Judge John Hodgman - No Running Backsies

Episode Date: January 28, 2026

This week, Judge John Hodgman and Bailiff Jesse Thorn tackle a dispute about Fantasy Football! Litigants (and spouses) Kristen and Tom play in the same Fantasy Football league and Tom has an issue with their last round of drafts. Kristen wanted to draft Buffalo Bills running back James Cook, but couldn’t because of their league rules, so she asked husband Tom to draft him under the condition that Tom would trade him to her at a later date. The trade happened, and Kristen won their league - so why is Tom the one bringing the case before the court? While The Big Game is coming up, we are all still way too focused on the fictional world of hockey in HEATED RIVALRY. Are you also still at the cottage? How many burgers is too many for 2 people? Do you have a beef with hockey because there's not enough YEARNING? Valentine’s Day is around the corner. Don’t forget the most romantic gift you could give your partner: A Fake Internet Court Summons! No dispute is too small for the honorable Judge John Hodgman and Bailiff Jesse Thorn! Submit your cases directly to the court at: https://maximumfun.org/jjhoBROOKLYN! Join Judge John Hodgman and Bailiff Jesse Thorn LIVE at The Bell House for NIGHT COURT (no, not that one)! Get your tickets here: Friday, March 6, Saturday, March 7Thanks to reddit users u/wilcoxchatham and u/heyyou11 for naming this week’s case! To suggest a title for a future episode, keep an eye on the Maximum Fun subreddit at reddit.com/r/maximumfun!Follow Judge John Hodgman on:YouTube: @judgejohnhodgmanpodInstagram: @judgejohnhodgmanTikTok: @judgejohnhodgmanpodBluesky: @judgejohnhodgmanReddit: r/maximumfun  Judge John Hodgman is member-supported! Become a member to unlock special bonus episodes, discounts on our merch, and more by joining us at: maximumfun.org/join!

Welcome to the Judge John Hodgman podcast. I'm Bill of Jesse Thorne. This week, no running back sees. Tom brings the case against his wife, Kristen. Tom and Kristen are part of a fantasy football league. Before the season began, Kristen wanted to draft Buffalo Bill's running back James Cook. But she knew he'd be drafted before it was her turn to pick. So before draft day, she asked Tom to draft this player for her. She promised a favorable. trade in return. But when it came time to make the pass, Tom called an audible. Who he doesn't remember agreeing to this scheme. Kristen is throwing a flag on Tom's play. She says that her pre-draft agreement was binding. Tom says, drafters keepers. Who's right, who's wrong, only one can decide. Please rise as Judge John Hodgeman enters the courtroom and presents an obscure cultural reference. I used to write away to all these sailboat captains saying, hey, great news. I'm 13 years old. I have no experience. I'm only available July and August.

Please hire me to come work as a deckhand on your historic wooden schooner. I sort of vowed to myself, someday I will sail the Jonna Hodgeman Reach. Bail of Jesse Thorne, please swear the litigants in. Tom, Kristen, please rise and raise your right hands. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you, God, or whatever. I do. Do you swear to abide by Judge John Hodgman's ruling, despite the fact that he only follows the Canadian Football League? I do. He's a big Rough Riders fan.

Yeah, which one? There's two of them. Exactly. Judge Hodgman, you may proceed. Tom and Kristen, you may be seated for an immediate summary judgment one of your favorites. Can I either be named the piece of obscure culture that I referenced as I entered the courtroom. I guess the answer is probably no, right, Tom and Kristen? That's correct. I can't. I have no idea. I don't know. I wouldn't know a non-obscure cultural reference. So I'm going to ask you this.

see if you can get this one Tom there are two other according to what I'm looking at right now two other Ontario Canadian football teams one in Hamilton and one in Ottawa are the ones I'm looking for can you name both of them

I'm going to embarrass myself because I thought it was going to be the Montreal aloettes but they're not in Ontario Alouette Jeanette Alouette I can maybe guess at one the Hamilton has something to do with like the like a boat like a schooner no wrong is that correct okay

it is nothing to do with what I read when I was entering the courtroom okay never mind I can't I can't name it uh you want to you want to go for the steel Kristen the Hamilton Alexander Alexander is that's pretty that's what Canadians love right right that's clearly you didn't throw away her shot everyone loves Lynn Manuel Miranda and we're too Hamilton Tiger Cats was what I was It's like a familiar. Tiger cats. One of the most powerful cats. One of the most doubly named cats.

And also the Ottawa redundancies redundance. Wow. The Ottawa red blacks. The red blacks. Spelled here all in capital letters. Don't know anything about it. This is just what the internet gave me in this very moment. As for what I read when I entered the courtroom,

while I almost gave it away by accidentally calling Jesse Jackson. not because of Jesse Jackson, the famous activist and politician, but because that was a quote from Mark Evan Jackson, the famous actor, improviser, friend of the court, and also a very accomplished sailing person and co-owner of a historic wooden schooner called the Grace Bailey. So Mark Evan Jackson grew up in Buffalo and various suburbs, but he longed for the time,

when he might join the crew of a historic wooden sailing schooner off the coast of Maine. And as a child, he would write to the captains of these sailing schooners, inviting himself to become a cabin boy. They wisely and appropriately and legally rejected him. Later on, when he graduated from college, he was able to join as a mate on the schooner mercantile, sailing out of Camden, Maine. but now he is a co-owner of a wooden sailing schooner called the Grace Bailey, sailing out of Rockland, Maine. And you know what else is going to be sailing out of Rockland, Maine this June? Tom and Kristen?

You? Yeah, me and Jesse. Both of us. We're taking court to see you. It's going to be maritime law. Maritime law. I love this. On the Grace Bailey schooner.

Monkey knife fight. June. 14th. You can call me, Ishmael, Judge Ishmael, if you please. And you can call Jesse Moby Dick. And we're going to be on that boat for four nights. And you can join us if you want. There are many spots. I think there's something like 15 births, maybe 20. Case. Salegracebailey.com will give you the details right now. Okay.

There's just a little preview of something fun that's coming up after the football season is over, because we're in it, right? This is still football season? It's still football. Playoff times. We haven't had the Super Bowl yet as of this recording, so that means it's still I'm going to call it the Stupor Bowl. Am I just sitting there? I'm connected to the boob tube, Jennifer.

