Is this kinda collusion? What would you do? (1 Viewer)

[grantsa4]

So, I am in an 12 ESPN redraft league and I am tied for 1st place. My team like so many others has had it's hits this year - lost Romo, lost Finley, lost Mark Clayton.

I still have good depth at wr - Nicks, Megatron, Mike Williams (TB), Bryant and am ok in other positions but have looked into getting a new qb from weaker teams.

In this league it allows 2 days for other teams to agree or veto on a trade proposal and I have submitted 2 trades -

I get Rodgers, they get Megatron and Matt Cassel - their team hasn't won 1 game

and then the 2nd trade offer to a different team was I get Rivers and Ocho and they get Megatron and Bryant.

Both trades were accepted but vetoed by what appears to be 5 teams that have good records - a bunch of guys that work together and obviously wouldn't want the top team to get a top qb. I currently have Cassel and Favre - yes, ugly.

So, does this seem like some kind of collusion?

Are those 2 trades fair?

I hope I can still take this league and kick these jacka**es butts.

Sorry for venting.

 

[Sam Quentin]

this is why voting on trades sucks

 

[dagwood]

this is why voting on trades sucks

+1

 

[ourmanflint]

So, I am in an 12 ESPN redraft league and I am tied for 1st place. My team like so many others has had it's hits this year - lost Romo, lost Finley, lost Mark Clayton.I still have good depth at wr - Nicks, Megatron, Mike Williams (TB), Bryant and am ok in other positions but have looked into getting a new qb from weaker teams.In this league it allows 2 days for other teams to agree or veto on a trade proposal and I have submitted 2 trades -I get Rodgers, they get Megatron and Matt Cassel - their team hasn't won 1 gameand then the 2nd trade offer to a different team was I get Rivers and Ocho and they get Megatron and Bryant.Both trades were accepted but vetoed by what appears to be 5 teams that have good records - a bunch of guys that work together and obviously wouldn't want the top team to get a top qb. I currently have Cassel and Favre - yes, ugly.So, does this seem like some kind of collusion? Are those 2 trades fair?I hope I can still take this league and kick these jacka**es butts.Sorry for venting.

It isn't collusion in the sense they are ganging up to win the league.They are probably sending private messages to each other urging to veto. Deal with it. It's the league you're in. Your receivers are awesome. I hope your backs are as well. Pick up a QB off the waiver wire and shut em up. Plenty there that could punch your ticket.

 

[Chaka]

this is why voting on trades sucks

No worse than commissioners who think the way they value players is superior than the parties involved in the trade.Neither system is perfect.Probably should let all trades pass so long as both parties involved agree to the deal, unfortunately that raises the host of problems that necessitates some form of review.And the circle of FF life continues.

 

[dagwood]

this is why voting on trades sucks

No worse than commissioners who think the way they value players is superior than the parties involved in the trade.Neither system is perfect.Probably should let all trades pass so long as both parties involved agree to the deal, unfortunately that raises the host of problems that necessitates some form of review.And the circle of FF life continues.

Not really.All trades pass if no collusion is involved. This should be the standard.

 

[lynx4ben]

this is why voting on trades sucks

No worse than commissioners who think the way they value players is superior than the parties involved in the trade.Neither system is perfect.Probably should let all trades pass so long as both parties involved agree to the deal, unfortunately that raises the host of problems that necessitates some form of review.And the circle of FF life continues.

Not really.All trades pass if no collusion is involved. This should be the standard.

True, I commish 3 dynos. I've vetoed two trades ever that were obvious mistakes. I don't weigh in on trades; well not until after the fact when I give a dude a good ribbing. But that's standard trash talk.Oh and as for the OP's situation. I would be pissed and would probably complain to the league followed by quitting the next year. I don't play in leagues with owners who do such things. I used to play a lot on FantasyBowl which is a $$ site with random people. Every year the first few trades get vetoed for whatever reason. It's freaken annoying. I now only play one league through their site with a few good owners that I've met over time. Everything else is now MFL with commish approval. I still like commish approval for the case of a mistake. If automatic approval went through someone will quickly make a moved based on a trade mistake and then use the excuse 'I can't have my trade reversed now... I traded that player or dropped so and so'.

