[USML Announce] A Plea For An Orderly Process

[Jim Barrett]

Regarding the third proposal - I'm sorry, I thought I clearly voted no.  I don't think we should count National League stats.  My "twist" was only intended to apply if the group accepted Rich's third proposal.  In that case, I don't think we should make a distinction between traded players and released players who sign with an NL team as a free agent.  Think of it as a discussion topic to help Rich decide whether to amend his proposal.  However, if we could structure a two-prong vote on the issue then I'll draft something up. What I mean is that we first vote on the general concept of whether to include NL stats of players who moved from AL to NL.  If the majority votes yes then we vote on the actual language to implement the change.  

SpringKerb at aol.com wrote:Although Rich directed his comments to Andy, a similar comment would apply to Jim Barrett's twist on Rich's third proposal. It is not currently on the table and no language has been prepared. So, Jim, if you want to propose that, tee it up to Blocker. If it doesn't go that route, it's just there for conversation, and we'll vote only on Rich's proposals the way they are.

Also, once the proposals are out there for voting, people need to vote yes or no on them. A "yes, but" or "no, except" type of vote is ambiguous and doesn't help the commissioners tally the votes. It's like saying, "I'd vote for Bush if he were smart and honest."

Mark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rochester.hostforweb.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20040204/f42db2ec/attachment.htm