Yeah, you're in a complete stupor. Plus you got your fingers in a bowl of onion dip, I hope. I watch it for the commercials, okay? Yeah, that's right. Okay. Yeah, I don't know. Maybe you'll see a fun commercial at the Stupor Bowl. In any case, though, the team that you both love

the Buffalo Bills is not going to the Super Bowl, correct? That has not been, do you know this information? They're playing the Denver Broncos this weekend. Oh, okay. By the chance to move on.

Okay, by the time you hear this, it will be known whether I was, my incredible prognostication was correct. You want to do the take of the other answer? I am known as someone who does not follow sports at all and yet is able to predict the outcome of any sports game simply by knowing which team am I rooting for?

He's the octopus of podcasting. It is the case that any sports that I watch in person or televised, if I'm rooting for a team, they historically lose. And by historically I mean 100%. So I'm not going to watch your beloved Buffalo Bills game against the sky high, mile high, Denver Broncos. And I hope the best for you.

But in the meantime, neither have you got the cultural reference. So we have to hear this case. Now, it seems to me, Tom, that you are the one bringing this case for justice in my fake court. Is that correct? That is correct, Your Honor. Tell me, what is the justice that you seek? Briefly stated. Briefly stated, I'll do my best.

I drafted Buffalo Bills running back James Cook. All right. This isn't your fantasy football league. You are not... Fantasy football league, yes. You are not an NFL team. owner. I'm not a general manager, team owner, coach, or anything like that. I'm not affiliated

officially. Beyond the sweatshirt. That's right. So I drafted to my fantasy football team, a running back name James Cook from the Buffalo Bills. Right. I think it should be up to me whether to keep this player on my fantasy team or to trade him away

for whomever I choose. Now, Kristen, my understanding is that Tom, who is what relationship to you? He is my husband. All right. That may know. That may be not true by the... For now. I could order an emergency podcast of course.

Within my power. You had requested that Tom draft James Cook of the Buffalo Bills to his fantasy league. Is that correct? That is correct. Because you wanted James Cook for yourself. That is true. And if I understood Jesse's summary at the top of this case correctly, you knew that in the order of the draft,

he would be gone by the time your turn came up. So you asked your husband to draft him for you, hoping that you could trade for him later. Is that correct? Yes. And what were you willing to trade? Matrimonial privileges, wink. So I had, this is the first year we did a Keeper League

where we were allowed to keep up to two players from our previous season. So I strategically. I'm willing to listen to this, but can you promise me that this is the last piece of information about fantasy football that I'm going to need to absorb? Possibly. What's a keeper league? So we are allowed to keep two of our players from the previous season instead of having to redraft them and potentially lose them. So I strategically kept quarterback from the Buffalo Bills, Josh Allen, and quarterback from the Tampa Bay Buckegee. Baker Mayfield, knowing that my husband would want Baker Mayfield as his quarterback.

Oh, and by keeping them, you're sacrificing a chance to draft other players. Absolutely. You're holding on to these players because you feel they'll be attractive to your husband. Yes. In a trade for James Cook later on. Got it. There's no sacrifice involved, John. Each team can, at the end of the season, the team has a roster of however many players.

they can retain a couple of them. They will typically, presumably, retain their most valuable players going into the next draft. It's just a way of making it so that you can kind of have a longer term attachment to some of your players. And this is, we're talking about real football here, Jesse,

or fantastical football? We're talking about fantastical football. And I'm actually surprised when she said that they were playing in a keeper league, quote unquote, two is a very low number of plays. players to keep. It honestly kind of doesn't make sense to me. Like usually it's like 15 or 20 or something. And it sort of simulates what a real team would be like where most of your players stick around.

Are these the only two that you kept, Kristen? Or or? Those are the two that I kept. Yeah. And you just, the rest of them, you were like, I'm done. I'm done with them. I want fresh blood, including James Cook specifically. My, my previous season was kind of a dud. So I was, I was happy to keep the two that were good and start over. You were last in the league. No, your husband wasn't, I wasn't last, but. Eight or eight over your head in celebration. No, no.

That was the marital privilege to what she referred to earlier. I don't know. I don't know what goes on in your house. You're not in Buffalo, though, right? You're in Chicago. We're in Chicago. What, what, why are you obsessed with this Buffalo team? It's hard to remember exactly where I started in terms of becoming a Buffalo

Bill's fan. Are you from Buffalo? I'm not from Buffalo. I went to, it's close. Yeah. It's one or the other. Either I chose to go to SUNY at Buffalo because I was a Bills fan or vice versa. I went to SUNY at Buffalo and then became one.

Thomas says here that you're training to become a mental health professional. That's correct. That's wonderful. And Kristen says here that you are a nurse specializing in, you're at a wound clinic. Mm-hmm. So you are an expert in wounds. I am. But I ask you to look at this cat scratch that I got when I was grooming our daughter's cat?

You sure can. I'm trying to show anyone watching on YouTube. I'll take a picture and send it to you. Anyone watching on YouTube can watch me violating my own HIPAA rights. Can you see it? It's a hard angle. Sort of. Let's get into it.

I need some more information here, though. So you have the fantasy football league. Tom, how many people are in the league? There are 12 managers. as we call them. Right. Okay. And you and Kristen are each managers. And in fantasy football, do you create a team identity and name for your fantasy team? We do name them. And usually the trend is that you make sort of a puny name out of one of the players that you've drafted. Why not? Sure. So what's the name of your team, Tom? Now there's a player named Bijon Robinson.

Okay. So I went with Bloodbath and Bijon. That's fun. I like that. It's pretty good, right? Yeah, it's good. It's worth it of a little chuckle. not too much. But Kristen's is better. Kristen, you named your team after this player you thought you were going to get but didn't because your husband stole them from you, James Cook? No, actually, neither of us went with a James Cook reference. My team was born again Christian McCaffrey. McCaffrey being your last name?

McAfree being the running back. Christian McCaffrey was my other running back. Oh, I thought you said your own name, Kristen. Oh, okay, got it. Oh, that's fun. That's fun too. Now that I understand it, thank you for the context bail of Jesse Thorne. as always, really, really rely on you for these sports-related ones.

