[USML Announce] USML Rules Voting

[rickgam at comcast.net]

Greetings;
     Alright, we have a deal Rich.  I was a soft "C" to begin with so I can live with "A" in exchange for you switching your FAAB vote, which I do not care to see implemented.  Actually, will you're FAAB vote even matter?  Was the final count 6-4 or 7-3?  Nonetheless, I hereby give permission to unconditionally put the Hoosier Daddies in the "A" camp.
     Rick
> 
> On February 9, 2004, SpringKerb at aol.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I think C implicates lowering the cap (due to less FAAB inflation) rather
> > than raising the floor.  As it is, we provide $40 more "headroom" with our
> > cap ($360 v. $260) than the downside flexibility we provide with our floor
> > ($200 v. $260).
> > 
> > 200 is actually a pretty tight floor already.  Take, for example, a team
> > forced to dump when one or two stars are out for the year with injury or
> > traded to the NL.  You could be at the floor already, without even dumping. 
> > Then you can't do anything at all.  That would simply encourage owners to
> > check out of the league completely for the year.  I'd much prefer to have
> > someone active and dumping, than have them completely inactive because the
> > rules have put them in a straight jacket.
> > 
> > Mark
> 
> There are just too many scenarios where we can argue that adjusting the cap or 
> floor one way or another makes or doesn't make sense.  
> 
> I am confident that for any adjustment that we come up with, it will be 
> relatively easy to concoct a situation where the adjustment proves to be 
> ill-advised.  
> 
> This will get too messy very fast.
> 
> Our rules are too complicated as it is.
> 
> Again, that is why I think that alternative A is the way to go.  It should 
> address the FAAB related problems in a relatively elegant fashion.
> 
> I recognize that some owners are critical of the FAAB process generally because 
> the salaries produced through it are not necessarily equivalent to draft day 
> dollars.  
> 
> I also suspect that there may be owners who think that allowing mobile FAAB 
> dollars is really a bad idea and that that change in conjunction with a rule 
> that tends to reduce FAAB salaries would be even worse.  
> 
> Even though I proposed mobile FAAB dollars because I think it would be fun to 
> play with that rule change, I think that how we go about fixing the asterisk 
> player issue is more significant.
> 
> Accordingly, I would be willing to switch my vote on allowing FAAB dollar trades 
> (assuming that would result in that proposal not being adopted) if someone will 
> switch a vote from alternative C to alternative A (assuming that that would 
> result in that alternative being adopted).
> 
> -- Rich
>