 

[Chaka]

this is why voting on trades sucks

No worse than commissioners who think the way they value players is superior than the parties involved in the trade.Neither system is perfect.Probably should let all trades pass so long as both parties involved agree to the deal, unfortunately that raises the host of problems that necessitates some form of review.And the circle of FF life continues.

Not really.All trades pass if no collusion is involved. This should be the standard.

I never veto trades but how do you determine collusion?Plenty of totalitarian commissioners out there who 1) either think they are better at valuing players than the people trading 2) worry more about competitive balance in the league than whether a trade is fair or collusive 3) allow their own personal interest to influence their decisions.We hear about that just as much as trades going to a vote and getting vetoed, if not more.Allowing all trades to go through is probably the best way to go, but it opens the door to open collusion. It's tough to get it right.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Now imaging the NFL allowed teams to veto trades.

 

[lynx4ben]

this is why voting on trades sucks

No worse than commissioners who think the way they value players is superior than the parties involved in the trade.Neither system is perfect.Probably should let all trades pass so long as both parties involved agree to the deal, unfortunately that raises the host of problems that necessitates some form of review.And the circle of FF life continues.

Not really.All trades pass if no collusion is involved. This should be the standard.

I never veto trades but how do you determine collusion?Plenty of totalitarian commissioners out there who 1) either think they are better at valuing players than the people trading 2) worry more about competitive balance in the league than whether a trade is fair or collusive 3) allow their own personal interest to influence their decisions.We hear about that just as much as trades going to a vote and getting vetoed, if not more.Allowing all trades to go through is probably the best way to go, but it opens the door to open collusion. It's tough to get it right.

See thats what I don't get. How are there so many bad commishioners? I think it's pretty easy to be an unbiased commish and not scr3w people over. I think this all comes from lack of league planning. Get a committee to agree upon league rules upfront and pick a commish that has a solid reputation.

 

[Chaka]

this is why voting on trades sucks

No worse than commissioners who think the way they value players is superior than the parties involved in the trade.Neither system is perfect.Probably should let all trades pass so long as both parties involved agree to the deal, unfortunately that raises the host of problems that necessitates some form of review.And the circle of FF life continues.

Not really.All trades pass if no collusion is involved. This should be the standard.

I never veto trades but how do you determine collusion?Plenty of totalitarian commissioners out there who 1) either think they are better at valuing players than the people trading 2) worry more about competitive balance in the league than whether a trade is fair or collusive 3) allow their own personal interest to influence their decisions.We hear about that just as much as trades going to a vote and getting vetoed, if not more.Allowing all trades to go through is probably the best way to go, but it opens the door to open collusion. It's tough to get it right.

See thats what I don't get. How are there so many bad commishioners? I think it's pretty easy to be an unbiased commish and not scr3w people over. I think this all comes from lack of league planning. Get a committee to agree upon league rules upfront and pick a commish that has a solid reputation.

It's because people are inherently self serving. It is very difficult to put away bias particularly when you might be negatively impacted in doing so.It's a shame but unless your commish is a devout Buddhist or completely apathetic you are going to run into problems.

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

Both trade offers are more than fair.

But you're in a league that allows votes on trades. It sucks but it is what it is.

Why would your competition want you to get a stud QB (even if it does mean you're losing Calvin Johnson)?

I guess it's not totally "fair" in the sense that they're obviously vetoing the trades in order to screw your team.

Next time join a sensible league without trade voting.

 

[dhockster]

See thats what I don't get. How are there so many bad commishioners? I think it's pretty easy to be an unbiased commish and not scr3w people over. I think this all comes from lack of league planning. Get a committee to agree upon league rules upfront and pick a commish that has a solid reputation.

