Thanks both for the comments.
I don't think its that lopsided, and for me to does not meet my veto threshold. I agree with Clinton that he is taking on some risk here with Atlanta potentially trying to squeeze more time into Okongwu, and who the hell knows what the Clippers are going to do with only one basketball on the floor, and if they will keep playing all 4. Ingram's ranking is low right now despite being a 20/5/5 player who has a decent FG% and good FT% (typically getting to the line 5+ times) - because his 3's are really low (shooting 16%), and his FTA should improve from about 3 to 5 or 6 which will improve his relevancy in FT% category. But there are a lot of categories that he is a write off in, so he does look batter in the glamour stats than his fantast value.
Purely looking at pre-season ratings the value is pretty close.
Looking at Yahoo ratings
Preseason Ranking/Current/Projected
Ingram 49/139/69
Capela 91/46/46
Westbrook 108/69/145
I had to look at our league setting for trade veto's - I used the default settings:
Trade Review - League Votes
Votes Required to Veto - Default (???)
Trade Reject Time - 2 Days
I don't even know what "Default" means - I presume that means 4 or 5 votes, being the majority of the league not involved in the deal? Anyway, I can change that to a specific number between 1-10, if some members have input. Perhaps 2 or 3?
I think I could also step in and veto a trade myself as commissioner, if I viewed a trade as complicity bad between two parties involving some foul play. This trade does not meet that threshold in my view. I think a bad trade or lopsided deal (based on one's perceptions) is just part of the league.