[USML Announce] Serious Rule Change Proposal

Wed Mar 28 16:15:49 EDT 2007

Rich:

Did you mean to insult Winick?  I ask because I'm sure you did in fact insult him.

Because I know that Jeff's been ill and needs to devote time to multiple teams and leagues, I will assert here and now, on behalf of Jeff, that he's just as much of an asswipe as Brad and just as capable of springing things on the league for strategic purposes.

I am, too, by the way, and I'm also insulted at your oversight.  I demand that you call me a scheming asswipe immediately or I will pursue all legal remedies.

Mark 

-----Original Message-----
From: RERobbins at iTinker.net
To: announce at usml.net
Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Serious Rule Change Proposal

Only that ass-wipe Brad would spring something on the league in a strategic way.  The rest of us would simply do it recklessly!

I certainly can't stop anyone from calling for a vote -- and I still respectfully vote no.

-- Rich

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of Andrew R. Klein
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:25 PM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Serious Rule Change Proposal

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
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20070328/b97a3769/attachment-0001.htm