UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
By Bill Davies and Bill DeSimone
All rise! Court is now in session. Presiding over the 2004 Footballguys.com Commissioner's Court will be the dishonorable Chief Injustice Bill "The Commissioner" Davies and Associate Injustice Bill "DeCommish" DeSimone.
TODAY'S DOCKET: State of Our FFL League v. Draconian Vultures
THE CHARGE: Theft of a valuable fantasy player at a price too low
The issue of an unfair trade rears its ugly head more than any other rules-related matter we face. This can be done by an owner that only trades once a year or one that trades every week. The key, as Commissioner, is rather than focusing on the lack of balance between traded talents, look at the motivations, needs and circumstances of the owners making the trade. Look also at the motivations of the owner complaining about the trade. And when you get to the point of making your ultimate decision, don't ask if the trade is "fair." As if it is "fair enough."
Before we get to the matter of whether or not a trade should be deemed as "fair enough," you should review your league rules related to trades. Most often, leagues have wholly inadequate verbiage. Since the 1990s, most leagues include the word "collusion" or some form of it in their rules. They task the Commissioner or the league with constantly looking out for the collusive trade and then act upon it. Many league rules simply state that unfair trades will not occur - as if that statement alone will prevent them from happening. They then go on to explain that a vote will be taken or a ruling will be made. What they should state, but almost never do, is the process. This is where Commissioners and leagues get themselves into major disputes. Everyone's ideas of what should be considered are different. Everyone's opinion of the value of the traded players (or picks) is different. However, you'll save a lot of headaches if you ensure stability in the process.
Your rules ought to be rewritten to include four things. First, explain what types of trades will be perceived to be potentially vulnerable to a veto. This will give the other owners an idea of the things you are looking for. Second, explain the process for reporting (or complaining) that a trade ought to be reviewed for being too unbalanced. Third, explain the process of investigation and/or items to be reviewed in making your determination if a trade ought to be vetoed. Fourth, explain the process for ruling on the matter and what remedies are available in the event that a trade is vetoed.
WHAT TYPES OF TRADES COULD BE REVIEWABLE?
The first type is those that are patently absurd - Jason Witten for Daunte Culpepper and LaDainian Tomlinson. In this matter, there are no statistical, ranking or other materials that could reasonably consider this to be a fair trade. We'll call this the Reasonable Person test. Don't get too quick to use this. It should be very rarely used and only in the most extreme and obvious cases.
The second type is a trade that defies logic. An example would be a trade where one owner trades his only starting QB Peyton Manning, for a 7th WR. The case of collusion could be made stronger if the owner trading Manning was out of playoff contention and the team getting Manning just lost their starting QB to injury.
Third, look at team records. Any time one team is something like 8-2 and they are trading with a tam that is 1-9, the league has a responsibility to review the details of the trade a little more closely.
Fourth, does the trade make a team too strong? There are several requests a week to review trades like this. Be aware that this is NOT a valid reason to review a trade. Inherent in every trade is that both teams are trying to become better. Becoming the best is not a crime. It is what we should all strive for.
Fifth, does the trade make a team too weak? For the same reasons as above, the answer is that it does not matter. This is also not a reason for reviewing a trade.
Sixth, did these two teams trade the exact same player(s) in a recent trade? Most rules are written to prevent player borrowing - the act of trading for a player for a limited amount of use and then trading the player back to the original owner.
And finally, in what ways are the trading partners related? Are they family? Boyfriend and girlfriend? Boss and employee? Best friends? Is it possible that this relationship was manipulated to the detriment of one of the owners or the league?
REQUESTING THAT A TRADE BE REVIEWED
It is advised that your league set up a time window for reviewing trades. This window should be fairly short - certainly less than a week. If the Commissioner or a team owner files a complaint to the league office, an investigation of some sort should ensue. The first step of any investigation should be a phone call to the affected parties explaining there was a complaint and to get their side of the story first. The Commissioner should always attempt to make contact first with the party that is perceived to have received less in the trade than the other party.
Reviewing trades ought to remain a private matter until a full-blown public investigation is necessary. Perhaps during the initial interview the Commissioner can establish that the trade is acceptable. If it is, the Commissioner ought to notify the complaining owner that an investigation was done and based on the facts described, you believe this is an acceptable trade.
If you, as Commissioner, are unsatisfied that there is not even a hint of collusive behavior, then you have a responsibility to order and conduct an investigation.
CONDUCTING A REVIEW
A review should be thorough and painful for everyone involved. Vetoing a trade should almost never be done and should require a great deal of effort and consideration, if used. Here is a set of items you should consider in your investigation:
USE CONTRACT LAW AS A BASIS: At their core, trades are based on a principle of contract law - consideration is traded for consideration. There is no inherent need for that consideration to have equal value to both parties, only "enough" value for both parties to enter into the trade.
WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT OF A VETOED TRADE: This is perhaps the most important question. Would it tear apart friendships? Would it make the upcoming draft tense because the trade involved the first overall pick? As we've said, vetoing trades is a very serious move that has serious ramifications. All of those ramifications should be considered before a final decision is made.
WHAT ARE THE TEAMS' NEEDS?: A trade often helps both teams fill a need. Based on need and surplus, the trade may not seem fair on the surface. However, if both teams got what they needed and improved their starting lineups, it would be very difficult to veto such a trade.
WHAT ARE THE TEAMS' RECORDS: This can be an indicator that there is a hint of collusion. When a 1-7 team trades Daunte Culpepper to a 6-2 team for Jason Witten, there's a hint that there may be collusion. You can address some of this in writing, like setting a trade deadline a few weeks before the end of the regular season or exclude any team from trading once they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs (except in keeper leagues where eliminated teams may trade with next year in mind).
IS YOURS A KEEPER LEAGUE?: If it is, and a younger player with a lesser reputation is traded for an older player with a great reputation, it is harder to call the trade unfair. The motivations of each owner may be too great.
WHAT ARE THE TEAMS' RELATIONSHIPS WITH ONE ANOTHER: Does one team have a reputation as being the other's farm team? Is one owner the 8 year old son of the benefactor of a lopsided trade?
IS ONE OWNER SIMPLY NOT GETTING ENOUGH OUT OF THE TRADE: A common complaint is "I would have given him so much more…" Well, the simply fact of the matter is that you didn't. Just because one owner could have received more in a trade from another owner does not make it unfair. Each owner has (or should have) equal opportunity to trade with any other owner.
Don't forget that because both parties are getting something in each trade, usually both parties feel they got the better end of the deal. It's how and why trades happen. That's why it is a lot of work to veto trades and it should be. It should keep at least one owner up nights if the issue comes up. It takes more than one trade to win a Fantasy Bowl title. But it can take one poor use of a veto to ruin what would otherwise be a good league.
MAKING YOUR RULING
After considering all of the factors above, it's time for you to make a ruling. Whatever it is, make it fast and with authority and conviction. Let everyone know you carefully considered all of these factors. You gave the trading teams all of the benefits of doubt. And in the end, you either determined that the trade was unfair enough or not unfair enough.
If you decide that the trade was too unfair and needs to be undone, then you should approach both trading owners and explain that you have fully reviewed their trade and are about to announce to the league that it is going to be vetoed. You'd appreciate their considering to back out of the trade themselves, saving the league the headache and embarrassment of a veto. Give them a 12- to 24-hour window to undo the trade on their own or you are going to veto it.
In most cases, if you determine the trade ought to be vetoed, your ruling should include the punishment of returning the players to their original team with a terse explanation that the trade was reversed because it threatened the competitive balance of the league. If you feel you have strong evidence that collusion exists, you may also wish to add additional penalties or fines. But that should be extremely rare - sort of an Armageddon move.
Your rules should also permit an owner to seek relief or an appeal in the event that they think your ruling is unjust. If your ruling is challenged by one or both of the trading partners, it is your job to share with your league the findings of your review. Explain to them what you've learned and why it leads you to the conclusion that reversing the trade is the right thing to do. Then, conduct a league vote. A majority of owners needs to disagree with your ruling in order for it to be overturned. And don't forget this part - the trading parties get to vote on their own behalf. (All too often, rules prevent owners from voting on matters directly related to them which is patently absurd.)
If you handle the challenged trade with a thorough and complete review, you'll avoid most trouble. You won't reverse many, if any, trades, but you'll have a happier, more secure league. You can use your findings to either appease the complaining party that a reversal is not appropriate or you'll be able to approach the trading parties with your rationale behind your decision. In any event, it will be a full and complete review and a decision ground in fact and reason. And sometimes that, in and of itself, is an improvement.
If, after all of these considerations, you would still like a ruling from the Commissioner's Court, you may send an e-mail to askthecommish@footballguys.com.
. Sounds like you're upset that one of the top teams made a shrewd move to improve. Also, it's hard to say whether or not this was a fair deal in a dynasty league but I don't think it's outrageous.
What is funny is that now this owner (who gave up Smith) says that if this trade gets rejected, he will not trade Smith to any other owners. Which made me question whether there was collusion involved here since why would he not re-try with someone else (or even same partner) if he got a better deal? After all he was only doing it to make his team better for next year right????
Sounds about right.