I appreciate you very much, as always. John, just for context as well, like in baseball, you might know a manager is the old man dressed up as a player who chooses what players go into and come out of the game. Yeah. And also manages the players when they're in the clubhouse naked. In football, a manager is like the guy that makes sure the balls are inflated and stuff. So I don't know how they decided to name these 12 people managers and not, for example, the commonly used in football general managers.

Tom, you're not merely a manager of your team. You are also the commissioner or co-commissioner of the league. Yes. I started out last year as the sole commissioner, and then we added on a co-commissioner this year. Now, you may or may not have heard our recent episode about, a fantasy survivor league with our expert witness, Francesco Hoggio,

survivor legend, who told us that it is not reasonable for, and in fact, there's a conflict of interest for a player to be a commissioner of a fantasy league. How do you respond? There's not too much

a commissioner has to do besides just make sure folks get their dues in, which we didn't even have any, but to maybe just schedule the time for the draft itself and set the rules based on, I do it pretty democratically.

We basically, if there's any contention, we just do like a poll and people vote on their favorite options. In terms of drafting players, how do you determine who gets to draft in what order? Well, this year we had a two-tiered system, one of which was a punt pass and kick competition between the people who volunteered to do that. Yeah, PPNK. PPPK, exactly. And then the other people who do not want to participate in a sports competition. They picked certain chickens of ours, and we did a chicken race. So they had like a sort of a representative chicken, and we made the chickens race around the backyard.

Wait, you have chickens? Yeah, we have chickens in Chicago. Oh, Chicago, Illinois chickens. Illinois chickens, yes. And you, and. I hate Illinois chickens. Thank you for picking up what I was laying down. But if you want to get chickens to race, Tom. you don't lay down obscure references to the Blues Brothers.

What do you use to make chickens race? They love mealworms. So I had a little scoop of mealworms. And I kind of just walked backwards shaking it. And they, well, some of them followed me. They're not the smartest animals. I believe that we have video of this year's chicken race. Absolutely.

Jennifer Marmer, producer, extraordinaire, would you please show us the video? Let's go to the tape. There they go. It's slow-mo. Tom is backing up slowly over it. Should have been a content warning for toe shoes. And there are two. Oh, the black one wins by a beak.

Nellie the black chicken wins by a beak. September close second. And here comes third fog bar, who is associated with a manager named Derek or a real person named Derek. And bringing up the rear, here comes Kristen's chicken Judy. So, Kristen, your chicken Judy came in fourth. The draft picking order is semi-literally a pecking order here. It's decided by chicken swiftness.

But, you know, I'm going to say, this does not feel like a race to me. But, Kristen, do you accept that this was a fair race by the rules of the chicken race? Yes. And knowing our chickens, it really could have gone either way. And about half of them didn't even finish the race. And we sort of anticipated that happening too. Yeah. I think had we not lured them, none of them would have gone anywhere. Okay. Fair enough. All right. How did this dispute start over James Cook, the running back, the Buffalo Bills, Tom? Okay. So we often discuss strategy. It's something that that's the part of the enjoyment of fantasy football is predicting who might do well and maybe how to strategize. So, you know, well, well before the draft even happened, I think we did talk about who we wanted to keep on each team and strategies they're in. And Kristen was like, oh, maybe I'll keep Josh Allen and Baker Mayfield. And I was like, we're going to keep two quarterbacks. That's kind of odd considering there's only one, there's only one, there's only one. slot to play a quarterback. So you typically wouldn't keep two of the same position there.

But I thought to myself, what if I draft somebody, anybody, and then you trade Baker Mayfield to me, who was one of my top picks? He's a player. He's a player that Kristen had that you had coveted in the past. Yes. He finished top four in quarterbacks, which is better than predicted. So I thought, hey, maybe he'll do better again. If you keep him, I mean, maybe we can make a trade. And the reason I stated it that way is because I think that's how I said it in the moment. Maybe we can make a trade. I'm interested in Mayfield. If you keep him, we'll talk.

Or other people may be interested in trading for him. Were you specifically interested in James Cook at this time? Was that a plan for you to draft Cook? Tom? I like the idea of drafting players that are on the team that I like, but also I kind of try to keep it separate. So I recognize James Cook as a good running back option. but more to the point, I draft more strategically in terms of position. So if he were the best running back available, I would be naturally inclined to choose him.

And that's exactly what I ended up happening. It's a long sentence for a yes or no question. Did you intend to draft him, yes or no? No. You did, though. I did. Why? Because he is a starting running back on an offense heavy team.

Did you know that Kristen wanted him at that time, the time you drafted him? Yes. What's this a first round pick? Second round pick. I kept my first round pick from the previous season, which means you sacrifice your first round pick for the next season. So in your league, there is a sacrifice if you hold on to somebody. Yes. Got it.

So Kristen did make a sacrifice by holding on to these two quarterbacks. Right. And a strange one too, because there are two quarter, there's only one quarterback on the team, right? Right. And which one was the top? Which one was in the top four, Kristen? Baker Bayfield, who was in the top four. In the top four.

And if you took all four of those quarterbacks together, you'd have a whole back. That's just football. So you're getting it. But it was an unusual move by Kristen to keep two quarterbacks, though they're both star quarterbacks. They're both quarterbacks that would probably appeal to other managers in the league as trade bank. Was that your intention in retaining two quarterbacks, Kristen? Yes.

What specifically was your intention? I knew that Tom wanted Baker Mayfield because he talked about this. Right. So my goal was to keep him with the intention of trading for somebody that Tom had. But I also did put it out there to the rest of the group that this was my plan was to keep Baker. I had no intention of trading Josh Allen away, but Baker Mayfield was on the table if anybody was interested. in making a trade later. And Baker Mayfield was a valuable player,

not just because he's a good quarterback then, but also because of the fact that he had improved his performance so dramatically, he had like a draft position that was relatively low compared to how good he was or how valuable as a performer he was. Yes. Yeah. But you held on to Baker Mayfield specifically as a piece to trade.

Correct. And did you want to specifically trade him for James Cook? Did you specifically want James Cook? I specifically wanted James Cook. And because I had kept Josh Allen, who was my second round pick from the previous year, I knew by the time round three came around when I actually got to pick again, he was going to be gone. So I had asked Tom to draft him and then we would make this trade. And he agreed.

