When a trade goes up for a league vote, managers must way several circumstances; (1) was there collusion? (2) Is the trade so one sided that it would significantly alter the competitiveness of the league? (3) Was the trade made under false pretenses? OR (4) Was a player involved injured during a waiver period or during negotiations when one manage had pre-knowledge of the information?
When voting on a trade, managers should not veto a trade because they feel that the trade makes both teams better or they are in second place and worry that the team ahead of them is now better. This particularly comes into play in keeper leagues. Play for now or build for tomorrow.
It is this courts ruling that if the trade makes both teams better and if both managers feel the trade is in the best interest of their teams and if the league senses no collusion, then the trade should stand.
From a player stand point it looks like a fairly equal trade. However, when you take into the cash values, the problem is that your system is inherently flawed. When you set a first round player at a $40 price (snake draft) moving to an auction draft that resulted in $100+ top running backs player (which AP would fall under), you had the potential to create a problem like you are seeing now where a player is way over valued because of his price tag.