[USML Announce] USML Rules Voting

[Richard E. Robbins]

As Jeff pointed out yesterday, alternative C allows teams to get around the
salary floor by inflating the value of the players they acquire through FAAB
acquisitions.
 
This will not be possible with alternative A.
 
If we adopt alternative C then we will need to adopt even more rules to
handle issues stemming from the floor.
 
Alternative A is simple, neutral and should go a long way to dealing with
the issue Jeff is highlighting.
 
Depending on Doug's vote we will either be split 5 to 5 on alternative A vs.
C or it will be 6 to 4 in favor of C.
 
If the majority really prefers alternative C, then so be it.  I look forward
to seeing the creative solution that follows to deal with the fact that it
is "floor friendly."
 
Please reconsider your position on how to deal with the asterisk player
creation problem.
 
-- Rich


  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of JHWinick at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 1:38 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML Rules Voting


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/20040208/31da5ece/attachment.htm