COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN BALLENTINE delivered the opinion of the Committee, which was joined by Committee Members Jonson, Kent and Henderson. Committee Member Henderson also wrote separately, issuing a concurring opinion. Committee Member McIntosh issued a dissenting opinion.

     This is a case of first impression before the newly established League Oversight Committee (LOC), which has been granted authority under the League's Constitution to ensure that the League's integrity is enforced. We have been called upon to decide whether a trade that was consummated on April 9, 2001 between the Florida Marlins and the Cincinnati Reds satisfies Article One of the League's Constitution.

     After negotiating, the Florida Marlins and the Cincinnati Reds conducted a trade that sent right hand pitchers Curt Schilling and Javier Vazquez, third baseman Chipper Jones and second baseman Ron Belliard to Florida. In exchange, the Reds received third baseman Scott Rolen, right hand closers Danny Graves and Jose Mesa and right hand starters Pedro Astacio and Paul Byrd. This trade occurred late on the night of April 9, 2001. The two teams sent in the details of the trade to the League Commissioner as they are instructed to do in accord with the Constitution.

     Earlier on the same day, the League was asked to vote on its initial Amendment to the League Constitution. The Amendment, titled appropriately First Amendment, was sent to League owners via email. Sometime prior to the trade being consummated, the Amendment sustained a sufficient amount of votes to ensure its passage. Thus, as will be discussed, the newly created LOC was in position to field complaints about any trades that occurred thereafter. Not long after the trade, an anonymous complaint was lodged with the LOC alleging that the trade violated Article One of the League Constitution. We now turn to our analysis.

     As stated previously, the LOC has been called upon to decide whether the trade between the Marlins and the Reds of April 9, 2001 is in harmony with the League Constitution. We find that it is not.

     Our discussion must first address what the applicable provisions of the League Constitution are with respect to this trade. Article One provides in pertinent part that one must "always maintain the integrity of the league." This is broad language that is meant to appeal to the purist of baseball souls. In order to ensure that a league of this nature is to live in perpetuity, the league members must remain resolute about how the league is run. In other words, the league members must practice a sense of restraint when it comes to league matters so that the league does not suffer harm. Integrity implicates the finest of standards for one must place the well being of the league above all other concerns. While winning is an important goal for all league members, the long-term future of the league must always be an important virtue that requires a cognitive recognition of its value and a steadfast stance towards its survival.

     The League Constitution's Article VI sets forth a process by which amendments can be brought before the league to be voted on. Just such an initiative was introduced as the First Amendment. The Amendment enjoyed final passage on April 9, 2001; as such, it has now been incorporated into the League Constitution ¹. The Amendment calls for a League Oversight Committee, which is to be consisted of the five eldest league members in terms of seniority. The LOC's jurisdiction is laid out in Section One of the First Amendment and grants the LOC unfettered authority over the whole of the Constitution. This proposition is buttressed by the Amendment's language that states, "Nothing in this Amendment shall be construed as limiting the Committee's jurisdiction in other matters with respect to the Constitution."

     Thus, by a clear reading of the language of the Amendment, the LOC has been granted the authority, by a vote of all league members in which a super majority has been attained including the League Commissioner, to supervise over all league moves and is not expressly limited to Article One. However, we need not address what the powers are of the Committee concerning all provisions of the League Constitution, since the complaint alleges only a violation of Article One.

     While the Committee has already found that the LOC can review the trade at bar, the First Amendment provides a safeguard within the construction of Section Two of the Amendment.

     Section Two of the First Amendment creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of the actions of league members with respect to the various roster moves that they choose to implement. For those not versed in the law, a rebuttable presumption is simply a presumption that must be overcome by a series of facts that suggest that the presumption should not be granted in favor of the party with the presumption. Thus, both the Marlins and the Reds enjoy a presumption that the trade they conducted on April 9, 2001, as discussed above, is in accord with league integrity. Therefore, the LOC must overcome this presumption if it finds that the trade violated league standards. This the Amendment makes clear.

     The Amendment's Section Two continues to find, however, that the standard to be used in analyzing league roster moves shall be "devised at the discretion of the Committee." This is even more broad language that confers upon the LOC the power to create a league standard for not only this trade, but also a standard for future trades to be measured against. For, if a trade is to be analyzed properly, and in order for us to know if the presumption has been overcome, the LOC must first devise a standard for reviewing league roster moves. This shall be done in turn.

