bobbing_headz wrote:But then again almost any trade could argued for or against.
This is the OP's point. Any trade can really be argued for or against (as someone else mentioned, Tomlinson for Benson is clearly a ridiculous trade but someone could create an argument of, "Well, you never know" and, "Chicago's offense has looked alive this year." But if any trade except the absolutely insane ones could be argued for, then can you really ever prove collusion?
Basically, the logic goes:
Q. When can you veto a trade?
A. When there is collusion.
Q. When is there collusion?
A. When a trade is so imbalanced that it has no logic.
Q. When is a trade so imbalanced that it has no logic?
A. Ummm...... basically never. Because you never know what's going to happen. Someone might think that someone else is just about to break out. And a person has a right to manage their team as they like. So even though I wouldn't trade Tomlinson for Benson, I could see how someone else might think it's a great idea so I wouldn't veto it. Besides, on Sunday Tomlinson and Thomas Jones might blow out their ACLs and then it would be an absolutely unfair trade on the side of the guy who got Benson. So you never know. So you can't veto.
And I think everyone agrees with the first two answers. It's the answer to the third that people start parting ways.
And it doesn't have to be a huge, enormous trade to be collusive. I was in a baseball league with people I didn't know this spring (but answered a posting on the Cafe) and one week into the season the Commissioner was trying to trade someone Tony Clark and Brandon McCarthy (his 18th and 21st round choices) to someone else for their Curt Schilling and Kevin Millwood (his 3rd and 13th round selections). This, one week into the season. And the guy giving up Schilling wasn't loaded at pitcher or anything. Me and another guy vetoed, made a stink, and eventually found the commissioner admitting in a Cafe trade forum that his trades weren't really legit. But we only found that out because we raised a stink in the first place and took the effort to prove it.
So, no, you don't have to have a blockbuster deal to have collusion. And if you allow 3-4 shady but not completely insane deals, that should be all it takes to ruin the competition and the entire purpose of a league.