[USML Announce] Serious Rule Change Proposal

Wed Mar 28 13:44:33 EDT 2007

League:

  Jim makes some excellent points.  As a practical matter, we as a league seldom start really thinking about roto until after the first of the year, so to scuttle rule change proposals simply because they are proposed too "late" is a recipe for never making any changes.  The answer to that point is to change the April 1, 2007 effective date.  When we try to make changes that are viewed as "on time," people often claim that it upsets expectations from prior drafts, which means we end up with the status quo anyway.  But let me offer the following observations, which will hopefully be taken in the constructive spirit in which they are intended.  

  I'm on board for Andy's proposal, but I would readily consider alternative proposals, and I hope others would do the same, for the following specific reason.  For what is at least a significant non-majority of owners, the trading of minor leaguers and early dumping is reducing the enjoyment of the game.  I agree with Andy that the proposal is not a reaction to last year's events.  In my mind, last year was simply the culmination of a trend that has caused our league to place increasing value on minor leaguers, often to the point that minor leaguers are now more valuable than major leaguers, even though minor leaguers are not subject to the valuation process of the auction.  [Note: some of this is also the result of repeated pre-opening day drafts, which allow owners to stash real major leaguers on their roster without any reduction in the $260 auction amount].

  Several years ago we reduced dump trading by implementing salary caps and floors.  Those caps/floors have worked reasonably well.  But I seem to recall that two other benefits we thought we were getting was (a) more teams in the title hunt, and (b) trades that would require owners to make difficult strategic judgments about trading off one category for another (e.g., trading steals for homers) - both of which seemed like good things to me.  By and large, we have lost both of these benefits through the increased use of minor leaguers (although more the latter than the former).

  Even if we do not implement any change immediately, lets at least commit to having a discussion about this during the first part of the year.  If we are taking a vote now, count me as a yes.

  -- Mark B.

________________________________

	From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of Jim Barrett
	Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:59 PM
	To: USML Announcements
	Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Serious Rule Change Proposal

	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

Sidley Austin LLP mail server made the following annotations on 03/28/07, 13:43:20:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you
that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this
communication, including attachments, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on such 
taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.  In addition, if any such tax advice is used or referred
to by other parties in promoting, marketing or recommending any partnership or other entity,
investment plan or arrangement, then (i) the advice should be construed as written in connection
with the promotion or marketing by others of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this
communication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular
circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20070328/772bbe01/attachment.htm