[USML Announce] USML - Commissioner Rules question

jhwinick at aol.com jhwinick at aol.com
Mon Sep 5 11:43:35 EDT 2005


Rich poses the question "Is this really an issue?"  I suppose it is.  I, like Mark assumed that any player acquired after September 1st would not be retainable.  Its why I was surprised to see a waiver claim from the Red Hots.  It seems clear that at least two teams (Mark and I) operated on that assumption.  The fact that the constitution in this instance may not precisely track the intentions of the league is beside the point.  I can't believe anyone really cares much about this issue, but I wouldn't dismiss it so cavalierly.  Let's decide what the rule is and then include it in the constitution clearly so there is no further question.
 
For what it is worth, I strongly support a rule that disallows keeping any player that clears waivers after September 1st.  Past experience with the Riptorns in other leagues taught me that it allows an avenue for monkey business.  It allows a front running team to essentially trade a player to the last place time long after the trading deadline.  The Riptorns used this to get very favorable deals with the last place team by including this future consideration.  The Riptorns then held onto the valuable player until just before the end of the season at which point in time they waived the player with the understanding that he would be picked up by the last place team.
 
I confess that it isn't a strategy that I ever would have thought up, but you all know that those Riptorns were sneaky bastages.  Let's close the loophole.
 
As for how to deal with Willy Harris - on that issue, I truly couldn't care less.  I doubt he'll be kept anyway.
 
Jeff
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard E. Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:12:52 -0500
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] USML - Commissioner Rules question


I think the rules are clear.  Neither the salary or contract status of a player claimed on waivers are changed from what they were when the player was rostered by the team that waived him.  That makes sense too.  The reason we introduced the rule about FAAB acquisitions post September 1 was to eliminate the possibility of people snagging non-drafted prospects during the period of expanded rosters.  Maintaining contract status for waived players does not introduce the same concern.
 
Section 8.4 reads as follows:  The salary of a player claimed on waivers shall be his previous salary. The contract status of such player shall also remain unchanged.
 
Section 8.5 reads as follows:  The salary of a free agent is his acquisition price. Except as set forth in the next sentence, the contract status of a free agent acquired on or before the last weekly transaction deadline before September 1 is that of a first-year player. The contract status of a free agent who, during the course of the season, was in the final year of his contract, is that of a player in the final year of his contract. The contract status of a free agent acquired after the last weekly transaction deadline before September 1 is that of a player in the final year of his contract. 
 
Is this really an issue?  If we need to revise the text to be clear, I suggest that we do so in the off-season when changes like this are typically made.  Perhaps something like "The contract status of of such player shall also remain unchanged, without regard to when the player is claimed on waivers."
 
-- Rich
 
 



From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of MBBlocker at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 9:39 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: [USML Announce] USML - Commissioner Rules question


League:
 
  You should by now have received this week's weekly report.  I realized in processing the transactions that I am uncertain how to handle waiver claims, so I am submitting this as a question.  After 9/1, if you obtain a player via FAAB, his contract status is FA (Rule 8.5).  
 
  However, after 9/1, if you claim a player from waivers, what contract status does he have, FA or same as prior?  Rule 8.4 says his status is "unchanged," but I am unclear if that is modified by the fact that the player is part of the free agent pool after 9/1 and thus really an FA pursuant to 8.5.
 
  FYI, no matter what the answer is, we should add a sentence to 8.4 to clarify the constitution on this point.
 
 
  -- Mark B.
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20050905/ef671e85/attachment-0001.htm



More information about the Announce mailing list