Did i make the right decision?

[Tireur]

Okay so i ended up kicking an owber out of the league for a few trades he tried to make.

Here is his team as of yesterday.

Starting:
Matt hasselbeck
Jamaal charles
Michael turner
Mike williams
Hakeem nicks
Desean jackson
Jason witten
Jets
John kasay

Bench:
Pierre garcon
Santana moss
Ochocinco
James jones
Ladainian
Garrard
Kerry collins

He has not made any waiver moves all season.

He first tries to trade michael turner for roy helu. I as commish veto this immediately. Then he tries to trade turner for fitzpatrick. Again i veto and rule he has given up and is trying to give away his team to whomever he wants. He has made no attempt to improve his team, and allowing him to do these trades would be unfair to everyone who has to play the team that got turner for next to nothing.

He became pissed and said i should let him manage his team how he wants. I said he gave up and doesnt deserve to play in the league anymore. His team is frozen until he either decides to compete or next year when i get a new owner.

What is everyones opinion on this?

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk

[bigmck]

That is the very reason I don't play in leagues that have a LM Veto. It causes too many arguments. Let the league vote on all trades

[Tireur]

The only problem is that we have a lot of inactive players, so nothing would ever get overturned.

I dont care if a trade seems lopsided but if someone is obviously "selling" there team to their best friend because they are inactive and dont care about the league ruins it for the rest of the league. Maybe im wrong but if you are going to be inactive, just be inactive.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk

[chchelse]

As a caveat, I must say I don't value Turner as much as most. In my mind he's a mid tier RB2 with little upside and a lot of downside. The problem I see is that you are deciding the value of players for every manager in your league by vetoing this. His QB is at the lower end. He wants to upgrade to a top 5 or 6 guy in Fitzpatrick, and you say veto. He see's Helu go off in the second half a couple weeks ago and says "I think Helu is going to take over and be a top 10 RB", and Turner is showing no burst on a lackluster offense so I'll make this trade, and you veto. Maybe he has inside information that Turner is hurt and going to be put on IR and your not letting him trde him beause you think he has more value. Everybody values players differently and you need to take that into account. You can't let your opinion of player get into the way of other peoples trades.If he's not colluding, let it go through.

[Tireur]

If he were serious about managing his team he would have dropped garrard and jamaal charles a couple weeks ago. I feel a team giving his best players to his friend because he isnt active for whatever reason colluding. But again maybe im wrong in this.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk

[Executor111]

In the future, you should consider the opinions of the rest of the league before using LM veto. If you abuse it, the rest of the owners will quickly lose interest. I've commished a league w/ a bunch of my friends from college for 3 years now and never used the LM veto. As mentioned above, it usually causes more problems than it solves.

It doesn't seem like this owner was adding much to your league though, so I wouldn't be too upset to see him go. Just make sure you explain this to the rest of your league so they don't think you're on a power trip.

[TaDa]

I think that you did the right thing. If the other owners don't pay attention to veto trades, you were within your rights. The turner for helu trade was obvious collusion. The turner / Fitz one was more borderline, but because of his previous attempt at collusion, still within your rights

[glackk]

Were the 2 trades to the same person? That would be a little suspect especially with the first trade. However, the 2nd trade seems perfectly ok to me. Both are about top 10 in their position. Fitz is hardly "next to nothing". Even in the first trade, it could be just his valuation. The best way is to bring it up with him and ask what his motivation for the trade was. Maybe not collusion, just inexperience or crazy man-love for Helu. If the latter, the trade should go through regardless of how lopsided YOU think it is.

I don't think you can base kicking someone out of the league mid-season for not having made any waiver moves. How would you handle his team the rest of the season? Auto-win for whoever his opponent is that week? Veto the first trade, fine, but I would not have vetoed the 2nd one or frozen his roster. IMO veto voting is silly (another discussion for another thread), but commishes need to be as hands off as possible.

[MadDog36]

I'll take the team and run it correctly.
If its still available.

The 1st trade SHOULD have been vetoed.
The second one should have been allowed.
FYI, you should change the rules to league voting.
But anyway I'll take this team and give it an owner that will pay attention. I play until the very last week even if I'm out of it. You can always upset the playoff applecart..And I never tank to get a better draft position the following season.

viewtopic.php?t=505418