[USML Announce] Serious Rule Change Proposal

Wed Mar 28 13:02:36 EDT 2007

I agree with those that say the proposal is too late to implement this season but there is no reason that we can't discuss and vote on a change for next season right now.  I think that trading for prospects is an important strategic element of this league and would vote against getting rid of it entirely. 

   However, I also agree with the concern that the dumping begins way too early.  I'd support a black out period during which trading prospects is forbidden.  Maybe a no prospect trade period beginning on Roster Freeze Day and ending sometime in June. I'm flexible on the date but think it should be at least 2 months.  

  Regarding the "prospect" definition - I wouldn't require the USML contract to actually begin running before the trade.  Instead, to be eligible, the player in question just needs to be called up to his AL club.  The acquiring owner would then have to activate the player within 1 week of the trade.   The owner trading the player away shouldn't be required to activate a player in anticipation of a deal.

  -Jim

"Andrew R. Klein" <anrklein at yahoo.com> wrote:
  That's all true, though I wasn't trying to spring something on the league in any strategic way.  I would still respectfully request a vote.  In the unlikely event my views are shared by a majority of the league, it's something worth thinking about before we draft another season's worth of players in the rotation round.

-Andy

Richard E. Robbins wrote:   
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        _______________________________________________  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20070328/41fcfa60/attachment.htm