[USML Announce] New Rule Proposal

[MBBlocker at aol.com]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Corporate Cowboy....

1.  Simpler:  I will be the one that has to administer the E-bay bidding, so 
I think I have some credibility when I say that the Option C proposal is 
"simpler."  Same bidding, same end pricing, no need to adjust salaries.  Thats how 
I define simple.  Please do not overlook administrative ease.  Also, it will 
be simple to identify these players, because our website allows them to have a 
special desgination (e.g., Y1**).  While you are correct that the proposal 
allows some players that enter the league through interleague trades to slip 
through, I can live with that.  Most interleague trades occur later in the year, 
when competing teams are nearing the cap, so the ability to dump such players 
to competing teams will be lessened without some creativity.

  Now Rich, I may end up being outvoted; that happens all the time.  But I 
don't think its correct to say that the E-bay option is simpler.

2.  Open market:  You basically have this right; I prefer the price that 
results from strategic bidding.  Under the E-bay system, players are relieved from 
the effect of overbidding through an automatic reduction in salary, and I 
think that creates a non-market price.  The winning bid is often several dollars 
higher than the next closest bid and I see no reason to save the winning 
bidder any $$$ (even if its me!).

  -- Mark B.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rochester.hostforweb.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20040207/966be81b/attachment.htm