     Devising a standard that carefully balances the interests of league members to enjoy autonomy over their rosters as well as the freedom to make changes as they see fit with the overall integrity of the League is a tough assignment indeed. Certainly, there will be hard feelings on both sides of the equation for a ruling either way is going to have certain adverse consequences. However, the LOC refuses to entertain emotion, for our only task, our only reason for existence, is to ensure that the League's integrity is upheld.

     There are certain requirements that are innate to a league member. Though there is not a financial reward for the winner of the championship, the League's foundation as evidenced through its extensive history reflects the need for league members to be well versed in the game of baseball. This is a serious league. One need only scan the fine League website for a few moments to find that the League has weathered the erosion of time, the harsh realities of movement and defection and the costs and burdens of putting the energy into the well being of the League. The League has stood the test of time. Started in 1988 by a bunch of high school friends, the League has withstood the many tests before it and has remained a highly competitive league throughout the years. This can only be accomplished if league teams retain a sense of parity.

     This is not a league like real life from the standpoint where a well-financed machine can run the table by gobbling up the best players to create a dynasty. Rather, this is a league whose strength is in the parity it has achieved through careful management and through the implementation of certain safeguards. For example, the reason the League only uses National League players is to ensure that teams cannot easily create dynasty or all-star teams. The League has had to deal with that in the past. The 1993 Philadelphia Phillies compiled a 122-40 record, completely annihilating the rest of the League. This was done through the trading process and the League suffered for it. In response, League elders implemented safeguards and protections to ensure that this would not threaten the League again. With such a rapid influx of new league members, the League has responded once again by creating this very Committee.

     The standard that one must abide by is not only the nebulous but honorable "integrity standard," but also must abide by what shall be known as the reasonable manager standard. In effect, all league members shall be judged among themselves. The LOC recognizes that not all league members are the same. We bring our own interpretations to the League about the value of certain players and also have differing goals over the course of a given season. The LOC agrees. However, to ensure that the League's integrity is upheld, the LOC believes that an objective standard where the actions of one league member will be compared to the actions of what an ordinary league member would do under the same circumstances within the context of this League shall be the standard. This is a rule of equity. The rule is intended to ensure that all league members will not only be held to the same standard, but that all league members will be considered to be of equal footing for the reasonable manager standard will enable the trade to be viewed in the context of what all of us might do under the circumstances.

     Thus, since the LOC will employ the reasonable manager standard to all trades that come before it, we must now apply the newly created standard to the facts of the present trade to see if the presumption that the trade possesses can and should be overcome.

     There are a multitude of factors that come into play when one decides to make a trade for the benefit of their team. Included in this list, though certainly not limited to, are the age of the players, the equity of the talent distribution, the relative history of the health of the players involved, the statistics of the players as well as the team's own perceived prospectus for that given season. For example, a team may wish to rebuild during a given campaign and make trades that will help the future of the team, despite the relative inequity of the talent distribution. Viewed in that light, teams should receive a high level of discretion over the management of their rosters for it is difficult to assess the motives of everyone. Quality of factors should be favored over the quantity of factors. It is through this looking glass that the current trade will be analyzed against the reasonable manager standard.

     Clearly, the Florida Marlins made out like a bandit as a result of this trade. The Marlins added two number one quality starters in Curt Schilling and Javier Vazquez. Though Schilling is nearing the twilight of a stellar career, he is still thought to be an ace that is especially valuable in the context of the playoffs. Vazquez is a talent that should be closely regarded. Vazquez is a young pitcher who posted remarkably successful numbers last season and, by all accounts, will continue to do so for years to come. However, that is not all. The Marlins also received Chipper Jones who is currently in the prime of his career, achieving top-notch numbers and is widely regarded as the best player at his position in the National League. Furthermore, the Marlins also acquired a young second sacker who in time should prove to be a quality player. Thus, when one views the factors discussed previously, the Marlins not only traded for a high level of talent, but also acquired players who are either in their prime or have yet to reach their prime, but also are thought to be fast approaching it.

     The Reds, on the other hand, did not fair as well. True, the Reds did receive a great young third baseman in Scott Rolen. If one wishes to deal away Jones, Rolen is the man to replace him with. However, outside of Danny Graves, the Reds did not get much else back. Pedro Astacio is a marginally effective pitcher. Paul Byrd has seen better days, evidence by the fact that the last year and a half of his career has been an unmitigated disaster. Jose Mesa is a joke, both in this League and in real life.

