I smell collusion, but should I veto?

[duckbillgates]

Here's a somewhat fishy trade I was on the fence about:

Second-place team gives:
C Jorge Posada
3B/OF Casey Blake

to last-place team for:
SP John Lackey
3B Ryan Zimmerman

Second-place team is a bottom-feeder with trades, and the last-place team always finishes there for a reason. (He's a Reds fanatic and has been starting Arroyo over Lackey most of the season.)

It is also a keeper league, which disturbs me as well.

Worth having a veto discussion?

[CBMGreatOne]

In a redraft league I think this is a totally legit trade, but in a keeper I can see how the value would put some people off. If the last place team has been failing to activate Lackey for his starts while leaving Arroyo in an active position, chances are he doesn't care about his team. If he doesn't care about his team, then he probably isn't too worried about making a bad trade. If he isn't too worried about making a bad trade, he'll be liable to accept an offer just to "shake things up." I personally hate situations like this. I think you have to almost earn your right to trade by setting your lineups daily and making add/drops when they are obvious. I have a hard time letting a team trade away what appears like superior value when they haven't even been doing the little things. I'd consider a veto.

[Oatsdad]

I wouldn't veto - I don't think it's a bad trade...

[raiderrob1616]

id veto in a heartbeat, that trade is terrible

[morphism]

This trade is "pretty lopsided" and does "seem suspicious"; however, because Posada is a catcher (which is a "thin" position"), I would NOT vote to veto this deal.

[letsgomets07]

Valuing the C position is tough. Do I think one side gets the better of the deal with Zimmerman and Lackey? Yes. But it's not enough to veto.