Big dispute in AL Keeper League

[Northern Lights]

We have 10 teams, 2 of which have been inactive and not setting their lineups since almost the beginning of the year.

One of the inactive teams traded Cano 42, Adam Jones 18 and Butler 24 to the 4th place team for Hardy 2, Ackley 7 and Hafner 1.

Another owner towards the top of the league was so incensed to see one of the inactive teams make a trade, that he successfully convinced the other inactive owner to give him his entire stable of decent players (Mauer, Lind, Yunel Escobar and Chris Perez) in exchange for Chris Sale, Posada, Chris Getz and Nick Castellanos. The inactive owner would also receive the 1st and 2nd round prospect picks in the next year draft. Pretty much all the top guys (Trout, Hosmer, Moustakas, Ackley etc..) are on teams, so there will be slim pickings.

The question is, should both deals be vetoed because the owners have been inactive for nearly the whole season or is there an argument to be made for allowing the 1st but vetoing the 2nd?

[The Dane]

In my opinion, legal trades are legal trades. If you want a rule that says that you have to have a certain number of roster moves to make trades, then put one in. If you don't like these owners, get rid of them and get new ones. But, I don't think you can veto these trades. Don't strive for better trades, get better owners... or better rules. Up to you, really.

[BuckyBuckner]

Why was the first place owner upset? Was he negotiating with that team? Sounds like a freakin cry baby. That deal isn't that bad, Ackley is a nice value and Hardy is solid. He probably could have gotten more but he made a bad deal. It happens. The other deal is pretty bad but I've always felt that owners have the right to be as stupid as they can be.

[Moonlight J]

1st deal isn't bad. As long as the guy is acting within the rules, give the other guy a tube of Boudreaux's buttpaste to help his butthurt.

[Northern Lights]

It's become pretty common knowledge that neither of the inactive teams cares much about their teams nor the league as a whole, and almost assuredly will not be asked back. Does that change anything?

[BuckyBuckner]

It's become pretty common knowledge that neither of the inactive teams cares much about their teams nor the league as a whole, and almost assuredly will not be asked back. Does that change anything?

Not really. As The Dane said change the owners not the trades. I might give the other owner (who traded Mauer, Lind etc my last post said he was the 1st place owner, not sure why I thought that) a tongue lashing for his behavior for being a baby. Or maybe just call him a whinny little bitch. He was acting selfishly and did not have the leagues best interests at heart when he forced that owner to deal with him.

But ultimately, nothing should be done with the trades, just remove the owners at the end of the year, or sooner if you have someone ready and waiting. That way they can start attempting to improve the team. But that's a dicey move.

[Grinch]

It's become pretty common knowledge that neither of the inactive teams cares much about their teams nor the league as a whole, and almost assuredly will not be asked back. Does that change anything?

That may make a difference if the team knows that either they won't be asked back or don't want to come back and the moves were done out of spite.

[chancellor]

In my opinion, legal trades are legal trades. If you want a rule that says that you have to have a certain number of roster moves to make trades, then put one in. If you don't like these owners, get rid of them and get new ones. But, I don't think you can veto these trades. Don't strive for better trades, get better owners... or better rules. Up to you, really.

Um..well...um...yeah, exactly what he said!

And trade 1 is a pretty decent dump trade.