Okay. Tom, that seems like a pretty clear verbal contract. What's wrong with Kristen's story there? I do remember discussing this as stated. We discussed it as a possible option. I don't think I ever said, this is definitely going to happen. I will draft James Cook for, because there's no way I could have known that I would get James Cook for sure.

So I think it was more like a, if you get to draft James Cook, then we will make this trade. and I seem to not really remember saying definitely, yes, let's do it. But you did draft James Cook. I did, yes. So the if condition was met, but the then condition was thrown out into the dirt for the chickens to eat. Yes. Was this a conversation that happened at the draft or significantly earlier?

Both. Much earlier, it started. We started talking about it earlier, and during the draft, and I have text receipts, I texted Tom when his turn was coming up and said draft James Cook, and he responded with done. Whoa. To dispute that. So to me, he was continuing to uphold the agreement that I thought we had. It would seem that way, but Tom's text and your text were not explicit in a sense of draft James Cook so that you can then trade him to me for. Mayfield, right?

Mayfield is the quarterback of the two that you have that you hate. So it seems to me that the if condition was met. If you have the opportunity to draft James Cook, you would and you did. The then condition that seemed pretty, I mean, it was discussed at least twice of you then trading Cook to your wife for this other player was not met. You kept James Cook. Why? That's not exactly the case.

The reason why it's so important that we discussed it several times is because that's kind of my case in this situation, which is that we talked about it. And I remember specifically many times saying, like, that's not a very fair trade. Because even if Baker Mayfield were drafted in a round that made sense per his performance, it still would not match the round that typically a James Cook would go for. Yeah, but these are all conversations that you could have and seems like you did have before the draft. We did, yeah. So that was my recollection is that I explained that it's not a very good trade for me. And I don't necessarily agree to do it. That's my contention.

Kristen, did you come to an agreement or not? I thought we had come to an agreement. But it does my understanding. Did anyone overhear you have this discussion? Or discussions? No, I don't think anybody outside of the two of us was privy to. Was anything written down other than your text? Don't forget to draft James Cook.

No. And Tom rode back done. Do you remember sending that text, Tom? Yes, and that requires some context as well, if I may. I guess football is a game of great context. I'll try to make it quick. So we hosted a party in our house where people actually physically attended and remoted in to do the draft. We were serving libations, as you might often do, for having people over.

And I'm, you know, playing host and not really focused on my phone. And I believe I drafted him. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I really genuinely don't remember this. And then looked at my phone where I then saw the text from her saying, go ahead and do it. As if I wouldn't draft him if he's available. I didn't need to be told. you were saying that James Cook wasn't even a player you were particularly interested in.

You tried to convince me that it was not a good idea to have James Cook. Whoa. True or not true, Tom? That is true. 100%. Yeah. Why is it a bad idea for Kristen to have James Cook, but a good idea for you to keep him? It was a gamble. It was a gamble to take someone who on an offense where they spread the ball around a lot. And he had not, I mean, he'd somewhat proven himself as, as, you know, starting running back. in terms of fantasy football. This year he went absolutely off, which is why it's such a contention now

because he ended up being a very valuable player. But, you know, I was consider both sides. He performed better than you expected. What about you, Kristen? Did you think he was, did his performance this season surprise you? No, he performed what I, what I expected out of him.

Tommy, it sounds like the reason you drafted him was because you, felt it was the right time to draft a running back and he was the top running back on the board, even though you had some reservations about him. Yes. I decided to take my chances on the player who's on my favorite team because, again, there's not a whole lot of stakes in this except bragging rights. But didn't you know that Kristen wanted him?

I did. Yeah. So that was another factor in that if I could make a better, so the other portion of this is that it wasn't just a James Cook for Mayfield trade. I was hoping that maybe she would sweeten the pot with like a better wider. or, you know, someone who could sweeten that pot that would make a seventh round draft Mayfield worth it for me to give up a second round draft James Cook. So would it be fair to say that you knew that your wife wanted James Cook?

You knew that she had proposed the idea that there might be a trade down the line if you were to draft him. You knew that she was offering Mayfield, but you weren't willing to commit to that. And you also knew that when Cook came up, it would be a good idea to get him because you might get a better train out of your wife in the future. That's all correct, yes. Did you draft or have a starting quarterback? Much, much later, I drafted Bryce Young.

So you were anticipating maybe trading for a quarterback. I don't, I'm not threatened by not having a quarterback because there's so many, like many quarterbacks tend to like, dredge up during the course of the season. So, like, I could have picked up not James Winston, who was it? Jacoby Brissette had a really good second half of the season.

You can just kind of pick them up off the waiver wires. I wasn't terribly worried about it. But I don't think you would have chosen Bryce Young if you had a better option. So is it fair to say, Tom, that you're holding on to James Cook because Baker Mayfield, you need something more than Baker Mayfield to make the trade and you know that you have your wife over a barrel?

I wanted to sweeten the pot, yeah. And did you convey any of this using language before bringing it to the podcast? Absolutely, yeah, like all the, the whole time, even leading up to the draft before anybody drafted anything, I was trying to make a more advantageous trade for myself saying, you know, I think I, I'm pretty sure I mentioned like Mayfield for Cook straight up is not not favorable enough for me. I was, you know, fishing for maybe a better, you can, you know, you can do like two. two players at once in one trade, which is actually what ended up happening. Kristen, did Tom convey to you that he wasn't satisfied with your proposed trade? He did after the draft was complete. Tom, what's more important to you, fantasy football or being married?

Think about your answer, Tom. I love that I'm married to someone who plays fantasy football. Like, this is a dream right now. We spend our whole Sundays relaxing and, like, chit-chatting about, you know, what's going out of the NFL. It's just, it's a great bonding experience. I love it all. Tom, you supplied some additional evidence, which is a voicemail from your co-commissioner. Who is your co-commissioner? His name is Eric, and he's another manager in the league. So let's take a listen to this, this voicemail.

My name is Eric. I am co-commissioner of our fantasy football league. When I first saw the trade request for James Cook, I thought, Kristen must have been desperate to have a winning season this year. And Tom begrudgingly gave in to please his wife. As co-commissioner, I approve the trade because who am I to stop someone from throwing away their entire season before the first game even begins. So what trade did what trade did Eric approve? It was Kristen was giving up Baker Mayfield and Tank Bigsby. that's just a fake football

exactly what I thought I had like muscles brawn again the Yale champ or something so it would seem to me that this co-commissioner approved a trade did the trade happen do I misunderstand it did so the trade happened before the season started Kristen gave Mayfield and Bigsby

and I gave her James Cook and Jacoby Myers, a wide receiver from, at the time he was on the Raiders, I think. Isn't that a slip and fall attorney duo that advertises on the New York City subway? It is.

