I have never had cause to complain about the end result of a trade approval where I have been involved.

On occasion my trades have been reviewed. Rarely if ever have I been told why the trade is being reviewed... I never know if the commish thinks I am giving up to much or too little when I am asked to explain myself before the trade is approved. Now.. granted I have never had a trade rejected.. just reviewed.. if the trade is rejected I would hope people are getting a better explanation.

I like the current system.. but there needs to be some improvement in the communication lines. I don't always agree with Mike, but I am happy with him approving trades in the leagues I am in. That being said.. I think he needs some help with the workload. If the workload was reduced maybe the lines of communication would be better.

That workload could be eased a number of ways. Many good suggestions have been presented already. Here are the ground rules I think should be included in the trade process.

1)No league manager should be involved in the trade approvals for the league that he/she plays in.

2)Any persons who are involved in the trade approval process should be founders.. or if they are not available.. the most veteran managers available.

3)When two owners agree and submit a trade they should both be notified of it's status within 24 hours.

4)Reviewed or rejected trades must include an explanation of why.