SouthBronxBombers wrote:It's not collusion, no, but for me it does not have to be to object to a trade. Trades aren't made in vacumns, they affect the entire league. You play these games for fun with the expectation that you have a chance to win. When you have an owner, through collusion, stupidity, whatever, that through trades affects the competitive balance of the league, it eliminates any reason to play. The notion that only collusion should be the cause of objecting to a trade is nonsense.
Every trade affects the competitive balance of the league. If done correctly, a "good" trade helps both teams - this adversely affects the competitive balance of the league as two teams are better and the rest stay the same. A "bad" trade only helps one team - but still adversely affects the competitive balance of the league. By your logic, all trades should be vetoed.
If an owner is stupid, every one I know tries to take advantage of that and make a deal that helps his team. Being upset because you weren't the one to take advantage of a stupid owner isn't a reason to veto a trade. If you honestly believe this, then I guess you're one of the few who does not trade unless you know both teams are likely to be helped. Me personally, I am trying to help my team only when I make a trade - as I presume the other guy is also trying to do the same and unless we both feel our teams will be helped, no trade will occur.
Collusion, on the other hand, to me means that an owner will only trade with one owner and only to help that owner, even by intentionally damaging his own team. As no one else has the chance to make this trade, then this is unfair and should be stopped.
What was described here does not seem to be collusion - simply one owner taking advantage of a stupid owner who was fretting over losing his starting C. I've made many a trade wherein the basis for me starting discussions was an injury to another guy's key player. That's what I think happened here.