MistbornJedi wrote:
Ultimately having an algorithm accurately value trades may just be too hard due to all the factors in play. Human judgment (e.g. "I'm 1 player short of making a playoff run this season so I'm willing to overpay") should always win. I'd be in favor of a trade system that disallows really obvious unfair trades (7th rounder for an 85 point QB, say) but otherwise let's the market determine what is fair and reasonable, with a mechanism for other owners to complain if someone is upsetting the apple cart.
+1
I think maybe the only thing that will work is for what is considered to be an acceptable trade to be opened up a bit, along with a veto system.
An accepted trade could be put on hold for 24 hours while the rest of the league has a chance to vote on whether to veto the trade or not.
If after 24 hours (or one spin) the trade has not received enough votes to be vetoed, then the trade goes through.
If it has, then it remains on hold for another 24 hours in the hope that more owners will vote (so 1 or 2 veto votes don't nix a good trade). If it still does not have enough votes to pass, it is canceled.
I don't think it would work if it required a certain percentage of the entire league in order to veto a trade, as there are some leagues where owners are not very active and would never vote. I think it needs to be a majority of the votes cast.
Owners will need to accept the fact that trades are not going to be immediate. There will be a minimum of one "spin" before they are processed. Sort of like "awaiting approval by league office".