[USML Announce] Serious Rule Change Proposal

[Richard E. Robbins]

I recognize that Andy.  The thing is, in the past, we've made it a point to
try and focus rules discussions during the off-season.  Although we may not
have done so each year, Mark Blocker often circulates a message indicating
when rules proposals need to be made by etc.  Even if Mark didn't do that
this year (and I really don't recall) it is our well-established practice to
handle these things in the winter unless there are extenuating
circumstances.  None of what I'm saying should come as a surprise.  I really
don't think it's right to spring this one on the league today.

-----Original Message-----
From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of Andrew R. Klein
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:00 PM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Serious Rule Change Proposal

Rich-

I can't say that I never thought about this before.  But it was draft prep
that really prompted me to make the proposal.

-Andy



Richard E. Robbins wrote:
> I vote no.
>
> I wish you had raised this issue in the midst of the off-season and 
> not so close to the draft.
>
> -- Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On 
> Behalf Of Andrew R. Klein
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:03 AM
> To: USML Announcements
> Subject: [USML Announce] Serious Rule Change Proposal
>
> League-
>
> Here is a serious rules proposal.  My usual caveat applies -- I have 
> been part of the league for 18 years and hope that we're still playing
> 18 years from now.  The proposal is not end-of-the-world stuff; it 
> just reflects some issues that have impacted my enjoyment of the game.
> Here's the proposal:
>
> Article XII
>
> 13.  No player may be traded until his USML contract is running.  This 
> rule shall not apply to players retained by team owners before April 1,
2007.
>
>
> My reasons for making the proposal follow.
>
> 1.  As you know, I do not share the enthusiasm that many league 
> members have for prospecting.  I'm fine with prospects supplementing a 
> league based on major league players.  But in recent years I feel as 
> if our league has worked the other way around.  My proposal  would 
> allow prospecting in the rotation draft to continue unabated.  An 
> owner could watch prospects develop and then retain them (or trade 
> them) after a call-up.  But the proposal would eliminate the movement 
> of top-flight major leaguers for players who are years away from 
> contributing to our actual standings.  To me, this would be a good 
> thing.  No longer would the biggest leg-up on competitiveness be the
ability to engage in dump deals for minor league prospects.
>
> 2.  Our current rules encourage people to dump very early if they want 
> to position themselves to win a future title.  I know that a number of 
> league members dislike this aspect of the league and would rather have 
> rules that encourage teams to play for a while before looking to next 
> season.  The proposal would make early dumping harder to accomplish 
> and a riskier proposition.
>
> 3.  The proposal contains a grandfathering clause so teams that have 
> gathered prospects under our current rules (like the Riptorns) are not 
> disadvantaged.  Administering this would be easy.  We could simply 
> list the names of the 30 or so exempted players on usml.net and cross 
> them off as they become active or are waived.
>
> That is all for now.  I ask our esteemed commissioners to tally votes.
>
> -Andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at usml.net
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at usml.net
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
>
>   
_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce