Should very unbalanced trades always be vetoed? Or should vetoes only apply when there is proof of collusion.
Here are two sides of the argument:
First veto very unbalanced trades:
[Veto only collusion is] 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.
Second, veto only when there is collusion:
HldOnMgnolia wrote:So stay in your league. Keep socialism out of fantasy baseball.
Assume a private league.
What is the Cafe's thoughts?