[USML Announce] HATE TO BE A SNITCH

Jim Barrett chicagojab at yahoo.com
Thu Mar 29 12:43:59 EDT 2007


I guess I'll have to go back and reread the emails but I didn't notice 5 supporting the Klein proposal. In an effort to make my vote clear (if it wasn't already) - I'm against the Klein proposal and in favor of mine.  And yes, I know we need official constutitional language but I don't have the time to deal with that today. Maybe later this weekend or early next week.
  I'm off to catch a plane to Florida.
   
  Ciao,
  Jim

"Blocker, Mark B." <mblocker at Sidley.com> wrote:
      Jeff:
   
    I think some people said they would support the Barrett proposal IF the Klein proposal fails, so lets first see what happens with the Klein proposal.  And I don't think it is fair to label this as coming from the fringes of the league (a "Klein/Blocker" proposal).  Five teams have said yes to Andy's proposal, and therefore it seems to me this deserves some serious consideration.
   
    -- Mark B.
   

      
---------------------------------
  From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of jhwinick at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:10 AM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] HATE TO BE A SNITCH


  
  
  "Speaking of shouted down, between Brad's various rants and insults, it appears as if my original proposal garnered 5 votes of support and 5 votes opposed.  Gammons should be required to get off the fence and weigh in."  

-Andy
   
  Actually, I see things a little differently.  Well....alot differently.  For once, I don't find Brad's comments insulting.  I think he pointed out a reasonable difference of opinion regarding the suggestion that the successful trading or acquisition of minor league prospects is the consequence of nothing other than dumb luck (I believe as it pertains to the particular example that is being used to illustrate the importance of the new rule -- the one that involved an unnamed $40 player (Arod) being traded for an unnamed $19 minor league prospect (Brandon Wood) and I might add, a $5 pitching prospect from the Yankees (Philip Hughes).  Of course, Wood was turned into a $1 JJ Putz and Hughes is likely to be a valuable member of the Yankees rotation this year, but obviously those were circumstances that only dumb luck can explain.  You are certainly entitled to question whether such a strategy is good for the league, but I think its fair to challenge your assertion that it
 doesn't involve any strategic thinking at all.
   
  And the other comment I recall is the one that identified the unintended consequence of preventing teams from trading one minor leaguer for another (say Adam Jones for Adam Miller).  
   
  More importantly, I count the votes a little differently.  I see the Barrett rule having the support of at least five teams (Barrett, Robbins, Jansen, Winick and Fruit) and the likely support of Kerber.  By my count, that proposal will then be passed.  And at least three teams (Fruit, Jansen and Winick) believe that such a result would obviate the need for a vote on the Klein/Blocker proposal.  The fact that such a result would also postpone discussion on an issue that is sure to be very contentious appears to be lost on the sponsors of the Klein proposal.  
   
  I'll ask one last time....PLEASE can we table the Klein proposal, adopt the Barrett proposal and get back to having fun?
   
  Jeff Winick
   
   
    
---------------------------------
  AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

  
Sidley Austin LLP mail server made the following annotations on 03/29/07, 09:34:47:  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  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.    ****************************************************************************************************  
  
_______________________________________________
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/20070329/1d8f9855/attachment-0001.htm



More information about the Announce mailing list