I'm not the commish, but I feel that a trade should be vetoed just on principle, but I wanted some opinions before I took my concerns public.
This is a 10 team, Keeper league (keep 8). The trade involves two teams, one of which (Team 1) has not been active since the first week of Jun.
Here is the trade:
Inactive Owner - Team 1 gets:
Active Owner - Team 2 gets:
First off, team 2 clearly wins (atleast IMO). He is getting a top 3 OF and a top 3 SP. But is the trade lopsided enough to veto. I think it is, but would like some opinions.
Second, should the trade be vetoed based on the fact that Team 1 hasn't been active since Jun 4th? It's hard to argue that Team 1 is attempting a trade to better his team, when he's not even playing.
Team 1 is starting C. Hart (DL) and McLouth (DL), while Figgins rides the pine. He has also had R. Halladay, Z. Duke and J. Washburn on the bench since June, and Valverde is still in his DL spot.
Third, we are replacing the inactive team w/ another owner after the season is over. The other owner is a friend that was out of the country when we drafted, so he's been down about not being in the league all summer. I would hate for him to get a horrible team, because the inactive manager traded away all the talent for nothing. I'm thinking of asking the commish to veto the trade and lock the inactive team for the sake of the new owner coming in for next year.