First- thank you Jon for your response. You question what my point is- and at this time it is to gather information and elicit the opinions of others.
I have had interactions with you before and read your posts here and respect your opnion greatly. You made several very good points.As you can see in my posts I made no references to COMM (Mike)or trade vetos. In fact, I am personally opposed to trade vetos and think it should be used VERY sparingly.
To (some) of your other points:
"but if it were to damage the integrity of the league, I don't think Mike would let it happen"
RESPONSE:6 unmanaged teams, 1 team with 1 PB of 62, while this team is working to cut down to get under 115.When is a league "in danger"?

and "I think this is just a case of a very active owner"
RESPONSE: This team has made 12 trades involving 116 players/picks since 5/99. Sounds "active"? Well, 7 of those were with Cleveland; 4 with Atchison; 1 (ONE) trade with any other team involving 4 players. That's 4 out of 116. One trade in 2 years with a NON Cle/Atch team while going from PB75-PB115. Arizona has never posted a trade request on the league board. Arizona has never responded to any of my trade requests. This is not that relevant, but from Arizona manager profile in '99:


---
Level of interest in trading: Moderate Interest

Outlook for your team: willing to help contending teams for fair price in return but I think that is impossible in this league!
---

Again- thanks for your response Jon and I do hope you take a team in 98 T2- would love to have you with us!