It's 100%. Is any of this real? It's fantasy. Is this fantasy football where you can recruit characters from old comic books and billboards? So you did an enhanced version of that trade.

You got more. more than the one for one, Tom. But nonetheless, your co-commissioner was hesitant to approve the trade because he thought this was collusion. He thought you were just throwing a bone to your wife? Quite the opposite, I think. I think what he was saying is that he's underestimating Kristen. And if someone who's more familiar with fantasy football is giving up a major player,

that would be advantageous to him in that it would sort of take my team down a peg by losing such a good player. So he approved it pretty swiftly because he thought it would be better for him. Okay. You're saying still that- This is why commissioners shouldn't be players. Francesco Hogi was right. You're saying that he approved this trade, not despite the fact that he thought that it was

collusive, but because it was collusive, he thought you were just doing your wife a favor, but because your team was stronger, that was good for him. Yeah. It's just fraught with corruption. The point is, Kristen, you got what you wanted, James Cook. He gave up a little bit more than what you wanted, but you got what you wanted. So why are we even here? Because Tom's claim is that I used my birthday and feminine wiles, I guess, to force the trade to go through despite.

Oh, wait a minute. I forget, you're not the one complaining here. No, I'm not complaining at all. There. Tom, Tom, you made a trade that you agreed to, and you got a couple, an extra player. It seems like you got what you wanted to. So why are we even here? The secondary people in that trade, they proved to be inconsequential, which I kind of figured that would be the case anyway. But we happened to be in Las Vegas at the time for Kristen's birthday, and I kept asking her, you know, what do you want for your birthday? She's just, she kept saying,

like, James Cook. I want James Cook. Well, if you're going to keep doing this, I'll do something. I will throw you that bone. Like, I don't want to, you know, I don't know. I just felt bad. You regret trading James Cook as a birthday present to your wife. I don't because it didn't end up mattering too much practically in terms of the points scored difference. I do want to maybe discuss the tactics that were used to make the trade goes through.

You don't regret the trade. You just not in practice, but in principle, you feel like you were pressured to give James Cook to your wife for her birthday. Yes. I see. Are there any other birthday presents that Kristen's received that you would like to take back? No, I feel pretty good about the other ones. Any other gestures of generosity that you would like me to roll back?

No, that's why this first one is so weird. It kind of feels weird. Tom, is it normal? in your league for people to be making trades with each other as a favor? We don't make a whole lot of trades at all, actually. This is a very not active league in terms of making moves. If I were in a fantasy sports league and one owner made a knowingly bad trade with another owner as a favor to the other owner, whether it was their birthday or not,

I would be pretty annoyed. It sounds like your commissioner only improved. because it turned out to be in his self-interest to weaken your team. Well, now, I want to ask you a question, Jesse, because this is obviously something I have no familiarity with. Like, if Tom and Kristen, Tom has second thoughts about this trade, right? Obviously. That's why we're here.

But let's say he didn't. Tom and Kristen came to an agreement. Maybe she put emotional pressure on him. maybe he drove a harder bargain on her than she wanted. But ultimately, they had a handshake, they had an agreement. Who cares about the motives? Why would a commissioner give a hoot? It's collusion.

It's a team not acting in its own best interests. If a team isn't acting in its own best interests, you can't trust the competition in the league. if you had two owners who decided to make one of the teams super strong, they could do that if they wanted to. Let's say they lived in the same house and were in love. And so they had an outside-the-league reason to make one of the teams strong. They could just do that. I mean, usually in professional sports, the premise of the thing is that everyone is trying to win. There's something I don't understand about these players, obviously.

Is this a clear-cut case of one team has gotten purposefully worse in order to make Kristen happy? Is that based on the players that are being traded? That's what their co-commissioner just testified to. The co-commissioner just testified to the fact that he only approved this trade, despite it being so off-the-charts bad, because he figured a guy was doing a favor for his wife. What made it off the charts bad? I thought James Cook wasn't even considered to be that strong a player until he had this incredible season.

Yeah, it comes down to the positioning. So you would take running backs first in like round one, round two, maybe round three, because there are so limited of them that perform to a high level. And you might let a quarterback slip to round seven or eight. So just by virtue of their positioning, James Cook is a more valuable player in fantasy football than Mayfield is because Mayfield is a quarterback. Did co-commissioners Eric's worries come true?

Do you have a much weaker team, an underperforming team and a loser team, shall we say, full of weaklings like Weedy McGirk and broken down model team, McGillacuddy or whatever? Because you gave James Cook to your wife as a birthday present? Kristen won first place in this particular season. So I think it's a pretty strong argument that under coercion, I gave her a player that helped her win the entire league, which ended up being against Eric's own interests, even though he approved the trade. And I finished third, so I'm no slouch either. I didn't lose much by giving up James Cook because I worked the waiver wire so much to get

other players. But I had to make a lot of moves to compensate for losing a starting back. Which of these chickens came in second? Oh. Desmond. Desmond. Desmond. Desmond. One of Eric's friends, actually. Wow. Yeah, I know. Right. Desmond, huh? Tom, if I heard a rule in your favor, what would you have me rule? What would I, what would what would you have me sentence? Strip Kristen of her title? No, no, she absolutely earned it otherwise. I mean, there's so many other factors. It doesn't sound like you believe it. Doesn't sound like Eric believes it.

It doesn't sound like Jesse believes it. It all sounds like there's no way this woman could have won the league unless she had used feminine and spousal wiles to trick you into illegal collusion. So why shouldn't I strip her of her title? Fantasy football, much like real football, does not come down to one player. It's not quarterback versus quarterback.

It's team versus team. So Kristen did a really good, job of drafting otherwise and making moves otherwise. She took a chance on Christian McCaffrey, who historically, he's been like made of glass. He gets injured all the time. But she decided to take that chance and it paid off huge. That was a managerial decision. The only more fragile player in the NFL is Mr. Glass from the M. Knight Shammelon movies. So I think she did a great job. She earned the number one spot. I just think that maybe, I don't know, 10% of the credit goes to me for making the trade go through.

