TheRock wrote:This has come up MANY time before, so if anyone's truly interested, do a search and you'll find this debated several times a year.
I think in a perfect world, we would all play in leagues with people we've known a long time, whose opinions we respect, and who we trust implicitly. You could rest assured that every owner will always act in the best interest of his team, and nobody would even propose a trade that might be viewed as dishonest. Unfortunately, that's a very small percentage of leagues. Therefore there's always an element of uncertainty which we must contend with.
My question to the collusion only crowd has always been how do you prove it? If it really looks like it, everyone suspects it, but you really have no proof because we've all never really met after all, do you just let it slide? And you're assuming that the dishonest people in your league are dishonest and stupid. Seriously, if you and a friend decided to pool your teams, would you really try to do it all in one trade, studs for crap? Or would you at least make some effort to make it pass? Really lopsided, but throw in some prospects or overrated big name has-been players to make it look good? If it's lopsided enough to make people ponder collusion, it needs to be discussed. Or how about vote on it?
I like the idea of having people involved in the trade explain their reasoning.
It doesn't matter how you prove collusion. My counter argument is always a more practical one. The cost of vetoing is much greater than the cost of letting a trade through.[Again, these points are in reference to private, non anonymous leagues] If you are working under the assumption that you know all of the owners, and that all of these owners want to win, you can assume that collusion is very unlikely to happen, so what are you trying to prevent? You're trying to prevent one team from getting too much better than the others, and that' results in upset owners who feel like they were robbed of a deal they worked hard on.
If you allow trades, what's the goal of a trade? The goal is to essentially get the best possible deal you can get. So when a guy does an exceptionally good job at a trade, you're going to say, "Hey, wait. That's TOO good. You can't do that." It completely goes against the concept of fantasy baseball. The whole point is "we 10 people have differing views on who's a good baseball player and who's not. Let's see who's right." If you veto trades based on "league integrity" and "league balance", you're basically saying, "This league has assigned value ranges to each baseball player. You cannot go outside the boundaries of these ranges when evaluating players." It's just ridiculous on its face. Vetoes, when they come down, just too often seem arbitrary and unfair and result in bad blood.
In anonymous leagues, vetos are a necessary evil because there is no trust. But everyone should agree it's a necessary evil that should be removed as soon as it possibly can in leagues where people know each other. The rights of the two owners are more important than "protecting the other 8 owners from a bad trade and having to try to compete against that big bad trader who just ripped off another team."
Practically speaking, every league I've been in that has removed vetoes has been much happier for it. You always leave the caveat that a trade can be reversed and owners punished even retroactively if some funny business is discovered. There's a fear that a league will just breakdown into chaos or something when you remove vetoes, but it just doesn't happen.