Should this A-Rod trade have passed?

[Kimbos Beard]

So stay in your league. Keep socialism out of fantasy baseball.

I think it would be more like democracy where the majority rules.

Either way, I have always found the collusion angle not 100% fool proof becuase its almost impossible to prove collusion. Usually Manager 1 doesn't post on the league message board that he traded all his talent to Manager 2 because Manager 2 is giving him half of his winnings.

So I am guessing that this trade was so bad it must have been collusion.....there that way it would fall into the "collusion" criteria and everyone is happy.

[rails80]

Trust me, my motto is this - I don't vote to veto unless there is suspected collusion, or if the trade will upset the balance and integrity of the league.

This is a brand-new league we created last minute and it's more of a public league. I know a few of the owners, but the others were found on message boards possibly even here. So the collusion thing, I don't know if they know each other.

I don't get when people who say, "no veto unless collusion". How can you possibly be in the minds of the two owners to know if they are cheating? Normally it's by looking at the trade and if it's completely lop-sided, you have to wonder. Doesn't this trade make you wonder?

[HldOnMgnolia]

So stay in your league. Keep socialism out of fantasy baseball.

I think it would be more like democracy where the majority rules.

Fair enough. Socialism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive.

[thejusman1]

So stay in your league. Keep socialism out of fantasy baseball.

LOL sauce. There's nothing socialistic about a league-wide, veto system, buddy. If a trade is a pure player dump, or something which seems extremely suspicious/fishy, it is everyone's RIGHT in the league to call for higher scrutiny and a viable veto process.

[HldOnMgnolia]

If a trade is a pure player dump, or something which seems extremely suspicious/fishy...

This is referred to as collusion.

[thedude]

Yes, because trades should never be vetoed unless there is collusion. Is there any other evidence of collusion?

Amen. Why don't people understand this?

That's one mentality, not a universal truth. I can see it being applicable a lot more in just-for-fun or redraft leagues. In money, keeper, or dynasty leagues, I find it holds a lot less validity, especially if the owner getting shafted is relatively new to fantasy. A trade like that could change someone's team for years to come and destroy the competitive balance of the league. I wouldn't want to be in a league where someone did a bevvy of unfair trades and managed to collect an unbeatable dynasty team for years to come. Where is the fun in that!?!? If I have to compete with someone else's stacked keeper set because he fleeced new owners out of their 1st rounders, why would I continue to pay an entrance fee to join the following season? Answer: I wouldn't, and it would destroy that league, so yeah, vetoes do serve a purpose in upholding the integrity of keeper/dynasty/money leagues.

First, that trade, while certaintly unbalanced, would hardly make me not want to compete in the league.

Second, if it is a serious league or a money league everyone should know what they are getting into. The serious leagues usually are the leagues where trades like this are not likely to occur.

Third, unless there is collusion, it is doubtful that one owner will continually fleece the other owner. When the rest of league sees this they will undoubtedly offer trades to the "loser" of the trade. Since that owner will then have multiple trade offers to consider, he will choose the best and be less likely to get fleeced again. The free market in the works!

So stay in your league. Keep socialism out of fantasy baseball.

LOL sauce. There's nothing socialistic about a league-wide, veto system, buddy. If a trade is a pure player dump, or something which seems extremely suspicious/fishy, it is everyone's RIGHT in the league to call for higher scrutiny and a viable veto process.

The central authority managing the market for the benefit of the weak is the definition of socialism. Not only does it create recessions, but it takes the fun out of fantasy baseball.

So stay in your league. Keep socialism out of fantasy baseball.

I think it would be more like democracy where the majority rules.

Either way, I have always found the collusion angle not 100% fool proof becuase its almost impossible to prove collusion. Usually Manager 1 doesn't post on the league message board that he traded all his talent to Manager 2 because Manager 2 is giving him half of his winnings.

So I am guessing that this trade was so bad it must have been collusion.....there that way it would fall into the "collusion" criteria and everyone is happy.

It is easy to know when there is collusion beyond a single bad trade. If you search this message board you will see plenty of examples where there is more hard evidence of collusion than one lopsided trade.

You don't have to prove collusion beyond a reasonable doubt, but should have some other hard evidence.

Some common indicias of collusion are:

* Trades between friends

* Multiple lopsided trades between two owners (often the most obvious sign)

* Lopsided trade btw commissioner and another team

* Commissioner refusing to answer inquires

* Player turning down multiple good trade offers and choosing the worst trade offer

Usually the only time collusion can be defiantly determined just by looking at the trade itself is when a star is traded for someone who is on the DL or is not on a major league roster. Here one star player is involved, so you really need to look at more than the trade itself.

[angels7777]

I would have Team A post what the heck he was thinking...

[fishingmn]

Amen. Why don't people understand this?

That's one mentality, not a universal truth. I can see it being applicable a lot more in just-for-fun or redraft leagues. In money, keeper, or dynasty leagues, I find it holds a lot less validity, especially if the owner getting shafted is relatively new to fantasy. A trade like that could change someone's team for years to come and destroy the competitive balance of the league. I wouldn't want to be in a league where someone did a bevvy of unfair trades and managed to collect an unbeatable dynasty team for years to come. Where is the fun in that!?!? If I have to compete with someone else's stacked keeper set because he fleeced new owners out of their 1st rounders, why would I continue to pay an entrance fee to join the following season? Answer: I wouldn't, and it would destroy that league, so yeah, vetoes do serve a purpose in upholding the integrity of keeper/dynasty/money leagues.

So stay in your league. Keep socialism out of fantasy baseball.

I disagree with the "let it go through" mentality. One sided trades ruin the balance of the league and quickly turn off all the other owners. The best leagues are ones where the majority of owners stay engaged all year. The reason I play is for fun and the chance to compete for first place. One sided trades impact both.

[thejusman1]

First, that trade, while certaintly unbalanced, would hardly make me not want to compete in the league.

Receiving Arod for basically free wouldn't be the end of the world, I agree. But it's a slippery slope to determine which extremely lopsided, unfair trade is the tipping point. Better to have educated league owners police the integrity of the league.

Second, if it is a serious league or a money league everyone should know what they are getting into. The serious leagues usually are the leagues where trades like this are not likely to occur.

In a serious league, everyone should know better, but not everyone will. Serious leagues can lose owners and the replacements could be relative newbies (which is exactly what happened in my main keeper league this year). Are you telling me that a serious league that has been going on for multiple years should be effectively ruined by ONE new owner getting hosed in a trade? Some of us like having fun, competitive leagues every year, and not having to compete against a team composed like Arod, Utley, Pujols, Hanley, CC, Lincecum, and Halladay every year for the next 5 years.

Third, unless there is collusion, it is doubtful that one owner will continually fleece the other owner. When the rest of league sees this they will undoubtedly offer trades to the "loser" of the trade. Since that owner will then have multiple trade offers to consider, he will choose the best and be less likely to get fleeced again. The free market in the works!

Ahh... a true believer of Milton Friedman. But the free market needs regulatory agencies, or chaos will run amok! Veto system is fantasy baseball's equivalent of the FTC.