[USML Announce] USML Rules Voting

[Jim Barrett]

That seems like a nightmare to adminster.  Since rosters can change from week to week that would essentially require a calculation every week.  I think Option A is still the best solution.

john.fruit at usbank.com wrote:
Well, I think there's other effective methods for dealing with salary
floor puffery....perhaps by ruling that one player's salary cannot exceed a
certain percentage of one's total payroll (say by limiting it to 15 or
20%).



SpringKerb at aol.co 
m To: announce at usml.net 
Sent by: cc: 
announce-bounces@ Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML Rules Voting 
usml.net 


02/09/2004 09:56 
AM 
Please respond to 
"USML 
Announcements" 






In a message dated 2/9/2004 9:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, JHWinick
writes:

> Then may I encourage you to modify your vote and switch to option A from
option C. That would be, by far, the easiest
> solution to strengthening the salary floor.

Actually, I think option A goes a long way to fixing the problem without
making any floor adjustments, although it certainly would not preclude an
adjustment to the floor. With option A, a team can no longer put in a FAAB
bid and automatically know it will add the bid amount to its floor. For
example, last year, my $35 bid on Kevin Witt would have yielded a $5
player, and my $51 bid on Brian Roberts would have given me a salary of
maybe $20 or so (don't remember the other bids).

By limiting the salary impact of FAAB players to a dollar more than the
under-bidder, option A makes it so no team can unilaterally puff up its
salary structure. That was one of the main reasons Rich proposed it.

Mark








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rochester.hostforweb.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20040209/7045b285/attachment.htm