She didn't have to scramble for a running back because I gave her one that is an absolute stalwart on any roster, 100%. So you're saying 10% of her victory is due to the trade that you made. Yes. You made the trade under duress of emotional manipulation vis-a-vis her birthday request. And also that we didn't actually agree on it firmly. We discussed it several times. And I definitely said a number of times, Mayfield for Cook, not an even trade.

You have to sweeten the pot. Well, right. And she did. And you accepted that trade. So the trade was made. You did eventually agree to the trade. Yes. Unless she, like a succubus, snuck it out of you in the middle of the night.

No, not quite. I definitely agreed in full knowing and full willing. Agreed because I was, I don't know. So retroactively, you're looking for an even sweet. sweeter pot now. I think next year would be nice. The pot sweetener of punishment. Judge Hodgman, there's no question that they're both wrong.

Collusion takes two parties. Yes. He's asserting that the bad thing he did to cheat on behalf of his wife was because his wife insisted it was her birthday. She's asserting that he did it because he's dumb. Right. Well, either way, I just want to know what damages you want me to award you if I were to rule in your favor. Yeah, we kind of talked about that a little bit, and there's some fantasy football related ones.

But the thing I really want, I'm a big Max Fun fan, not to pander to everything. I'm a max phone donor and everything. And the reason. I'm sorry? Pander away. I was just distracted because my cat scratch was a little itchy right then. Anyway, go on. Thank you very much for being a member of Maximum Fun.

Yeah, it's my pleasure. The reason that I got into Max Fun and subsequently into the J.J. Hoa podcast is from the Adventure Zone. And I think the balance arc is one of my favorite things in the world. I listen to it annually. And I would like for her to listen to that as damages. You know that in United States law and in the court of Judge John Hodgman law, there is still rules against cruel and unusual punishment. just kidding

McElroy's love the McElroy's love you friends is that is but I mean Kristen for you is that cruel

and unusual punishment I don't know if I'd call it cruel and unusual but it's it would be hard for me to do

I have a hard time consuming audio media and paying attention to it so I will listen to it but if he asks me Because of how you process auditory information because you're too busy debreeding wounds. Yeah, it's a lot about the wounds that distracts. It's not because you're not enough of a nerd to listen to a Dungeons and Dragons podcast.

No. You right now are wearing a t-shirt with a centaur on it. Yes. I am that much of a nerd. I just, I feel like it's a very long commitment. And I think if at any point he wants to talk about what I think about it, I won't have retained enough to to have a good, worthy conversation. Have you ever considered either of you just playing fantasy fantasy?

We did on New Year's Eve. What did you do? I ran a DCC game for our neighbors and two jobs. What's DCC? It's called Dungeon Crawl Classics. It's kind of based on the original D&D where you're not like, you know, you play like a DOR for a cleric or whatever.

Oh, that's cool. Yeah, it was fun. All right. Good. What was your character? Oh, you were the game at. Game Master, right. Kristen, did you play?

She had the best character. I don't even remember his name. Was it Meguffin or whatever? Oh, yeah. My neighbor and I were conjoined twins. And one of us was chaotic good and one was chaotic evil.

Lawful. Why didn't you bring this to my podcast so I could understand what you were talking about? We're free tomorrow. If I were to rule in your favor, Kristen, what would you have me rule? Well, I would like the satisfaction

of just, knowing that I made a good decision, I made a good trade, and I won fair and square. But I would like the ruling to be that we host a Super Bowl party every year. And I would like Tom to be in charge of cleanup and putting our daughter to bed during the Super Bowl party. I think I've heard everything I need to in order to make my decision. I'm going to take my fart jokes into my personal chicken run, follow the mealworms to the right conclusion.

I'll be back in a moment with my verdict. Please rise as Judge John Hodgman exits the courtroom. Kristen, how are you feeling about your chances right now? Pretty good. I feel like I have a solid argument. Which is that you remember something that your husband doesn't remember? Yeah, that's often the case. Kristen, why didn't you lock it down?

Why didn't you shake hands or something? Why didn't you put it in an email? Because I trust this man. You trusted that he would go through with the agreement, but you don't trust now that he doesn't believe that he made an agreement. No, now having been through this event, everything will be in writing from now on. Tom, why are you lying? It's what husbands do, man. Why do you think we have such a good marriage?

No, I really thought that the evidence that I presented with Eric saying it's not a good trade would be evidence enough to have some validation. that I've been saying it's not a good trade. Tom, how do you feel about your chances right now? Honestly, 50-50, because I know that it tends to go toward the wife's direction in these couples. But I think the truth is on my side. We didn't have a real binding agreement. Well, Judge Hodgman is flipping a giant commemorative coin right now. We'll see what he has to say when we come back in just a second.

Judge John Hodgeman, we have two excited. opportunities for our listeners to experience the Judge John Hodgman experience live and in real life. The first is in your own Brooklyn, New York City. That's right. Judge John Hodgman and Bail of Jesse Thorne are returning home to the Bell House in Gawannis, Brooklyn, for two amazing and intimate shows, something that we're calling Nightcourt. We might bring this to your city, even if you don't live in Brooklyn, New York City. Intimacy is the key word here. This is going to be a borderline romantic program.

All right. Well, we're not going to be in the nude. I'm still going to wear my robes. But it's going to be a night of- I'm going to wear a little thing. It's going to be a night of song, comedy, crowdwork, and justice in a unrestrained late-night environment down by a canal. Yeah.

