Even without the text messages, we would consider this sufficient notice to prevent a redraft.    Here is why.

1.  Despite the lateness of the change, it was posted publicly prior to the draft
2.  Since half the league was aware of the change prior to the draft, bringing this to a vote will probably not result in a redraft
3.  The change is not that significant.  Assuming 4 pts per passing TD, -2 pts per interception and ignoring yardage since we’re not sure how many points your league awards per passing yard, an average game of 2 TDs, 1 INT and 25 completions results 6.8 pts with your old scoring and 7.3 with your new scoring.   The percentage of total points attributable to completions under the old scoring is 12%;  under the new scoring it is 17%.    Basically, we’re not talking about a monumental rule change.

Your commish should make sure they provide more notice on rule changes in the future, but this is fantasy football, most of us have lives outside the league, and there will surely be more important disputes you’ll need to fight for this season – we recommend letting this one slide.