Now, you brought up a point that I must completely disagree with. You state that the commish must step in to stop inactive managers from making moves. A good commish would have seen this coming from a mile away. It's really easy to see the last league activity for each leaguemate. 1 week?? Maybe on vacation or has an illness/family issue. 2 weeks?? Something must be up. A month?? I am sending a search party. Since nothing was done to this guy, I don't see how it's anyone's right to tell him how to or how not to run his team. He came back and made a move. Why is he not allowed to?? Is this a Yahoo or league rule?? I don't think so. Get rid of him or don't invite him back next year but I fail to see how putting an activity minimum on anyone retroactively is anything more than severe micromanaging by the commish and/or other leaguemates.
Micromanaging isn't necessary except in instances of collusion. This deal fits my definition of collusion. I'm not stopping managers from making moves. I WANT my managers to make moves, and lots of them. I DON'T want people to make moves that aren't made with the interest of their own team in mind. His lack of activity, accomodating attitude, and subsequent terrible trade are all contributory factors in my mind to the notion that he really didn't care who he was offered, Figgins was moving if his buddy asked nicely.
In my mind I have NEVER vetoed a trade to micromanage a team, and I would hope that those under my commissionership would wholeheartedly agree with that, and I think they do.
To me, if I'm IMing my buddy who hasn't checked his team in forever with a leading line of "Trade me Soriano," I'm expecting his first reply to be "who are you going to give me?" not "ok." It is patently obvious that manager B doesn't care about his team for a multitude of reasons.
The fact that Manager A offered Bonderman was a nice gesture. It doesn't legitimize the platform from which the deal was struck. It just makes it resemble a fair deal to everyone else.
Obviously this guy doesn't belong in next year's league. That isn't even up for discussion at this point.
And I do say that a veto is appropriate in many of the threads that come up here, and we've butted heads on a few of them, but we are not far removed from a time when the popular thing to do was surreptitiously dismiss any notion of a veto with a simple: "No collusion, no veto" line.
The board is evolving. People around these parts are finding vetoes appropriate more often than they were two years ago. I'd like to think that sensible dialogue to which I have contributed is a big part of that.
I understand wanting the league to be active, but you have yet to express any disdain for manager B's apathy, and I just can't endorse a complete denial of that factor's significance.
Again, some will say, even though manager B was accomodating, the deal is even value, and isn't vetoable merely because of that.
I think the intentions of the managers involved are far more important than players changing place in most of these situations.
To make it simple, I generally dislike "dead teams" breaking months of silence by making a trade. I even warn my leaguemates that if they fall out of activity for weeks or months at a time that their trades will be more closely scrutinized and more apt to be vetoed.
On the other hand, if said teams really do want to make a serious effort from that point forward in the season, I would fully endorse them getting back into activity. If I see sincerity in their effort during a trade negotiation, I will let them do what they want. Manager B has conceded that he will not now regain interest in his team in this case, so that doesn't come into play.
Oh the complicated politics of fantasy baseball.