[USML Announce] HATE TO BE A SNITCH

Thu Mar 29 13:13:06 EDT 2007

By my count it looks like there are five clear no votes on Andy's proposal
-- Robbins, Jansen, Winick, Kerber, and Barrett and four clear votes in
support -- Klein, Blocker, Buddha and Shabelman.

I'm not sure how to interpret John Fruit's messages on the topic.  Perhaps
I've lost a clear vote.  I thought that his most recent message indicated
that Jim B.'s proposal addressed his concerns.

I believe there is unanimity around what Jim has proposed.

John and Rick -- can you give a clear Yes or No vote on Andy's proposal?

-- Rich

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of Jim Barrett
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:32 PM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] HATE TO BE A SNITCH

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
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=ht
tp://www.aol.com> 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/20070329/023a48cf/attachment.htm