[USML Announce] USML Rules Voting

[JHWinick at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/8/2004 12:15:29 PM Central Standard Time, 
john.fruit at usbank.com writes:
Also, could someone elaborate on the usefulness of having a salary floor?
Is there a roster integrity issue beyond just unloading high-priced players
to contenders? It seems like the salary cap already guards against
over-aggressive dumping.
The intention of the anti-dumping rules was to guard against over aggressive 
dumping on the part of both the dumper and the dumpee.  Since the arrival of 
the Riptorns we have had an annual race to the bottom of the league.  That has 
led to the trading away of not merely high priced players, but the trading 
away of every reasonably valuable player that doesn't possess significant 
undervalue.  If you look at the dump trades made during the last few years, you'll 
see that the trading continues until the non competitive teams have nothing 
left, whatsoever.  Last year, potential keepers like Rocco Baldelli were traded 
away for minor leaguers and other prospects with greater potential keeper value. 
 What you invariably end up with is a race by, at most, 3-4 teams and the 
balance of the league waiting for the year to end.  I would argue that the real 
evil we're trying to address with the anti-dumping rules is not the 
accumulation of talent by the top teams, but rather the complete depletion of talent from 
the bottom teams.

We agreed upon a fairly lax salary cap so that we wouldn't unduly restrain 
teams from moving players from their reserve roster or utilizing FAAB.  The hope 
was that the salary floor would work in concert with the cap to limit the 
extent of dumping.  What we found was that a liberal salary cap in the absence of 
an effective salary floor meant that there was no true restraint on dump 
trades.  Removing the asterisk loophole will fix the problem of trades involving 
the most expensive players, but it will have no effect on the dump trades 
involving large groups of sub-$25 players.  I would refer you to the multitude of 
non-asterisk deals last year to illustrate the nature of the problem.  Also, 
you can look at the rosters of some of the teams that finished at the bottom of 
the league last year (particularly the Riptorns) to see what results from no 
salary floor.  If you recall last year there was a noticeable pause when the 
bidding hit $24 because people were hesitant to create asterisk players.  When 
teams recognize that they can indiscriminately dump sub-$25 players, that pause 
will more likely become a full stop at subsequent auctions.

My goal with respect to anti-dumping legislation is to enhance the value of 
the draft and in-season transactions like FAAB.  I honestly believe that is 
where skill at playing this game is best reflected.  I have been disappointed to 
watch most of the last few seasons ride on which team is best able to pull off 
multiple dump deals.  I am not persuaded that this element of the game should 
take on such a preeminent role.  

I have been considering proposing a reduction in the salary cap to address 
some of these problems.  I don't think that is an ideal solution although it has 
worked in another league in which I participate.  I would prefer to avoid 
going down that path, but will recommend we do so if we're going to emasculate 
the salary floor.  The only alternative to a reduction of the salary cap is to 
impose some sort of penalty on the teams that finish at the bottom (i.e. 
reorganize the reserve draft to move the bottom finishers to the bottom, reduce the 
FAAB budget of the bottom teams or impose a monetary penalty) and I think 
those solutions are far worse than imposing greater constraints upon the top 
team's budgets.

Jeff Winick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rochester.hostforweb.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20040208/7d2a480f/attachment-0001.htm