It's Judge John Hodgman and Bailey Jesse Thorne Nightcourt. You're going to want to be there. It's going to be there. lot of fun. We're going to really let loose and it's going to be happening this March. What are the dates, Jesse? Friday, March 6th, Saturday, March 7th at the bell house. You can find the ticket links at maximum fun.org slash events. And speaking of waterways, John, we're headed to see. That's right. I mentioned it earlier in this episode. Jesse and I are going to join the crew of the good Grace Bailey, a historic wooden schooner sailing out of Rockland, Maine, June 14th,

for four nights. It's a very small... Speaking of intimate, very small ship. Close quarters where we'll be chatting with you and dispensing justice as needed on the decks of a beautiful sailing ship as it cruises with the wind through the most beautiful Penobscot Bay. And I hope that you will join us. It'll be a lot of fun. And you can find out more information right now by going to

sailgracebailey.com. John, this is like a 20 people or so on this ship. passengers. Yep. That gives you a roughly one in 20 chance if you come on the ship of being keel hauled

because we will keel haul one passenger. Throw them over the front of the ship so they get raked over the barnacles on this hull of the ship to the back,

the keel of the ship where they will pop up on the surface dead. That may not be true but it definitely is a promise maritime law will be dispensed. as well as good times and good company on the great Grace Bailey

wooden sailing schooner, salegracebailey.com. And remember, come see me and Jesse Thorne in Brooklyn at the Bell House for some really wild off-the-chain fun. It's night court, March 6 and 7th, Saturday and Friday. Maximumfund.org slash events for your tickets right now. Let's get back to the case. Please rise as Judge John Hodgman re-enters the courtroom and presents his verdict.

First of all, I want to give myself credit for understanding as much as that as I did. There are two parts of this. One is, was there an agreement made? And was that agreement clear and agreed to by both parties? And then there's the second issue, which, frankly, I understand much less than I understand the first issue, which is, was the agreement once made even fair? Like, should it have not been made at all? even if Tom and Kristen were 100% on board with their memory of an agreement to the contract in principle,

should the contract have been annulled before it even was made by co-commissioner Eric because of the issue that Jesse raises, which is that it constitutes collusion. I don't know your fantasy football league's bylaws. And I don't understand it. but I understand when Jesse Thorne is upset about something, and he usually has very good reason to be. So even though I don't understand the collusion aspect of this, I do take it very seriously.

And I think that it all goes to show that your fantasy football league is basically run with the same level of precision and professionalism as a bunch of chickens chasing some mealworms through a backyard. as I pointed out, even that, like, that is, that is clearly unfair on its face. Because these chickens aren't in a neutral environment racing. They're following mealworms being held by one person. Some of them might like that person. Some of them might not like that person.

You got two commissioners, both of whom are also players, doubly violating the Francesco Hogi rule. There may well be collusion. And I have to agree with Jesse because he knows more about this than I do, that there was something stinky about this trade from the get-go and that it shouldn't have happened. And there should be a commissioner who understands, and it shouldn't be me, but who understands what Jesse understands and who also doesn't have a chicken in this race,

if you understand what I'm saying. because Eric is a co-commissioner and player too. And whether or not he approves this might affect his own season. That's not reasonable. So I'm throwing all of his evidence out, which leads us to the question of whether or not an agreement was made. And I'll say this. This whole agreement-making process itself was a mess.

you, I think both have reasonable arguments for why you understood the agreement to be something other than what it was initially. You know, like, I think on the one hand, you know, Kristen, I understand why in your frame of mind, when you texted your husband, make sure to draft James Cook after you had already emotionally manipulative. him via your birthday, that that would come to you as your birthday present, your precious ring that you could, in true fantasy form a covet in your underground swampy layer like Ghalm. But much like Bill Bowdo Baggins played a trick on Gullum in the riddle game, he did ask two riddles in one, and that was not fair. so Tom outwitted you, frankly, in a fair way by not offering you a solid commitment to trade James Cook for Mayfield,

but instead leaving it open and holding on to his precious prize until he could get more out of you, the second player. But it was an agreement. And the proof is it got made. It was done. The trade happened. It was submitted to the corrupt Eric for approval who snidly agreed to it. And it went into effect.

She got James Cook and took the tournay. All's fair in love and fantasy football. I am going to say that this was a fair trade because it was made. I am going to say that the whole system is out of order and needs to be broken down and restarted and you can submit your new bylaws and proposition for commissioner to me you have to choose someone who knows what you're talking about

who is not playing to be the commissioner to approve trades in the future and you need to submit to me who that person will be and don't make up a name like Jet Pilot McGomagall or whatever. I'm willing to email Chuck Gloucesterman. He has a new book about football.

I can't promise to say yes, but I'm willing to send the email. And I will say that, you know, since you're both guilty, this really comes down to a question of who is more guilty than the other. Kristen, I think that the implication of what you wanted out of this trade was clear. You made it clear when you demanded. a human being as your birthday present or a fantasy version of that human being. And he gave it to you.

But you didn't get in writing what you were trading in return. And that's on you, ultimately. You know, caveat traitor, I guess is what I mean to say. Trader beware. If you wanted, if you wanted

this trade to be up and up, you needed to get this in writing. But as it happened, Kristen won. So she got the better of the deal. Kristen, if you want to make a trade like this in the future, you got to get it in writing. And you got to get it approved by a fair commissioner. And I'm only punishing you because I need to support the McElroy's and maximum fun. Fair. You got to listen to at least three hours of that stuff.

Just as a touch the hot stove reminder. and get what you want in writing. Because we now know, Tom is slippery. You don't know what. Tom probably juiced those chickens before he even put the scoop into the mealworms. You don't know. And I demand that you and the rest of the players get down, put some bylaws in order, and appoint a commissioner who is a non-player character, who knows what they're doing

so that this can be avoided in the future. But in the meantime, I'm ordering in Tom's favor. I guess. You've got to listen to some adventure zone. Three hours. I think that that's reasonable. This is the sound of a gabble. Hey, somebody has run out on the field.

Some goofball in a hat and a red shirt. Now he takes off the shirt. He's running down the middle by the 50. He's at the 30. He's bare chested and banging his chest. Now he runs the opposite way. He runs at the 50. He runs at the 40.

The guy is drunk. But there he goes. The 20. They're chasing him. They're not going to get him. waving his arms, bare-chested. Somebody stop that man. Here comes the blue coat, Kevin.

Oh, they got him. Here comes the blue coats. Oh, where they tackle him at the 40-yard line? That is all. Judge Hodgman, I have a very unusual supplementary request. This is one of the first times I've ever submitted a supplementary judgment request. I'll allow it. I mean, as we've discussed, I think, on the show, in rotisserie baseball, the fantasy sport that I'm most passionate about,

The historical precedent was that the winner would get a bottle of Yoo poored over their head. I heard you suggest that the winner of this league maybe should get Gatorade poured over their head. It makes a ton of sense to me. Since you're acting commissioner right now, you could just order that. I just think it's a good idea. That I should order that Tom pour a bottle of Gatorade over Kristen's head in celebration and punishment? That each year at the draft, which is... traditionally when it's done.

