Happy Halladays - a Fantasy Baseball conundrum...

[Toddzilla]

I've got a potential hot one brewing and really need some advice...

As an NL only league, we have a rule that states in the case of an intra-leage trade, the owner who loses players to the AL has ownership of the players coming over from the AL. We also have rules regarding contract status, compensation for 2-for-1 deals, etc. but that ain't the problem.

Owner A has Cliff Lee under contract.
Owner B has Kyle Drabek on his minor league roster.
Owner C has Michael Taylor on his minor league roster.

Owner A says he lost Cliff Lee, so he gets to keep Roy Halladay as it was a 3-team trade.

Owner B shows that the Phillies executed 2 separate trades - the first with Seattle, Lee for prospects - and the second with Toronto, Drabek and Taylor for Halladay. Therefore, Owner A gets the Seattle prospects and Owner B and C get to decide who gets Halladay.

As commish, I tend to side with the spirit of the rules, but that has gotten me in trouble in the past. While this trade has been reported as a 3-team trade, it looks an awful lot like 2 distinct trades. Earlier, the Yankees, Tigers, and Diamondbacks executed a legitimate 3 team trade where players from all 3 organizations went to multiple teams. In this case, Philly made a deal with Seattle, then made a separate deal with Toronto with no players in common and no players going from Toronto to Seattle or the other way around.

Ugh. What to do.

[DaddyTorgo]

i think you're justified in going with the spirit of the rules on this one, as the Phillies weren't going to execute the Lee trade unless they had the Halladay trade done as well.

[rowech]

Spirit of the rules...team A gets him.

[DaddyTorgo]

if you don't go with spirit of the rules you just totally fuck up the competitive balance of the league, that's the issue. this is a trade of two #1 starters, not like backup-infielders

[DeToxRox]

Yeah you have to go Spirit of the Rules. Like DT said, does this deal really happen if Halladay isn't going to the Phils? No way they'd just deal Lee for prospects.

[stevew]

B gets him. I'm mean, Lee's owner only has Lee cause he owned some scrubby Phillie farmhands last year.

[lynchjm24]

Well, this situation should convince you to get rid of that rule.

That being said it wasn't a three way trade.

[Celeval]

While Lee wouldn't have been dealt without Halladay coming over, there's been a lot of talk around "why didn't the Phillies keep both?". If that was the case, then Halladay would be up in the air between the B guys, and it wouldn't have changed that deal.

Two separate trades.

[Maple Leafs]

I'm with the last few... this wasn't a three-way trade.

Terrible, horrible break for Team A, but you're opening a bad precedent here. What happens next time, when it's two trades a few hours apart? Or even a few days?

If you insist on giving him to Team A, make sure you also update the rules to cover this situation clearly. (Which they already do, but unfortunately not with the outcome you're looking for.)

[molson]

"Spirit of the rules" is a dangerous precedent in fantasy leagues. Letter of rule, I think, is the most fair and consistent thing to do.

[DaddyTorgo]

shitty things like this is why i don't play fantasy sports btw

[jbergey22]

However it is listed on the MLB transaction log. If its 2 seperate trades that is the only fair way to do.

[Qwikshot]

It was two trades; granted Lee to Seattle would not have occurred if Halladay hand't been traded, but it wasn't a 3 way trade.

[Calis]

The obvious correct answer is side with the person you like better, or try and get something out of the deal.

Barring that route, I think it is pretty clearcut and "A" gets hosed.

[rowech]

This will be a cop out but is this a salary league or a draft league? Is it even possible you simply declare him a free agent?

[Mustang]

This will be a cop out but is this a salary league or a draft league? Is it even possible you simply declare him a free agent?

I'm in a NL only league and I mentioned that in the MLB thread that I had lost a bunch of players this year due to trades (Scherzer, Drabek, Taylor). While it sucks to lose players, we don't do any compensation and it saves alot of headaches. We treat it no differently than if you lost a guy to free agency in the offseason and we removed any compensation at all for traded players. (During the season, traded NL guys just collect stats from the AL and any AL guys coming over go up for bid)

[molson]

I'm in a NL only league and I mentioned that in the MLB thread that I had lost a bunch of players this year due to trades (Scherzer, Drabek, Taylor). While it sucks to lose players, we don't do any compensation and it saves alot of headaches. We treat it no differently than if you lost a guy to free agency in the offseason and we removed any compensation at all for traded players. (During the season, traded NL guys just collect stats from the AL and any AL guys coming over go up for bid)

I think that's the way to go. It adds an interesting level of strategy, for sure.

[larrymcg421]

Philadelphia Phillies traded LHP Cliff Lee to Seattle Mariners; Seattle Mariners traded RHP J.C. Ramirez to Philadelphia Phillies; West Tenn Diamond Jaxx traded RHP Phillippe Aumont to Reading Phillies and High Desert Mavericks traded CF Tyson Gillies to Clearwater Threshers.


Toronto Blue Jays traded RHP Roy Halladay to Philadelphia Phillies; Reading Phillies traded RHP Kyle Drabek and Michael Taylor to New Hampshire Fisher Cats and Lakewood BlueClaws traded C Travis d'Arnaud to Lansing Lugnuts.

