Bug: arbitration applied from teams that did not complete arbitration

It has been brought to my attention that some teams did not give arbitration to every other team in their league, but their arbitration was counted and applied on April 1.

This was due to a bug with how the site was checking this criteria. I’ve fixed the bug and now teams that did not give at least $1 to every other team are correctly being displayed as not having finished arbitration. However, their arbitration was already applied, so I am going to leave this up to each league to determine how to proceed. If you see a case where a team in your league did not actually give arbitration dollars to every other team, you can choose to reduce player salaries accordingly using Commissioner Tools or just proceed with the current amount of arbitration applied.

I know this affected at least one league but I cannot confirm it affected any other leagues. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

In the interest of full transparency, I’ve added a table to the top of the Arbitration Results Overview page with the list of teams that, as of the correct criteria, did not complete arbitration.

Any teams that show a reason as only “Skipped team(s)” was affected by the bug and incorrectly had their arbitration applied.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Hey Niv, I’ve dove into our league (152) this morning. We had four managers that didn’t 100% complete arbitration. It’s a bit of a mess, hoping you can help me understand what happened with some players…

Example one: Justin Jefferson

He had $21 allocated to him in arbitration. Only $14 is “legal” arbitration. But as you can see from his player page, his salary increased by $18 on Apr 1st.


Example two: George Kittle
This one worked correctly, despite the bug

He had $9 total allocated to him. $6 were “legal”. After arbitration, he has the correct total increase as of April 1st.


I’ve seen this inconsistency on a bunch of players throughout the league for arbitration. I’ve gone through and made a spreadsheet to track who needs to be changed, it’s quite a headache to reconcile.

1 Like

If a team didn’t do arbitration because they didn’t spend all their money properly, their arbitration was not applied.

If a team didn’t do arbitration but they spent all their money, just didn’t give at least a dollar to each team, their arbitration was applied. This is the bug, this money should not have been applied.

As you said, this is a huge headache and I apologize for the bug.

In your first example, the $4 arb that is crossed out was affected by the bug. The other arb that was crossed out, that team didn’t spend all their arb money, so they were correctly not included in arb.


My advice would be to actually not do anything.

  1. The teams that didn’t have arb applied had the site correctly tell them that Arbitration was not complete for them.

  2. The teams that incorrectly had arb applied had the site incorrectly tell them that their Arbitration was complete. From those teams’ perspectives, they did everything correctly and the site told them as much. These teams also spent all their $60, though in an unbalanced way.

You can choose to manually apply the arbitration from the teams in the first bucket if you want, but the site told them they hadn’t finished arbitration and they didn’t check closely.

At the same time, this was all caused by a bug on the platform so anything I can do to help out I will do.

1 Like

Ahh that makes more sense, thanks for clarifying. I should have read your initial post more closely lol. After your explanation I agree no changes should be made, I’ll pitch that to the league and see how it goes. Thanks as always for your help!