Yeah. The previous year's champion has Gatorade poured over their head. You know what? I'm going to let Kristen decide. Would you rather have a bottle of Gatorade poured over your head or listen to three hours of the McElroy brothers? Think carefully. I think I'm going to pick Adventure Zone. That's my order then.

But I take Jesse's request under advisement and please put it in the bylaws. Something's got to be poured over the someone's head eventually. Can it be mailworms? It's got to be something sticky. Right. Otherwise, what's the point? This isn't fantasy survivor. This is fantasy.

This is fantasy football. Tom, how do you feel about this verdict? I think it's fair. Yeah, I just wanted to drudge up this old wound as much as I possibly can. It's all about wounds. It's all about fun. Damn it. Kristen, how are you going to address this wound?

Fair points were made. I'm going to take it. Tom, Kristen, thank you for joining us on the Judge John Hodgman podcast. Go bills. Go bills. Another Judge John Hodgman case is in the books.

We've got swift justice in just a second. Our thanks to Redator's Wilcox Chaffam and Hey You 11 for naming this week's episode. Join the conversation on the Maximum Fun subreddit. That's at R slash maximum fun. Evidence and photos from the show on Instagram at Judge John. John Hodgman. We're also on TikTok and YouTube at Judge John Hodgman Pod. Follow and subscribe to see our episodes and video only content. I'm posted on, I'm posted, start posting on TikTok. Jesse Thorne, very famous over there. Yeah, Jesse Thorne's making some engaging content over on

TikTok. Over on the website, TikTok. It's actually an application, telephone application, TikTok. Yeah. Yeah. You call it up. You're like, hello, computer. Give me TikTok. What's our YouTube comment of the week, John? Our YouTube comment of the week today comes from Gauden W-F-E-M-A-N-W-F-E-M-A-N who commented on our recent episode

Out-W-E-E-M-A-N, out-Judge, I referenced it earlier. It was our episode about a fantasy Survivor League with our expert witness Survivor legend Francesca Hoagie. And that was so much a fun episode.

And we talked about other reality competition shows and gowdowne Feman figured out the way to my heart by commenting, Judge, I think you'd be fantastic on the traitors. Would you want to be a faithful or a traitor? Thank you for that comment, Gow Don. I agree. I would also be fantastic on the traitors.

I would love to be on that show. And when I think about this very important question, and those of you who are watching the traders, know what I'm talking about. And if you don't, I don't know, Google something. I don't know that I could handle being, a traitor, honestly. That would be, I would have to, that would mean that I would to lie to people's faces 24 hours a day, or at least the 12 hours a day that we're shooting in the castle, not the

eight hours that were asleep in the best Western by the airport. But I think I would have a very hard time keeping a straight face and lying to people's faces. So I guess I think I would be a bad traitor, but I think I would be a, I would love to be a traitor, but I'd be bad at it. I'd be a very good faithful. So hire me, Peacock. I'm in wardrobe. Alan Cumming. Get at me. Judge John Hodgman created by Jesse Thorne and John Hodgman. This episode engineered by Cullen Bollinger and Max Fabian, a tightrope recording in Chicago, Illinois. Megan Rosati runs our social media. The podcast is edited by AJ McKeon. Our video editor is Daniel Spear. Our producer is Jennifer Marmer. All right, swift justice. Job 601 on the Max Fund subreddit says, is go for the gusto a real

phrase. My wife and children say it isn't. I think it is. Go for the gusto is a real phrase. It was popularized in the early 70s as the tagline for Schlitt's beer. Their sub-tagline was get as much gusto as you can. And boy, oh boy, do I agree with that. That seems troubling. I'm going to be frank. Seems like a short road to the hospital. Go get that gusto, everybody. I agree. Get as much gusto as you can. Wow.

As we record, this culture at large is focused on one sport obsessively, and it's not football, despite what you might be hearing about the big game. I'm talking about hockey. You know I'm a big fan of extinct hockey teams. I'm also a big fan of fictional hockey teams, specifically the fictional world of the hockey romance show, heated rivalry. Have you seen this one, Jesse Thorne? I just found out that heated rivalry is run by the creator of Letterkenny, and it is blowing my mind.

I understand that it just reflects the fact that there's only four people with jobs in Canadian entertainment in any given time. But still, it is mind-blowing that the creator of the very strange and specific rural Canada odd language comedy, Letterkenny. Right. who created this romance novel TV show. To be clear, Letterkenny was co-created by Jacob Tierney, the creator of heated rivalry. The co-creator of Letterkenny is Jared Kesa, who also stars in it and stars in the spin-off Shorzy.

But you're absolutely right. Like, for two very hockey-oriented pieces of Canadian fictional culture, thematically and tonally, they could not be more different and yet equally delightful and boy, oh boy, as he did rivalry, an incredibly funny, interesting,

frank, and very, very moving and very romantic story about two hockey players who are secretly in love with one another. And I strong recommend. And I want to hear

some sports-related and romance-related disputes from you. If you're still at the cottage, you know what I mean. Did you, how many burgers are too many?

for two people. Are you disappointed in real life hockey because there's not enough silent yearning? Valentine's Day is around the corner. Don't forget the most romantic gift you could give your partner a fake internet court summons. Submit your sports romance

and hockey disputes and ginger ale as well to Judge John Hodgman at maximum fund.org slash JJHO. It can't just be about my romance with San Francisco Giants center fielder Jung Hulie. It can be.

Gorgeous. Did you fall in love at a sports game? The grandson of the wind, do they call him? Did you fall out of love playing fantasy football? Let us know, Maximumfund.org slash JGH. That's where you can send in all those disputes. I think we're going to get an email about from my middle school friend, Adam Katz.

It's just going to be about our rotisserie baseball league from when we were 12. We're, of course, excited to hear your disputes on any subject. So please send them to us at maximum fund.org slash jj-j-h-o. Make sure to mention, by the way, if you live in the New York City area, who knows? Maybe you'll end up on one of our New York City shows. But no matter where you live, maximum fund.org slash j-j-j-ho is the place to go. We'll talk to you next time on the Judge Sean Hodgman podcast. Maximum Fun.

A worker-owned network. Of artists-owned shows. Supported directly by you.