Spartan03 wrote:Bobbleheadrusty, by having the LM veto trades out of his own judgment of fairness, you're going down a very slippery slope. Where would you draw the line? You're essentially managing other people's teams for them.
Example: What if one of the owners has a gut feeling Player A will have a breakout season and Player B is due to bust, but you disagree and veto it? How pissed off would you be if you were in that guy's shoes when you vetoed his trade, he was right on the mark, and he misses the playoffs by a few points? What can you say to that guy? "Oops I messed up? Better luck next year."
I do understand if a trade is extremely lopsided, like say a healthy LT for Leon Washington, but that's where you suspect collusion and investigate. If there's no reason to suspect collusion in a trade, you leave it alone. As long as both owners think they are improving their teams, who are you to say it's not good enough? The other guys are right. Collusion should be the only time a trade is vetoed. Anything else, and you're doing your leaguemates a disservice. Let your owners learn on their own not to make bonehead trades. That's the only way they will ever get any better at evaluating them.
Don't get me wrong, its gotta be ridiculous for me to even think about vetoing, but I think the "collusion only" folks are unrealistic. Short of a confession you will never be able to prove collusion, and you cant base the need for a veto on that alone. If a deal is so lopsided that collusion MAY be a factor then you have to consider a veto, and if the deal is below that level then the veto is definitely called for.
I say that, but in my primary league there has NEVER been a veto.