[USML Announce] Andy's Proposal

[Richard E. Robbins]

As I mentioned in my original proposal, I think that each of the proposals regarding FAAB creation of asterisk players has a problem.

My proposal allows for the possibility of two owners colluding to create a FAAB player.  While I know that our league has a rich history of people gaming the rules, I believe that an explicit statement against collusive bidding for this purpose will suffice.  This is what my proposal contempates.  I have a hard time believing that a pair of owners in the USML would violate the rule relying on the fact that collusion is hard to prove.

Andy's alternative does not have the problem that my proposal does.  On the other hand, it is inconsistent with the salary cap.  An owner could use FAAB dollars to squeeze a player under the cap in a manner that it not currently possible.  How can we institute a cap and then come up with a rule a year later that diminishes its strength?  This rule makes FAAB acquisitions less helpful to teams near the floor and more helpful for teams near the cap.  I think that a rule that is neutral in this regard is better -- my proposal does not have a different impact based on a team's salary.  While I'm not wild about using an odd currency for bidding and needing to fuss with salaries post season, it would work.

I think that either proposal will suffice and that we certainly need to make a change.  I have a modest preference for the variant I have proposed.