[USML Announce] USML 2006 - important league update

[springkerb at aol.com]

Rich:

Remind me to explain the economics to you, after the draft.
 
Mark 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard E. Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 06:50:58 -0600
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] USML 2006 - important league update


For what it's worth. .  .
 
With 11 teams, 23 man rosters and a team budget of 260 we have 253 players to draft and 2860 dollars available.  That comes to $11.30 a player on average.
 
With 10 teams, 23 man rosters and a team budget of 260 we have 230 players to draft and 2600 dollars available.  That comes to $11.30 a player on average.
 
With 10 teams, 25 man rosters and a team budget of 280 we have 250 players to draft and 2800 dollars available.  That comes to $11.20 a player on average.
 
I'm not sure what kind of impact on prices we are looking at either way.  If we don't do anything, we will have fewer dollars in the draft chasing fewer players.
 
I'm not averse to have a slightly richer pool.  The ten team 23 man roster is certainly a very standard configuration.
 
I'm on the fence.
 
-- Rich




From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of SpringKerb at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 9:00 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML 2006 - important league update


In a message dated 3/5/2006 8:53:33 P.M. Central Standard Time, JHWinick at aol.com writes:
The change that Mark has proposed is one that is consistent with "official" rotisserie rules.  The rationale is that with one fewer team, there are 23 fewer players to be drafted.  By adding one pitcher and one hitter to each team, you "suck up" 20 of those 23 on active rosters.  The intention is merely to try to keep a consistent amount of depth in the league and lessen the amount of "starter-worthy" talent on the reserve rosters.  Mark didn't mention that along with adding 2 player slots, the auction budget would be increased by $20.
 
I don't think we'd have to waste too much time worrying about all of the rules that might arguable be affected by this change, like innings pitched and minimum at bats, but I could be persuaded.  I think all that we'd need to change are the salary cap and salary floor.
I'd be inclined to make this adjustment and not mess with any of the innings or at-bat rules.  They almost never come into play anyway.  It will keep the prices and the talent pool in a more normal range.
 
Mark
_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20060306/554de7df/attachment-0001.htm