Veto: Bad trades or collusion only?

[Matthias]

My question wasn't if it was easy: my question is how do you do it? Nothing you said addressed that.

It's up to the commish to investigate and talk to the players involved. The commish checks out the situation and makes a decision based on what he learns.

So this is what you envision where two guys scheme to defraud the league?
Commissioner: Did you guys collude on this trade?
Colluders: No.
Commissioner: Are you sure? This trade looks pretty bad.
Colluders: We found value in it.
Commissioner: Ok.

Really, what else can you do? Do you envision something more?

Like I said, it's innocent until proven guilty.

This is the standard in criminal trials where you're going to imprison someone. In a civil case such as where you're suing someone for an antitrust violation (which is what collusion is) the standard of proof is only more likely than not. Not sure why you need a higher standard in fantasy trades (and also, if you sue in court, you get all sorts of discovery... documents, depositions, affidavits) that would be unavailable to some fantasy commissioner, so there's a good argument that the standard should be even lower.

The notion that any lop-sided trade should be vetoed due to "competitive balance" is nuts. They don't have rules for "competitive balance" in the real game - why is it so important in fantasy?

Well, first, they do. Any trade that transfers more than $1 million must be approved by the MLB commissioner's office, any trade that involves a player on the DL must be approved, and the commissioner has the residual right to reject any trade not made in the best interest of baseball.

Second, you don't hear about it because there's too much at stake for Theo Epstein to trade Jonathan Papelbon for Matt Murton in the real world. This is an industry that generates hundreds of millions of dollars each year for the team. It would require an immense payoff in graft for a GM to do something that is against his own team's interest. Whereas in fantasy leagues, some guys just don't give a toss if it gets three months in and they're completely out of it. They might give away A-Rod for a six pack of beer since the six pack represents a higher return on A-Rod than he has to them otherwise. Alternatively, they might do a trade that hurts them in one league for the promise to do another off-balance trade in another. These problems don't exist in the real game; that's why fantasy is different.

[Matthias]

Oh, one last thing.

If two companies want to merge and it looks like there might be market power problems, the DoJ/FTC will make a request (or two or three) of the companies to prove to them that the market (consumers) won't be harmed before they approve the transaction. And in that case, you're actually guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

[Oatsdad]

Man, you really need to loosen up.

You go ahead and veto to your heart's content. Me, I'll just be happy I'm not in any leagues with you - I can't imagine anyone has any fun in them...

[Matthias]

Way to man up to being wrong.

And don't worry about any leagues with me; you'd never get an invite. Thinkers only need apply.

[Oatsdad]

Way to man up to being wrong.

And don't worry about any leagues with me; you'd never get an invite. Thinkers only need apply.

Where was I wrong? I'll happily "man up" if I AM wrong, but I've not been wrong about anything. I don't think that vetos should be used unless collusion is in place - that's not "wrong", it's an opinion.

I see no thinking in your posts. I just see arrogance and smugness and a rigid adherence to your own peculiar view of the way fantasy sports should be. I'm quite happy I won't be in any of your leagues, as I get the feeling you go out of your way to make sure that no fun ever occurs...

[Matthias]

A better question is, "Where were you right?"

Q: How do you prove collusion?
Oatsdad: Ummm.... I don't know. You ask the guys you think who are cheating if they're cheating?
Reality: Someone who is cheating isn't going to say, "Well, we weren't going to tell you we were cheating, but since you asked, we're honor bound as thieves to tell the truth. Yes, that is a collusive trade because Frank is helping me out in another league."

Q: What should be the standard of proof?
Oatsdad: Innocent before proven guilty! I saw it on Law and Order once and it's k00l!
Reality: The standard in the real world to prove anticompetitive actions is either more likely than not (51% likely) or there's a presumption against the action and the company is actually guilty before proven innocent.

Q: Should there be such a thing as a consideration of, "competitive balance" in fantasy leagues?
Oatsdad: NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! This doesn't happen in REAL baseball and fantasy baseball is JUST LIKE real baseball!!!!!
Reality: In the MLB, all trades are subject to the commissioner's review. And the danger of a GM doing something collusive is extraordinarily low as the amount of monies involved are very large and if the GM did do something ridiculously stupid they would punt their lucrative and visible career.

[Oatsdad]

Seriously, you've got issues...

[noseeum]

Matthias, come on. Those questions are lightweight. They're not worth answering, but since you insist:

Q: How do you prove collusion?

A: You ask each owner to explain how the trade makes his team better. You don't ask "did you cheat?" If the explanation doesn't pass the smell test, as in [url="http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=338046"]that Santana deal[/url] where the, "...owner getting Maddux says he is just going to crapshoot pitching categories but wants to juice up his lineup", then you say "bullsh*t. this trade is not going through."

You're right, it's not a court of law. It's a group of people. But the commish should give the players the benefit of the doubt. If they have a fair argument, the trade goes through.

Some things that are not fair arguments:
1. I think player X is going to get hurt this year [um, what evidence can you possibly have to think so? Of course, if a player is injury prone, you can devalue him for that. See Jones, Chipper.]
2. I'm punting pitching. [punting saves is OK, but half the points is not. it's impossible to win that way, so no dice.]
3. There's more here, so please add to this list.

Q: Should there be such a thing as a consideration of, "competitive balance" in fantasy leagues?
A: No. So long as you come up with some criteria for question 1, then no. "Competitive balance" is a myth, created by people to justify preventing other owners from improving their teams. It sounds like a just cause in theory, but in practice, it is ALWAYS ABUSED. Any league I've ever been in that has allowed trades to be blocked for "competitive balance" reasons, has been eventually reduced to nothing. People develop grudges, blocking each other's trades because of past offenses. If you're in a public league, you have to accept these annoying restrictions because you can't trust anyone. If you're in a private league, and you're still worrying about "competitive balance" than I don't understand why you can't trust your fellow owners to always be trying to make their teams better.

Here's one of the best articles I've ever seen on the topic:
http://www.baseballnotebook.com/essay.a ... ng%20Rules

[CruiseJD]

No offense, but as I posted previously, the test some of you are applying for collusion is essentially the same thing as a test for imbalance.

You suspect collusion because of imbalance, right? The issue of collusion doesn't even come up unless the trade is unbalanced.

Are you going to question the owners on a D. Wright for H. Ramirez trade? How about an A-Rod for K-Rod trade? Why question one and not the other?

You weigh owner arguments based on balance. The whole idea of whether an owner's argument makes sense is based on player valuation. The "smell test" is simply another phrase for "is the deal close enough to approve".

Other than direct evidence, which is rare, the only way you have to suspect collusion is that the trade is unbalanced.

[mde]

Vetoing should only be used in collusion. Last year, after Braun was called up I made a deal sending Braun for a struggling Zambrano. Needless to say, the trade was vetoed because they thought I was giving up nothing for a Zambrano who had an ERA in the 5+ and Braun hadn't gone crazy yet.

I ended up winning the title because of that veto, but the owner I traded with got robbed because he wasn't allowed to take a risk on Braun by giving up a pitcher who was doing terribly.