It's because people are inherently self serving. It is very difficult to put away bias particularly when you might be negatively impacted in doing so.It's a shame but unless your commish is a devout Buddhist or completely apathetic you are going to run into problems.

I don't think this is true. If the league rules state that the commissioner can only veto trades based on collusion, then he should have to show the league how any trade he vetoed was collusion. If he can't then he shouldn't have vetoed the trade. I have never been in a league with a collusion veto rule where the commissioner was vetoing trades that weren't collusion. I find it hard to believe that this is going on as much as you seem to think it is.

 

[Black]

Letting other teams vote on trades is not a good rule.

If teams CAN veto trades, they WILL veto trades.

There is an old saying about something a dog can do...

 

[grantsa4]

Thanks for all the feedback guys - very much appreciated. I've learned my lesson and won't be making the same mistake next season

 

[krugoh]

Not really a matter of collusion...

It's typically frowned upon for teams in contention to trade with teams that won't (in redraft).

For redraft, they can't even "prepare for next year" so to say with keepers... It's almost as if they have nothing to lose with trading.

 

[grantsa4]

Not really a matter of collusion...It's typically frowned upon for teams in contention to trade with teams that won't (in redraft).For redraft, they can't even "prepare for next year" so to say with keepers... It's almost as if they have nothing to lose with trading.

Why should it be frowned upon? Isn't the goal to have as strong a team as possible? Why is a team penalised because they have something to offer in fair trade with a less wealthy team - all the other stronger teams could make trade offers as well. I would understand if the trade wasn't fair value, but in the case that it is, a trade should go through and not be vetoed because other teams don't want you to be stronger.

 

[lynx4ben]

I never veto trades but how do you determine collusion?Plenty of totalitarian commissioners out there who 1) either think they are better at valuing players than the people trading 2) worry more about competitive balance in the league than whether a trade is fair or collusive 3) allow their own personal interest to influence their decisions.We hear about that just as much as trades going to a vote and getting vetoed, if not more.Allowing all trades to go through is probably the best way to go, but it opens the door to open collusion. It's tough to get it right.

See thats what I don't get. How are there so many bad commishioners? I think it's pretty easy to be an unbiased commish and not scr3w people over. I think this all comes from lack of league planning. Get a committee to agree upon league rules upfront and pick a commish that has a solid reputation.

It's because people are inherently self serving. It is very difficult to put away bias particularly when you might be negatively impacted in doing so.It's a shame but unless your commish is a devout Buddhist or completely apathetic you are going to run into problems.

I guess. Last summer I made a trade where I thought I was receiving a 2011 first round pick in return for two 2010 seconds. I realized two days later that the 2011 pick was a 2012 pick and I was also throwing in Austin Collie. After two days I would handle it the same as anyone else... At this point I can't tell the difference between buyers remorse and a honest mistake.Obviously I know it was was a mistake as I made it. However, I can't just overturn it because I'm the commish and set a bad precident. It's unfortunate that others wouldn't do the same.

 

[redBourne]

Not really a matter of collusion...It's typically frowned upon for teams in contention to trade with teams that won't (in redraft).For redraft, they can't even "prepare for next year" so to say with keepers... It's almost as if they have nothing to lose with trading.

Why should it be frowned upon? Isn't the goal to have as strong a team as possible? Why is a team penalised because they have something to offer in fair trade with a less wealthy team - all the other stronger teams could make trade offers as well. I would understand if the trade wasn't fair value, but in the case that it is, a trade should go through and not be vetoed because other teams don't want you to be stronger.