Two separate trades. No way Team A should get him.

[ISiddiqui]

As a commish before in fantasy leagues, I say you go with the MLB's definition, which appears to be two seperate trades. Otherwise, you are going to get a lot of shit. This way you can point the MLB listing. Only really fair way. Unless you want people to vote.

[rowech]

I'm in a NL only league and I mentioned that in the MLB thread that I had lost a bunch of players this year due to trades (Scherzer, Drabek, Taylor). While it sucks to lose players, we don't do any compensation and it saves alot of headaches. We treat it no differently than if you lost a guy to free agency in the offseason and we removed any compensation at all for traded players. (During the season, traded NL guys just collect stats from the AL and any AL guys coming over go up for bid)

That's how we've done it as we do NL only. You have to keep an eye on your waiver wire order and pay attention to guys who might be traded to see if you can trade them before someone else finds out.

Everything blew up with out system two years ago. A deadbeat owner, after not doing anything for three months, comes in and claims Manny Ramirez. Later to find out the owner in 3rd on the waiver wire order and 3rd in the standings approached him imploring him to pick Manny up so the 2nd place team and the 2nd place waiver wire team couldn't get him...thus allowing the 3rd place team to prevent the 2nd place team from locking up 2nd place. I ruled it was collusion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"Spirit of the rules" is a dangerous precedent in fantasy leagues. Letter of rule, I think, is the most fair and consistent thing to do.

+1

[spleen1015]

You should demonstrate ultimate power and just put him on your team.

The obvious answer to me is he goes to Team B. These were 2 separate trades.

Out of curiosity, If you give him to Team B, then Team A gets mad. How many people get mad if you give him to Team A?

[DanGarion]

I haven't read anything anyone else has said. But it was two separate trades period. So the guy that lost Lee should only get the players from Seattle, and whoever had guys that went to the Jays gets Holliday. It was plainly laid out in the public as separate trades not a three way deal.

[rowech]

I think I've changed my mind on this after reading through everyone's comments. I guess I didn't realize how the trade really went down. It's very clear looking at the transaction page that this was not a three way deal. Owner who had Cliff Lee is really screwed. I rescind my spirit of the rules as it's just not there when you read the transactions.

Now as to which team gets him out of team B or C...that's your call.

[Mustang]

Now as to which team gets him out of team B or C...that's your call.

Good luck with that one. You could argue both ways. You might as well just flip a coin to determine who gets Halladay within your rules. Although, whomever 'wins' Halladay, I'd get that rule changed. There is no reason that anyone that has a prospect traded, no matter who it is, should get the rights to a top flight player.

[DeToxRox]

I say you give team B Doc since the team who got Taylor already traded him for Brett Wallace.

No real reason other then that.

[Mustang]

Although, as an owner that had both Taylor and Drabek, I would have rather lost Drabek than Taylor just because I value minor league hitting more than pitching.

[stevew]

A gets the Seattle prospects
B gets Doc
C gets a player from B

And the rule needs to change. Didn't you have a similar issue when Santana got traded to the NL as well?

[kcchief19]

I don't mean to be a jackass but this is a horrible rule. The prospect of having two players from two different fantasy teams traded to the AL for one NL player seems destined to create disaster.

By the letter of the law, I'd agree that Owner A gets everyone from Seattle. How do you determine who gets Halladay? Based on my fantasy experience in the past, here is how this will get resolved:

Owner A will quit because he just lost Cliff Lee and didn't get crap for him.
Owner B will drink himself sick because he just fell assbackward into Roy Halladay
Owner C will quit because that fucker Owner B got Halladay

And honestly, I can't blame any of them for responding that way. That kind of rule was inevitably going to lead to disaster.

[stevew]

Like I said earlier. A only got Lee cause he owned some combo of Lou Marson or Carlos Carrasco. I'd feel sorry for A if he would have had Lee for the long term.

Give A the rights to Lee if he signs in the NL next season. Give B Doc. Give C a player from B.

Then rewrite the rules to clear this stuff up.

[Toddzilla]

A gets the Seattle prospects
B gets Doc
C gets a player from B

And the rule needs to change. Didn't you have a similar issue when Santana got traded to the NL as well?Yep, and attempts at clearing this crap up didn't work out. Owners just like the possibility of a prize dropping in their lap enough to go through this once a year. As a commissioner, it's maddening.

[lynchjm24]

I'm in a NL only league and I mentioned that in the MLB thread that I had lost a bunch of players this year due to trades (Scherzer, Drabek, Taylor). While it sucks to lose players, we don't do any compensation and it saves alot of headaches. We treat it no differently than if you lost a guy to free agency in the offseason and we removed any compensation at all for traded players. (During the season, traded NL guys just collect stats from the AL and any AL guys coming over go up for bid)

I'm in an AL only league with 40 man rosters and if your guy goes to the NL, he's gone. You just learn to value players differently based on their chances of getting traded or how close they are to free agency.