I strongly disagree. Setting limits on the size of the trade will not insure fairness. I trade frequently and have made several trades involving as many as 20 players/picks. That is part of the fun of the game and in my opinion prohibiting large trades is not the answer. Also the original comment about collusion that began this thread touched off the citation of multiple examples of supposed one sided trades. I am not in any of the leagues involved, so far as I know, but I must say that some of the trades listed don't seem too bad. There are a couple in which I am not sure who got the better deal, so how one sided can that be? Finally when evaluating a trade you can't just say "Is this player worth that player?". You need to understand the managers experience, goals (rebuilding/contending), roster (depth, age etc). Even then it may take several years to know if a trade is fair. My biggest concern is that Mike Bravard has sole power to judge those trades. I truely believe that he has the best interests of the league at heart but I don't think he has the time to properly evaluate all the proposed trades. I have seen him block some trades that I think should go through (the recently cited C Guillen for some old pitchers comes to mind) and allow others to go through that should not. The question of collusion is a serious one and I agree it needs to be investigated but limiting the size of trades will not fix this.