It shouldn't but it is. Since this is a fantasy league any stakes you had going in are already lost. If you have league payouts most likely a bottom feeder isn't getting any of those. In a redraft league, there is absolutely nothing a bottom feeder team has to gain other than pride. Going back to "it's just a fantasy league" and you will find owners at this stage won't be losing much pride or sleep over their team. They only thing you have left is whether an owner has a grudge against someone else or the league by some previous altercation or waiver wire pickup. Or maybe they just like to stir the pot. The best rule for a redraft, that I can think of, would be to lock trades from any and all teams that are mathmatically eliminated from the playoffs. This doesn't help the OP though. For the OP, the most you can do is bring your concerns to the league. If they won't budge on their stance, then it's likely they'll face the same situation again at a later date. Will this push others out of the league after you're gone? Perhaps, but it's no longer your concern.

 

[Chaka]

Letting other teams vote on trades is not a good rule.If teams CAN veto trades, they WILL veto trades.There is an old saying about something a dog can do...

I have never seen this happen.Others have.

 

[Chaka]

See thats what I don't get. How are there so many bad commishioners? I think it's pretty easy to be an unbiased commish and not scr3w people over. I think this all comes from lack of league planning. Get a committee to agree upon league rules upfront and pick a commish that has a solid reputation.

It's because people are inherently self serving. It is very difficult to put away bias particularly when you might be negatively impacted in doing so.It's a shame but unless your commish is a devout Buddhist or completely apathetic you are going to run into problems.

I don't think this is true. If the league rules state that the commissioner can only veto trades based on collusion, then he should have to show the league how any trade he vetoed was collusion. If he can't then he shouldn't have vetoed the trade. I have never been in a league with a collusion veto rule where the commissioner was vetoing trades that weren't collusion. I find it hard to believe that this is going on as much as you seem to think it is.

Which is why I said earlier that leagues should probably let all trades pass because you simply can never prove collusion. Well I guess you could with a couple subpoenas of e-mail records and getting people to testify under oath and with severe penalties for perjury.

 

[Chaka]

Letting other teams vote on trades is not a good rule.If teams CAN veto trades, they WILL veto trades.There is an old saying about something a dog can do...

Giving commissioners full veto authority eventually leads to invoking Godwin's law.If a commish is getting full veto authority he should not also be an owner in the league.

 

[dagwood]

this is why voting on trades sucks

No worse than commissioners who think the way they value players is superior than the parties involved in the trade.Neither system is perfect.Probably should let all trades pass so long as both parties involved agree to the deal, unfortunately that raises the host of problems that necessitates some form of review.And the circle of FF life continues.

Not really.All trades pass if no collusion is involved. This should be the standard.

I never veto trades but how do you determine collusion?Plenty of totalitarian commissioners out there who 1) either think they are better at valuing players than the people trading 2) worry more about competitive balance in the league than whether a trade is fair or collusive 3) allow their own personal interest to influence their decisions.We hear about that just as much as trades going to a vote and getting vetoed, if not more.Allowing all trades to go through is probably the best way to go, but it opens the door to open collusion. It's tough to get it right.

Not really. Open Collusion would result in trade being disallowed.

 

[Chaka]

this is why voting on trades sucks

No worse than commissioners who think the way they value players is superior than the parties involved in the trade.Neither system is perfect.Probably should let all trades pass so long as both parties involved agree to the deal, unfortunately that raises the host of problems that necessitates some form of review.And the circle of FF life continues.

Not really.All trades pass if no collusion is involved. This should be the standard.

I never veto trades but how do you determine collusion?Plenty of totalitarian commissioners out there who 1) either think they are better at valuing players than the people trading 2) worry more about competitive balance in the league than whether a trade is fair or collusive 3) allow their own personal interest to influence their decisions.We hear about that just as much as trades going to a vote and getting vetoed, if not more.Allowing all trades to go through is probably the best way to go, but it opens the door to open collusion. It's tough to get it right.

Not really. Open Collusion would result in trade being disallowed.

Proving collusion is a myth like the Loch Ness Monster or the female orgasm.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Letting other teams vote on trades is not a good rule.If teams CAN veto trades, they WILL veto trades.There is an old saying about something a dog can do...

I have never seen this happen.Others have.

