[USML Announce] Andy's Proposal

[Richard E. Robbins]

The "withdrawn" proposal is not simple if it requires the league secretary
to maintain a separate list of players.  Mark Blocker would have to let us
know if TQ Stats will let us create a special contract tag to flag these
guys.
 
In a close race, replacing a dead slot with a productive player for a couple
of months can certainly matter.
 
This proposal tends to weaken the limit on imbalanced trades.
 
Why create a new loophole?
 
As I said before, I think that either of the other alternatives is more
attractive.
 
The eBay bidding approach is very simple and requires no extra work once the
bidding outcome has been determined.  It's also the way real auctions tend
to work.  I only need to bid one dollar more than the next highest bidder.
I'm not required to pay my maximum bid when the second highest bid is far
less.  What is so complicated or troubling about the proposal?  It's neutral
as to the salary cap and imbalanced trade rule set.  The only reason that I
can see to avoid that approach is if you think that other owners are
inclined to cheat.  Are you really concerned about that?
 
-- Rich
 
  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of SpringKerb at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:34 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Andy's Proposal
In a message dated 2/4/2004 2:08:48 PM Central Standard Time,
anrklein at yahoo.com writes:

Anyway, I've been talking to Jim about replacing my proposal with a simpler
suggestion that would simply exclude players purchased with FAAB $$ from
being considered asterisk players for the rest of the season in which they
are purchased.  Do others have thoughts about that?

Although Andy has inexplicably withdrawn his new proposal, the simplicity of
that solution is really attractive, plus it avoids any need to adjust our
floor/cap system to reflect the reduced impact of FAAB dollars.
 
If I recall correctly, part of the reason for an asymmetric floor/cap system
(i.e., cap at 360, or 260 + 100, versus floor at 200, or 260-60) was the
assumed upward bias introduced by FAAB funny money, which would push total
salaries higher over the season.  If we simply say that FAAB players don't
get an asterisk, the egregious abuses of the past are remedied without doing
anything more complex.
 
I'm not at all worried about the fact that FAAB purchases would then be free
of asterisk status.  The number of FAAB players actually deserving an
asterisk each year is tiny, and they are available only for a fraction of a
season.  It's not a real problem at all.  On balance, I think it's probably
the best solution.
 
Mark  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rochester.hostforweb.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20040204/6b1dcbf2/attachment-0001.htm