Looking for an article on when vetos are apprpirate

[Matthias]

If it's obviously collusion, then veto the trade. Otherwise, let it slide.

After all, value is a relative term, and attempting to standardize it is an exercise in futility.

Did "A wise man" ever tell you how to determine if it's collusion?

[StlSluggers]

If it's obviously collusion, then veto the trade. Otherwise, let it slide.

After all, value is a relative term, and attempting to standardize it is an exercise in futility.

Did "A wise man" ever tell you how to determine if it's collusion?

Yes. He said, "If it's obvious, then you don't have to 'determine' anything."

[Matthias]

If it's obviously collusion, then veto the trade. Otherwise, let it slide.

After all, value is a relative term, and attempting to standardize it is an exercise in futility.

Did "A wise man" ever tell you how to determine if it's collusion?

Yes. He said, "If it's obvious, then you don't have to 'determine' anything."

So "value" is a relative term, but "obvious" is not?

He doesn't sound that wise to me.

[Matthias]

Here's a link to the discussion in the Commissioner's Corner that Yoda referenced. It really is a good back-and-forth and gets beyond simply collusion/not collusion.

[StlSluggers]

He doesn't sound that wise to me.

Obviously.

[Matthias]

He doesn't sound that wise to me.

Obviously.

Actually, it reminds me of a quote from one of my old law professors... "When a sentence begins with 'clearly' or 'obviously' the odds are that it's neither."

But seriously, your standard is essentially meaningless. All it does is throw the mess of the realities of every situation in determining if there's "obvious collusion" instead of "should there be a veto" ... it doesn't go at all to provide any advice that can be applied.

[hot4tx]

but it really depends on the type of league that you are in.

I'd agree with that. In my main league I'm 99.99% sure that no managers would cheat, and I'm also pretty confident in each manager's intelligence, baseball knowledge and fantasy "skill" that I don't think any trade will be vetoed at any time in the future.

In public leagues Noobie McNooberson trades Arod, A Soriano, Carlos Lee and Hunter Pence for Josh Willingham, Joe Crede and Jeremy Accardo and I'm all over the veto whether or not I have any proof or reason to think the two are cheating. In that situation it's enough that the trade is so lopsided that it completely destroys the league balance to allow.

[Russell James]

He doesn't sound that wise to me.

Obviously.

Actually, it reminds me of a quote from one of my old law professors... "When a sentence begins with 'clearly' or 'obviously' the odds are that it's neither."

But seriously, your standard is essentially meaningless. All it does is throw the mess of the realities of every situation in determining if there's "obvious collusion" instead of "should there be a veto" ... it doesn't go at all to provide any advice that can be applied.

I had a law professor who said the same thing, but he also threw in the word 'seriously.'