     When one measures this trade against the standard that has been created, it is hard to justify the Reds decision to make this deal. In essence, Cincinnati has traded away three all-star caliber players and a young second baseman (a weak position in baseball in general) for Scott Rolen and Danny Graves. That should speak for itself. No reasonable league member would make such a roster move. Astacio's value is slight. He has performed well in this League in the past, but his numbers are far from impressive. Mesa is at the end of his career and hasn't performed well since 1997. Therefore, he can only be viewed as a throw-in, adding nothing to the deal. In addition, even though he is talented, Graves does not have the trade value of two starting pitchers. In fact, only two closers in the league - Robb Nen and Trevor Hoffman - are worth even one starter the caliber of Schilling or Vazquez. Which leaves us with Jones and Rolen. As stated previously, Rolen is good - but Jones is the benchmark at the position. This trade, quite simply, does not even pass a laugh test, much less the reasonable manager standard.

     If a league member wishes to dangle the likes of Chipper Jones, Curt Schilling and Javier Vazquez as trade bait in order to improve the composition of his team, then so be it. However, it is no stretch to assume that a great deal more talent could be acquired either through the context of a blockbuster deal or by trading them separately.

     Additionally, the LOC finds any argument that the Reds might be in the rebuilding process, the only conceivable impetus for making such a move, unpersuasive. If a team wishes to improve through the rebuilding process, they would not trade away a player like Javier Vazquez. Moreover, it is far too early to think of such things anyway. We are in the first two weeks of a 162 game schedule. The Reds are projected to have a competitive team this year where a couple of credible trades could push them into serious contention. However, this trade would quickly send the Reds into a free-fall. Without any big name stars to trade, Cincinnati would be doomed to failure for seasons to come.

     The LOC cannot recall a trade that has been completed in the League's illustrious history with this level of inequity. The closest came in 1993 during a time period where the League employed a free agency scheme when the Phillies traded Ozzie Smith and Carlos Baerga, both free agents, to Los Angeles for Barry Larkin and Roberto Alomar. This deal was prima facie suspect, but was compounded by the fact that the Dodgers predictably ended up losing Smith and Baerga to free agency. So, in effect, Los Angeles gave away the farm for some oceanfront property in Arizona. This, of course, contributed to the Phillie dynasty of the mid-90s. But even that trade does not rise to the level of this current robbery. Mindful of such horrors being revisited upon the League, the LOC is compelled to bar trades of this nature that would harm the integrity of the League ².

     Furthermore, another argument in favor of quashing this trade is to ensure that league members do not engage in shady practices designed only for this season so that a subsequent move to the American League next season can be made. There is nothing within the Constitution, outside of Article One, that bars a league member from destroying his team if he is out of it, a move that could adversely affect another team's chances of reaching the playoffs, and then jumping ship. This would result in a National League team having little shot at being competitive in the near future, with no consequences for the league member, for they have opened up for business in the American League leaving a poor team in their wake. The LOC does not know of such motives, but is cognizant of that possibility. In response, the LOC will do everything within its power to make sure the National League is protected from such potential endangerment.

     Consequently, it is the opinion of the LOC that no reasonable league member would consummate such a trade. Only those that have ulterior motives, which we do not find, or those not well versed in the game of baseball, would make such a careless roster change.

     As a result, the LOC finds that the trade between the Marlins and the Reds of April 9, 2001 violates Article One of the Constitution. The First Amendment is in place to ensure that trades of this nature cannot corrupt the wholesomeness of the League. In short, we cannot allow trades that are inequitable on its face to be upheld. The League needs and deserves protection. The LOC is in place for that very thing. Some managers are susceptible to the persuasions of more sophisticated league members. When that happens, one can only conclude that the League's integrity has been violated. Therefore, since the LOC has found that the reasonable manager standard has overcome the presumption in favor of league member trades, the aforementioned trade is struck down as unconstitutional.

     The League Commissioner is hereby instructed to bar the trade, consistent with this opinion. Furthermore, the League website shall also so reflect.

     It is so ordered.

COMMITTEE MEMBER HENDERSON issued a concurring opinion.

     I concur with the majority opinion of Mr. Ballentine, although the opinion did not address the procedural aspects of trades, which is the primary purpose for this opinion.

