I know the whole "if it looks like a duck..." logic but -
Many times inactive owners get "prompted" to do something/get active by another owner just harrasing them for a deal - either just to get left alone or they get a wake up call to try and be a spoiler down the stretch.
The idea that he gave him the account or did some other type of side deal to help him win would be very hard to prove. Even if the inactive owner never makes another move you still cant say for sure if there's something going on because he may have just hit accept to get the dude to stop emailing him or the like (and of course thats a whole debate about how "right" that is but if true would say thats without malicious intent)
As far as the trade itself, its allowable.. there's a lot of quality players being moved around and some have risk with them and I think it balances all out. Aggravating that the inactive owner chooses this event that may have repercussions to get active after all this time but the other owner paid. Even the worst player in the deal - Chipper - has his hot streaks and plays a tougher position. The active guy is getting the best player this year in Wright but I keep looking at that and dont see any reason for a veto on the trade itself in a vacuum removing all the activity issues.
You have the right to react and feel how you want and many may agree; just for myself though if I cant form a solid belief on what happened myself I would just shake my head at what happened and move on.
Do you have an intangible vested interest to add another factor into this? As in are you in the running and it affects you more personally? That's not a flame bait it is just asking because of course if true that is another layer adding to the emotions of the situation and it's hard to seperate.
This is all just my opinion/take..you could be right in your belief and that would suck if so
"I'm the man with the ball. I'm the man who can throw it faster than F***. So that's why I'm better than anyone in the world." - Kenny Powers