I'll be honest. When I used to play in leagues that allowed voting, I'd vote against trades if it hurt my team. My job as an owner is to do what is in my team's best interests within the rules. If you give me that power, I feel like I have to use it to help my team. Otherwise I'm not doing my job. I'm my team's only fan, and I have to act in its best interest.I'm against teams voting on trades and lobbied against it, but I'm not going to purposely hurt my own team. If a trade made someone in my division (or a playoff spot rival) stronger, I voted against it. Anything else is falling on your sword while other teams get stronger. Noble, but stupid.I think the best system is to let the commissioner handle it. Either you trust your commissioner or you don't. If you don't, get a new one. If you do, it's not an issue. A good commissioner will almost never veto a trade, but if they do it's pretty much a consensus amongst the other parties that something fishy is up. And that's happened as well (an owner knows he's not playing next year so he subtly guts his team to help a buddy). In those cases you have to have someone step in.

 

[FUBAR]

Letting other teams vote on trades is not a good rule.If teams CAN veto trades, they WILL veto trades.There is an old saying about something a dog can do...

I have never seen this happen.Others have.

I'll be honest. When I used to play in leagues that allowed voting, I'd vote against trades if it hurt my team. My job as an owner is to do what is in my team's best interests within the rules. If you give me that power, I feel like I have to use it to help my team. Otherwise I'm not doing my job. I'm my team's only fan, and I have to act in its best interest.I'm against teams voting on trades and lobbied against it, but I'm not going to purposely hurt my own team. If a trade made someone in my division (or a playoff spot rival) stronger, I voted against it. Anything else is falling on your sword while other teams get stronger. Noble, but stupid.I think the best system is to let the commissioner handle it. Either you trust your commissioner or you don't. If you don't, get a new one. If you do, it's not an issue. A good commissioner will almost never veto a trade, but if they do it's pretty much a consensus amongst the other parties that something fishy is up. And that's happened as well (an owner knows he's not playing next year so he subtly guts his team to help a buddy). In those cases you have to have someone step in.

Even in leagues where every owner goes into it not wanting to veto a trade, once their trade is voted against, they'll start vetoing anything that helps a competitor.

 

[SSOG]

Not really.All trades pass if no collusion is involved. This should be the standard.

Disagreed. What happens if one team that's been eliminated decides to trade Adrian Peterson to his buddy for Willis McGahee? It's not collusion because there's no under-the-table component- one owner approached the other owner with a trade offer, and the other owner accepted because it was a sweetheart of a deal. Or what if you've got a brand new guy who has never played fantasy football before, and a long-time vet offers him the #1 rated kicker for the #2 rated RB (because #1 is better than #2!), and the new guy accepts.Clearly there are some trades that are absolutely not kosher and should not under any circumstances be allowed, whether because they're predatory, or because one owner is deliberately attempting to undermine the competitive fabric of the league (even if he's not colluding with anyone else to do so).In the league that I commish, I have one simple rule- everyone must be making a good-faith effort to improve their team, end of story. If there's ever a lopsided trade, I should be able to ask both owners to honestly explain how they feel they are improving their teams. If both owners can offer a reasonable explanation (not one that I agree with, but one which is at least rationally defensible), then the trade goes through. If not, it doesn't.

 

[daveblev]

I have only vetoed 1 trade and it was in fantasy baseball. A guy traded a catcher for A-Rod because A-Rod was in a slump. He was trading him to the 1st place team whom I was gaining on. There may have been a little something to the fact that I was in a close 2nd to the guy as to why I vetoed it, but everybody else in the league did too. We all assumed the guy in 1st offered a catcher to the guy with A-Rod, but it was the other way around. After learning that we allowed it, but any time we made trades after that those 2 guys voted against it. Every time...without looking.

But both of these trades are fair. You need to have an outside commissioner to evaluate trades. Someone who isn't in the league and give only the info on the players, not what place the teams are in etc. Just this guy or these guys for this guy or these guys. Bummer for you.

