Russell James wrote:But this doesn't really prove your point because these trades are so rare. You realize how what would have to happen before that trade could even be offered? Pedro Feliz and Livan Hernandez would have to be picked up off of waivers first and then traded. If that were to happen it would be considered collusion, even if the David Wright owner swore with his hand on the Bible before Congress that it wasn't the case.
Really, we're just talking about definition of terms then. Strictly defined, collusion requires coordinated action between two parties. If there was no coordinated action, it's not collusion... it's just a really, really, really bad trade. But we're both getting to the same end result.
Russell James wrote:Would I care if a veto was used in a situation like that? No, but how we justify the veto would be different. I would veto based on collusion and it sounds like others would veto based on "It will hurt my team!" Vetoing based on that reason is dangerous because it can lead you down a road that our friend, cwrtlm is experiencing right now.
I never veto based upon, "It will hurt my team!" I only veto if a trade is so bad that it poisons the league, making the idea of fair competition ridiculous. Can you win a game of basketball spotting another team 45 points? Sure, it's possible, but it's not what competition is really about. Also, as I said earlier, someone's right to run their team how they want does not trump everyone else's right to have a meaning to playing their team. So if someone, because they were bored or because they liked the letter M, or because they thought they had some super-secret-fantastic insight did a truly horrendous trade in my league, I'll veto it. Not because it ruins it for me, but because it ruins it for everybody. Fortunately, when you get to vett the guys who you let into your league, this never happens.
Russell James wrote:As crazy as it sounds, I would much rather run the risk of trades like Feliz and Livan for Wright going through (because it is highly unlikely and rare that they ever will) then to switch off to league votes again. You will never escape problems with any system, but having a good commissioner who is fair and not intrusive is much better then having a league full of people applying their values to other players or vetoing due to a bias.
Hey, I agree. I'm a commish-veto guy and have said that consistently throughout. Our only real point of disagreement it seems is how we characterize truly awful trades: you would veto them under the belief that there must be collusion. I would veto them even absent any hint of collusion just because they're truly awful. But you are right that they're extraordinarily rare; I've commished 3 or 4 baseball leagues over the past few years and never vetoed a single trade. I just reserve the right to do so.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.