I could really use some other thoughtful opinions here...
In my keeper league (5 major leaguers + 4 minor leaguers), we allow the trading of next year's draft picks only after the conclusion of the season (in part as a way of ensuring that an owner can't deal away all of his next year's draft picks to contend in the current season and then quit, getting a winn/payoff and then leaving the former team screwed for the next year).
During the season in July, two owners made the following deal:
Gordon, Beltre, Carpenter, and Nunez
Kershaw, Lyles, and Brett Jackson.
It was one of those classic, imbalanced keeper league trades (that as commish I wish I could veto, but don't feel is appropriate) where an owner that is low in the standings gives away many of its "good" players in order to get one "great" one from an owner that's in the hunt.
In general, I believe every owner should get to have control over their own team, and would need to have a powerful reason to actually veto a deal. I tend to let things through as long as both sides are benefiting from the deal in some plausible way, and let this one pass, since the low-return squad was clearly trying to improve his team for the next year.
Unfortunately, now that the season is over and draft picks for 2012 can be dealt, the same two owners have made the following deal:
Lyles, Jackson, and Owner A's final three rounds' draft picks
2nd, 5th, and 7th round draft picks.
It is clearly the handshake conclusion of the earlier deal, and one of the owner's admitted as much.
I think I have to veto the deal and insist that any trade have at least a clear positive value for each team in itself... otherwise it completely and willfully circumvents the rules and opens me up to exactly the sort of problems the rule was invented to avoid.
Does that sound right? I'd love to get some opinions from a few other commissioners.
All help would be greatly appreciated!