 

[JohnnyU]

I never veto trades but how do you determine collusion?

Without reading any of the responses in this thread I bet you won't get any answers to this, because no one has any answers to this. I love it how easy it is for people to jump in and say, "all trades pass unless there is collussion", knowing full well they can't prove collusion.

 

[habsfan]

He couldn't possibly prove his theory but if it were true (hypothetically), how is five owners getting together to vote a certain way on a trade not collusion? It's the league setup, I get that and therefore people immediately jump to the "it's legal" defense but I would suggest it's counter to the spirit of the "setting". The intent of the voting system is to get 12 individual opinions on the "fairness" of the trade where the majority rules. It isn't meant to be used by a "cartel" of owners to keep things they don't like from happening. Again hypothetically, if you're not in the "club" you don't get your trade through. That's collusion regardless of what the setting says.

 

[Utter Chaos]

Yes, that definitely sounds like collusion to me. Five guys that work together vetoing a fair trade by the one team ahead of them in the standings? That's collusion.

Given the league rules there's probably not much you can do about it. Maybe keep on eye on FA QB's like Troy Smith or Shaun Hill. I can see Detroit being behind quite a bit and throwing the ball often.

 

[dhockster]

See thats what I don't get. How are there so many bad commishioners? I think it's pretty easy to be an unbiased commish and not scr3w people over. I think this all comes from lack of league planning. Get a committee to agree upon league rules upfront and pick a commish that has a solid reputation.

It's because people are inherently self serving. It is very difficult to put away bias particularly when you might be negatively impacted in doing so.It's a shame but unless your commish is a devout Buddhist or completely apathetic you are going to run into problems.

I don't think this is true. If the league rules state that the commissioner can only veto trades based on collusion, then he should have to show the league how any trade he vetoed was collusion. If he can't then he shouldn't have vetoed the trade. I have never been in a league with a collusion veto rule where the commissioner was vetoing trades that weren't collusion. I find it hard to believe that this is going on as much as you seem to think it is.

Which is why I said earlier that leagues should probably let all trades pass because you simply can never prove collusion. Well I guess you could with a couple subpoenas of e-mail records and getting people to testify under oath and with severe penalties for perjury.

I agree you would have a hard time proving it from a strictly legal standpoint.But consider the following situation:-Owner A and Owner B are best friends-Owner A is 6-3 and fighting for a playoff spot. Owner B is 1-8 and out of playoff contention.-Owner A trades Randy Moss to Owner B for Michael Vick. Owner B is left with Mark Sanchez as starting QB. He still has TO and Mike Wallace as his starting 2 receivers.-Owner A's previous starting QB was Donovan McNabb. He still has Bowe and Nicks as his starting WR's.-When asked why he did the trade, Owner B says he really thinks Randy Moss is going to come on late in the season and he thinks Michael Vick is overrated and likely to get injured.There is no definitive proof of collusion. However, I would have no problem with a commissioner ruling this trade invalid due to collusion. Owner B'sexplanation while possible seems very improbable. In light of the other factors, it appears that Owner B is trying to help Owner A improve his teamat the expense of his own team. That meets the definition of collusion in my eyes.Blatant collusion is pretty rare. But I still think it is important to give the commissioner the ability to veto a trade if he thinks collusion has occurred. Obviously, if the commissioner is vetoing a lot of trades then he probably is vetoing trades that are not collusion. If this happens I would find another leagueto play in. I have not experienced a commissioner who goes overboard on vetoes.

 

[gerome]

this is why voting on trades sucks

 

[two_dollars]

I will not veto a trade unless of course collusion is involved or it is overly lopsided (like the kicker for AP example). If it is borderline I ask each owner involved why they want to make the trade. I don't try to place value on players because everyone sees value differently. If I hear good explanations, the trade goes through. However, if there are a lot of people taking issue with either a veto or no veto, then we have a core of 4 owners who have been playing for 7 years or more who will discuss it. If one or both of the owners are involved in the trade they don't vote. We have a "toilet bowl" for those who don't make the playoffs, so everyone still has something to play for, so everyone can trade up to the deadline.