     The recent trade, which took place between the Florida Marlins and Cincinnati Reds, raises an issue as to whether a General Manager/Manager has full autonomy when trading players. I answer that he does not. Mr. Ballentine suggests that the protection of the league integrity is at stake and implements a reasonable managers standard whereby the remaining league owners must put themselves in the position of the trading parties to determine if they would conceive of such a trade. While I agree with such a standard, I respectfully disagree with the duties and responsibilities of the owners not involved in the transaction.

     The purpose of DMB is to create a realistic environment for the baseball purist. The game does successfully achieve the feel of the game on many levels but is lacking in others. In the instant case, we have an example of where the DMB game lacks realism and thus the Committee must determine what steps are necessary to ensure realism. My "realism" standard incorporates all the elements of Mr. Ballentine's Reasonable Manager Standard but for different reasons. Since DMB does not provide owners or fans, their voice needs to be protected. This requires all owners in the league not only to act as the GM/manager of their team but to also act as The Fans and Owners of DMB. As fans of baseball, members must determine whether fans of the trading teams would be outraged at a trade or better yet the ultimate fan of a team the Team Owner and whether he would dismiss a GM for a trade. This effectively creates a dualistic role of the GM (manager/fan) and requires league members to act differently in different circumstances thus putting on the GM hat to determine what is best for his team and putting on his "Fan" hat to determine what is best for everyone else's team.

     In the instant case, by putting on the Cincinnati Fan/owner Hat it seems obvious that the Cincinnati GM's days are numbered if such a trade is executed. While the result of my decision is based on a slightly different perspective, it equates into the effectuation of the same result. NO TRADE.

     The mere fact that a trade may or may not be revoked raises the issue of how a GM (wearing his "fan" hat) can protest the a trade. Currently, a trade is approved upon completion thus, all GMs may not get the chance to play their role as fans/owners which would effectively destroy the creation of the fan or owner into the DBM league and ultimately lead to corruption.

     A procedural solution cannot be found anywhere in the rules nor is their any guidance in MLB as the GM is held accountable for his actions by public opinion and wins and losses. This Committee is therefore duty bound to create a process that is equitable and fair which balances the autonomous power of the trading parties with the necessary power of the "fan/owner" interest. In doing so the legislative intent of the First Amendment to the DMB Constitution must be analyzed. Section II states that "Manager and team autonomy over its roster shall enjoy a rebuttable presumption. . . " The phrase "rebuttable presumption" seems to indicate that the scope of a manager's decision should be viewed broadly. In doing so, a procedural solution should limit management autonomy as little as possible but also give notice to all "fans/owners" of their GM's proposed dealings.

     It is my opinion that all trades should be assigned the status of "PENDING" for 48 hours. During that time period any "fan/owner" may object to a trade based on fairness, as they shall appear on the website as "PENDING" for the two-day time period. Since a rebuttable presumption exists in favor of a trade, THE NAME OF THE COMPLAINING PARTY SHOULD BE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. Moreover, it is my opinion that the 48-hour "PENDING" period should begin once the commissioner is notified or the webmaster is notified, whichever occurs first. Once the PENDING period ends the trade is executed and ANY COMPLAINTS RELATING TO SAID TRADE ARE VOID.

COMMITTEE MEMBER McINTOSH issued a dissenting opinion.

     While I am under the opinion that the trade in question was in fact lopsided, to say the least, I do not feel that it is the Committee's responsibility to review trades for fairness. I feel that it is the prerogative of the trading manager to ensure the trade is to his liking before completing the trade. It should be noted that I myself have made trades in the past that were unfair and lopsided, both to my advantage and disadvantage. When a trade did not work out the way I hoped, I did not feel it was somebody else's responsibility to watch out for me. I learned from my mistakes to research any and all trades before completion.

     I do feel however that it is the Committee's responsibility to ensure the dishonest practice of trading between teams to build one superstar team is of the highest importance involving integrity. Not to say that this is a common occurrence, but there have been instances. It is then, I believe, the Committee has a responsibility to act.

1. The Amendment secured passage after the 11th vote was cast, signaling a super-majority. Voting in the affirmative were the Cubs, Diamondbacks, Giants, Phillies, Pirates, Astros, Braves, Expos, Reds, Marlins and Mets.

2. It is worth mentioning that the architect of the 1993 deal and beneficiary of its inequities is a member of this Committee, who not only signed onto this opinion, but also voted in favor of the First Amendment.