Those trades shouldn't have been vetoed even in a veto-permissable world. By vetoing that you pre-suppose way too much about all of the player values, and you're also insinuating that whoever made those trades are incapable of running their teams (which is true for many worlds, although not the ones I'm in). The point of a veto is for worlds where you have one shark who does the "3 AAAA players for your ace" to the one and done n00b, those trades aren't even in the same conversation.
FWIW the prospect I gave up was pretty good and is somebody that I would be asking for if I was ever firesaling. And some things that are obvious in a vaccuum become less so once you're inside somebody else's roster situation. I'm guessing he wanted to shed payroll to rebuild and and didn't feel like moving every little bit for a bit, so instead just dumped them all for one guy he wanted. Of course he could have displayed a bit more price sensitivity, but that's his prerogative. To be honest, I'm way more price sensitive when I'm battling uphill to make something of nothing. I've definitely lost a few deals with some of my teams winning 100+, just because giving up useful players doesn't seem so bad when they are buried on your organizational depth chart. So I'm guessing that going into firesale mode (same thing, opposite direction) made him less price sensitive if he decided that his guys weren't enough to win anyway. FWIW I don't think he could have gotten 2 Millers if he shopped those guys around a bit more.
The Cordero-Cromer deal wasn't terrible. Cordero's better than I desereved, but I expected to get something of value for Cromer and I probably would have gotten something 80-90% as good w/o Cordero. So if iaiaiaiaiaiaiain decided that Cromer was his golden goose or whatever, I probably would have went elsewhere if he said no to Cordero. I'd rank the Burgess trade ahead of that one on a scale of goodness.