 

[Chaka]

Letting other teams vote on trades is not a good rule.If teams CAN veto trades, they WILL veto trades.There is an old saying about something a dog can do...

I have never seen this happen.Others have.

I'll be honest. When I used to play in leagues that allowed voting, I'd vote against trades if it hurt my team. My job as an owner is to do what is in my team's best interests within the rules. If you give me that power, I feel like I have to use it to help my team. Otherwise I'm not doing my job. I'm my team's only fan, and I have to act in its best interest.I'm against teams voting on trades and lobbied against it, but I'm not going to purposely hurt my own team. If a trade made someone in my division (or a playoff spot rival) stronger, I voted against it. Anything else is falling on your sword while other teams get stronger. Noble, but stupid.I think the best system is to let the commissioner handle it. Either you trust your commissioner or you don't. If you don't, get a new one. If you do, it's not an issue. A good commissioner will almost never veto a trade, but if they do it's pretty much a consensus amongst the other parties that something fishy is up. And that's happened as well (an owner knows he's not playing next year so he subtly guts his team to help a buddy). In those cases you have to have someone step in.

Even in leagues where every owner goes into it not wanting to veto a trade, once their trade is voted against, they'll start vetoing anything that helps a competitor.

And you put a person with the same attitude and nature as yourself in charge of all league matters including trade vetoes?Are you a league commissioner?

 

[Chaka]

See thats what I don't get. How are there so many bad commishioners? I think it's pretty easy to be an unbiased commish and not scr3w people over. I think this all comes from lack of league planning. Get a committee to agree upon league rules upfront and pick a commish that has a solid reputation.

It's because people are inherently self serving. It is very difficult to put away bias particularly when you might be negatively impacted in doing so.It's a shame but unless your commish is a devout Buddhist or completely apathetic you are going to run into problems.

I don't think this is true. If the league rules state that the commissioner can only veto trades based on collusion, then he should have to show the league how any trade he vetoed was collusion. If he can't then he shouldn't have vetoed the trade. I have never been in a league with a collusion veto rule where the commissioner was vetoing trades that weren't collusion. I find it hard to believe that this is going on as much as you seem to think it is.

Which is why I said earlier that leagues should probably let all trades pass because you simply can never prove collusion. Well I guess you could with a couple subpoenas of e-mail records and getting people to testify under oath and with severe penalties for perjury.

I agree you would have a hard time proving it from a strictly legal standpoint.But consider the following situation:-Owner A and Owner B are best friends-Owner A is 6-3 and fighting for a playoff spot. Owner B is 1-8 and out of playoff contention.-Owner A trades Randy Moss to Owner B for Michael Vick. Owner B is left with Mark Sanchez as starting QB. He still has TO and Mike Wallace as his starting 2 receivers.-Owner A's previous starting QB was Donovan McNabb. He still has Bowe and Nicks as his starting WR's.-When asked why he did the trade, Owner B says he really thinks Randy Moss is going to come on late in the season and he thinks Michael Vick is overrated and likely to get injured.There is no definitive proof of collusion. However, I would have no problem with a commissioner ruling this trade invalid due to collusion. Owner B'sexplanation while possible seems very improbable. In light of the other factors, it appears that Owner B is trying to help Owner A improve his teamat the expense of his own team. That meets the definition of collusion in my eyes.Blatant collusion is pretty rare. But I still think it is important to give the commissioner the ability to veto a trade if he thinks collusion has occurred. Obviously, if the commissioner is vetoing a lot of trades then he probably is vetoing trades that are not collusion. If this happens I would find another leagueto play in. I have not experienced a commissioner who goes overboard on vetoes.

Don't hijack.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I like to cast a veto vote until the players can't be used for the current week, then change my vote to let the trade go through.