Halladay, Lee four team trade? Fantasy implications (1 Viewer)

[Billy Bats]

I'm in an AL v NL fantasy baseball league with two divisions. One Al, the other NL. When players get traded for each other and switch leagues, if both guys are on active rosters, they swap fantasy teams as well.

Well with the Lee, Halladay deal, the Lee owner is claiming he should receive Halladay because some places are saying it was a four team deal. Technically the Phils/Seattle trade had nothing to do with the Phils/Jays deal, since no one went to Toronto from Seattle. I think it's obvious that the Phils made two seperate deal, thus making Lee and Halladay free agents in both our leagues. The owners of Halladay and Lee want to receive the other pitcher. What is your opinion? Was this a four team deal or three seperate deals which means no teams receive any players?

 

[RnR]

First, this is why I would never get tangled with a league-specific fantasy league.

Second, what are you guys doing with Aumont, Drabek, etc?

Third, I'd say let them swap the players. How is it fair to arbitrarily strip the best pitcher from each of their squads just because the MLB trade took them across leagues? Why does the rest of the league deserve a chance at these players in free agency?

 

[proninja]

They were "companion trades" - not separate trades. Unless your league has something written for such trades, I'd say now's a good time to make a ruling.

Though, just giving each guy the other pitcher just seems like the right thing to do.

 

[Billy Bats]

First, this is why I would never get tangled with a league-specific fantasy league.Second, what are you guys doing with Aumont, Drabek, etc?Third, I'd say let them swap the players. How is it fair to arbitrarily strip the best pitcher from each of their squads just because the MLB trade took them across leagues? Why does the rest of the league deserve a chance at these players in free agency?

Well we have one minor league roster spot, so in the event of a star being dealt for minor leaguers, you have a chance of acquiring that player. Plus it's cool to have to next best thing waiting to be called up. It's two divisions, AL/NL seperate player pools. I'm in the AL so I can't draft or trade for Pujols. But if Pujols gets traded for Longoria, then I get Pujols and the other team gets Longoria. It is a rule that if no one has the player(s) that Pujols was traded for, then he would become a free agent in the AL division. So that's our dilemma, technically Lee and Halladay weren't traded for each other, but they're calling in a four team trade. I say no swap, (it doesn't affect me), but owners involved are saying it's a legit swap.

They were "companion trades" - not separate trades. Unless your league has something written for such trades, I'd say now's a good time to make a ruling.Though, just giving each guy the other pitcher just seems like the right thing to do.

Well like I said above, it was always understood that the players had to be traded for each other, or definitely part of a three team trade. Neither of which really happened. Again it has no effect on me or my roster, but to me it wasn't a 3 way deal, so the players should be free agents in both divisions.

 

[John Zaleski]

They were "companion trades" - not separate trades. Unless your league has something written for such trades, I'd say now's a good time to make a ruling.Though, just giving each guy the other pitcher just seems like the right thing to do.

This..They were all related and one could not be done w/o the other.They could not trade for Halladay until Lee was traded.Except for the Wallace trade, I bet there's specific language submitted by the teams that one was official right after the other one was.

 

[gwbrowniii]

I'm in a similar situation with an AL-only keeper league that I run. When AL players get traded to the NL, owners of the AL players can acquire the NL players coming to the AL. Halladay and Aumont are both owned in my league by different owners.

If it is a 3-team deal, Halladay owner would get first selection of NL players (likely Lee) and Aumont owner would have second pick (likely Drabeck).

If it is a series of 2-team deals, Halladay owner would only have rights to players going to TOR (Drabeck, etc) and Aumont owner would have rights to players going to SEA (Lee).

So, depending on how the deal is documented, it could have drastic implications.

My lead thought is to use mlb.com's transaction listing: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/index....2&year=2009

You'll see that the NYY-ARI-DET deal was listed as one grouping. The TOR-PHI and SEA-PHI trades were listed separately, leading me to believe that it was not a true 3-team deal, but a series of 2-team deals. Obviously they depend on one another, but the transactions are listed separately.

So, if my interpretation is correct, then all players involved in your league should become Free Agents.

 

[Guster]

I'm in a similar situation with an AL-only keeper league that I run. When AL players get traded to the NL, owners of the AL players can acquire the NL players coming to the AL. Halladay and Aumont are both owned in my league by different owners.

If it is a 3-team deal, Halladay owner would get first selection of NL players (likely Lee) and Aumont owner would have second pick (likely Drabeck).

If it is a series of 2-team deals, Halladay owner would only have rights to players going to TOR (Drabeck, etc) and Aumont owner would have rights to players going to SEA (Lee).

So, depending on how the deal is documented, it could have drastic implications.

My lead thought is to use mlb.com's transaction listing: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/index....2&year=2009

You'll see that the NYY-ARI-DET deal was listed as one grouping. The TOR-PHI and SEA-PHI trades were listed separately, leading me to believe that it was not a true 3-team deal, but a series of 2-team deals. Obviously they depend on one another, but the transactions are listed separately.

So, if my interpretation is correct, then all players involved in your league should become Free Agents.

Pretty sure this was 2 separate deals. From a Phillies perspective, there's no way they get rid of Lee without knowing they'll get Halladay, so in a way they are contingent upon each other, but with no players going between SEA and TOR, I don't see how this is actually a 3-team trade.

 

[Billy Bats]

Thanks for all the replies and feedback this is still an ongoing issue/debate/argument that hasn't been completely settled.

Well my argument has been all along that they were two separate deals and all players involved should be free agents like was said above.

It was decided by the league to take a vote on the situation. And it was approved 6-4 in favor of it being a 3 way deal and the two teams involved would receive Halladay and Lee. But in a following argument between two owners in came out that that they voted for the deal only so the one owner wouldn't get Halladay as a free agent. So in reality it turns out to be a vote of collusion.

So as co-commissioner I now have the right to overturn this vote because of the admitted collusion, IMO. (again this situation has no bearing on me or my team, I am not involved, just trying to do what's right and sensible)

What say you?

 

[PIK95]

Thanks for all the replies and feedback this is still an ongoing issue/debate/argument that hasn't been completely settled.Well my argument has been all along that they were two separate deals and all players involved should be free agents like was said above.It was decided by the league to take a vote on the situation. And it was approved 6-4 in favor of it being a 3 way deal and the two teams involved would receive Halladay and Lee. But in a following argument between two owners in came out that that they voted for the deal only so the one owner wouldn't get Halladay as a free agent. So in reality it turns out to be a vote of collusion. So as co-commissioner I now have the right to overturn this vote because of the admitted collusion, IMO. (again this situation has no bearing on me or my team, I am not involved, just trying to do what's right and sensible)What say you?

I'd say leagues like your are a mess. Too many damn rules. Takes the fun right out of it and always leaves someone with a sour taste in their mouth every year. And that's not collusion what those guys did. It's the right play following the stupid rules as they are.