Dan Lambskin wrote:no collusion no veto
to agree, but a trade like this is why it's nice having an engaged commissioner. Someone who can contact both owners and find out what the hell is going on, and why this trade is being made. It's not like two guys colluding are going to announce it on the league message board. The trade really makes no sense at all, and I think, at the least, the two managers involved could at least explain themselves to the league. Otherwise it's going to leave a bitter taste in the mouth for the remaining teams.
For what it's worth, in my baseball league we've got a more subtle rule about vetos. The commish still has veto rights, but can also demand a modification of the trade. We haven't vetoed a trade in years, primarily because we don't tend to veto unless there's collusion. Instead, there's a couple of trades every year that are so lopsided that the commish steps in, finds out what's going on, and suggests a few modifications to balance things out. The managers involved usually end up suggesting modifications themselves once the worries are brought up, and they are free to bail on the deal rather than accept the modifications. It's worked really well, and has led to no hard feelings so far.
Good luck. I hope this isn't a money league, because I'd be royally pissed if I were in your shoes!