Should this trade be vetoed? (1 Viewer)

[atl3695]

no collusion no veto

I think a know the answer, but if this is a 3WR start league with no TE mandatory does that change anything?

Jeebus. Trades should never be vetoed on the basis of "fairity" or "balance" only on the basis of collusion. No collusion, no veto. Scoring, rosters, other draft picks, playoff structure - none of it matters when "the veto question" is posed. One question - "Is there suspected collusion?" If the answer is no, let the trade go. If the facts don't fit, you must acquit...and the 3 whiners are full of ####.

This collusion thing always gives me a good laugh. Unless the parties admit to it (and why would they), it is impossible to prove. Of course trades that upset the competitive balance of the league should be vetoed. MJD for Gates obviously passes the "reasonable person test"Would you veto Brees, Adrian Peterson, Finley, and Miles Austin for Matt Leinart, Ryan Torain, Brandon Pettrigrew, and Greg Cammarillo if there was no proof of collusion?

 

[DoubleG]

This collusion thing always gives me a good laugh. Unless the parties admit to it (and why would they), it is impossible to prove. Of course trades that upset the competitive balance of the league should be vetoed. MJD for Gates obviously passes the "reasonable person test"

Would you veto Brees, Adrian Peterson, Finley, and Miles Austin for Matt Leinart, Ryan Torain, Brandon Pettrigrew, and Greg Cammarillo if there was no proof of collusion?

EXTREME lobsidedness is a litmus test for collusion. Most trades asking about vetoes do not demonstrate anything close to extreme lobsidedness. Being that you just joined this year, watch the shark pool this season - you will see this "trade veto" question come up dozens of times - and in most cases, the trades are fairly even or at least close enough to not warrant any intervention.Certainly collusion is difficult to prove, but if the trade you outlined above involved to close buddies in a competetive league and the one trading away Brees, Peterson, Finley and Austion was 0-3, while the other was 2-1, I think it would be fairly evident that it was collusion. Notice the phrase "suspected collusion" in the above post that you were quoting. As I said, proving collusion beyond any doubt is difficult. But realizing when it is occurring is not nearly as hard.

As a corrolary, the rules of the league should be written in a way that reflects this premise (i.e. that trades are only vetoed if collusion is suspected). That also helps owners stop whining about "fairness of a trade" or complaining about who got the better end of a trade. If they know up front that trades will only ever be reversed in cases of suspected collusion, they will think twice before basically accusing a leaguemate of cheating.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Huh. I'm not even sure I can say with any true gut feeling WHICH person got the better end of this deal.

Besides, the only fact about any trade is someone always wins and someone always loses. The point is to ensure you are on the right side and until the season is over no one can say anything.

Stupid that anyone would vote to veto this.

While this may be true in most instances, there are times often enough where both sides come out winners or both sides come out losers.

 

[OMG! Ponies!]

i would have asked for more than a RB2 if i were the Gates owner.

 

[SlaX]

Nevermind. I just realized I clicked the shark pool. The vetoers are

 

[Lysdexic]

I like Vito. He's a nice guy. I say throw him in and the other guy counters with a basket of muffins and it's an even trade.