There has been a recent discussion about when trades should or should not be vetoed. The overwhelming response (which is wrong in my opinion) was that ONLY when collusion is OBVIOUS.
But my question is: Short of the most ridiculous trades (Tomlinson and Larry Johnson for David Akers), is collusion even possible before Week 5?
My answer is "NO".
Thus, short of the aforementioned ridiculousness, no trade should be vetoed. If the following trade happens in your league right now, it should not be vetoed under the (stupid) "collusion-only" rule: Shaun Alexander and Chris Chambers for Jericho Cotchery and Bernard Berrian. Alex has a crappy line and Chambers has a stupid QB (I have both Culpepper and Chambers and, yes, I am pissed at myself). On the other hand, the two other WR's have had great starts and are in their third year--that "magic" year when so many receivers seem to break out.
The most common argument against "league integrity" vetoing of trades is that there is no way we can predict what is going to happen and that fair is completely subjective. While the former is true, that doesn't make attempts to predict the future (a.k.a. PROJECTIONS) irrelevant. And the latter, while mostly subjective, it is not 100% the case.
First, it is unreasonable (and an irresponsible argument) to say we can't veto trades that upset the league integrity because we can't predict the future. That is the same as saying that every single way, every player has an equal chance of scoring the same points as every other player. That's stupid. I could go on, but I'm getting bored and I think the obviousness of it is apparent. FUTURE PLAYER OUTPUT IS EXACTLY WHAT FANTASY FOOTBALL IS ALL ABOUT. We only care what they have done in the past as it might be indicative of what they may do in the future.
For the second part, while a "fair" trade is very much subjective, it is not 100% the case. If I made the trade for Alexander, Tony Gonzalez and Carson Palmer, and all I gave up was the Bills 'D', EVERYONE can see that is an unfair trade. While the other person may have agreed to it, it doesn't make it more fair. If however, I traded Alge Crumpler and Darrell Jackson for Jamal Lewis, whether it is fair or not is harder to see (even if it looks ridiculous on first glance., more subjective and definitely depends on the circumstances.
So... this is just a general question. After reading through all that, I ask ________ questions:
A) Is collusion even possible before week 5, when no one is "out of it"? (other than super ridiculous trades mentioned at the top)
B) How do you define collusion/cheating? If it's subtle (a kicker and No. 4 WR for a solid No. 2 RB and a No. 3 WR) is it wrong, just unfair or just plain stupid?
C) If something appears to be obvious collusion to you (as someone voting on a trade or someone who has the power to veto a trade <commish or on a panel>) but you know that it is not (because of personal relationship with one of the parties involved) should you veto the trade? For example <again>, if I am the commissioner of a league and my cousin rips off a newbie for Ronnie Brown, Chad Johnson, Todd Heap and the Bears DST for... Wali Lundy, and I KNOW my cousin is not colluding with this random guy from some message board we got to play, just that he is ripping off this stupid Texans fan, should I veto the trade? It's not collusion, so according to most (from another forum) this trade should not be vetoed. <--I think that's stupid.-->
Say what you want after this, but for "educational purposes" I would like direct answers to A, B & C at the beginning of every reply. Say what you want after that.