Big issue with a trade

[money]

I'm the Commissioner in an 8 team yahoo head to head league with standard scoring. We've got four active managers, two kinda active managers, and then two managers that rarely get on. This trade involves an active manager and a manager who rarely gets on.

Team A (active manager) Gives:
Roy Halladay
Michael Pineda
Andre Ethier
Jason Heyward

Team B (rarely active manger, last place 45 GB) Gives:
Ryan Braun
Andrew McCutchen
Max Scherzer
Anibal Sanchez

The trade got vetoed by league votes and team A thinks it was a fair trade. I'm looking to get some more opinions on it. What I don't understand is that team B got on to accept the trade, but then left JJ Putz who is on the DL in his lineup at RP. He also left two guys on the bench that were pitching the next day. It's like all he did was get on, accept the trade, and then didn't care about anything else. So what do you guys think?

Thanks, and I really appreciate it!

[mkultra]

I think you have two issues, only one of which is a problem.

The first is the trade itself, which I see nothing wrong with. You could actually argue each side of "who got the better deal".

The second is the inactive owner(s). People seem frustrated in your situation not because of the trade, but because owner B isn't keeping his roster active. Personally, I think an 8-team league where 2 owners don't "play" should just be punted. But barring that, I see no reason for your league commish to get on B's case about fielding an active lineup. I don't think that should affect the trade going through, though.

[bigmck]

It is a miracle that in an 8-team mixed league that a trade actually occured. Why even bother when you have so many free agents to improve your team.

[converge241]

Should not be vetoed, dont see a problem with it at all

[Pablo975]

No veto here. Veto is only for collusion or one owner taking an obviously devious advantage of another owner.