[USML Announce] Sorry fellas ......

[rickgam at comcast.net]

 ........ but I just returned a couple hours ago from Vegas after enduring a pleasant flight cancellation yesterday morning (mitigated by cashing in on calling the Final Four two weeks ago).  I checked e-mail on Tuesday, so all of this must have exploded immediately after.  For the record, I would have voted yes on the Klein proposal and yes on the Barrett proposal.  
     Proceed, gents.
   Rick

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Richard E. Robbins" <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
> I have no idea Brad.  Nobody has talked about when the prohibition should
> take effect.
>  
> Since we probably don't want sneaky ass wipes making deals involving magic
> beans during the rotation draft it should probably take effect from when
> reserve rosters are established.
>  
> -- Rich
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
> Of Brad Jansen
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:43 PM
> To: USML Announcements
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] You Asked For It
> 
> 
> And when does the prohibition take effect?  After  the  conclusion  of  the
> rotation draft?   I apologize if it's already  in  the prior
> email...starting to phase out on this...getting very sleepy...   
> 
> 
> On 3/29/07, JHWinick at aol.com <JHWinick at aol.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 3/29/2007 1:47:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> RERobbins at iTinker.net writes:
> 
> OK -- now that we have six people who oppose Andy's proposal and a general
> consensus that we should adopt Jim's proposal we need to figure out exactly
> how to implement what Jim wants.
> 
> Jim was clear that he doesn't want the rule to require someone to activate a
> player in order to trade him, only that the player be on a major league
> roster with the understanding that the acquiring owner activate him.
> 
> Our rules don't require that a player be on a major league roster in order
> for his USML owner to activate him.  Of course, if you do so, the player's
> contract starts running.
> 
> There are a number of ways we might approach this. 
> 
> I suspect that what Jim had in mind was something like 1 or 2 below.  The
> last two alternatives may be more permissive than what Jim intended since
> either of those would permit the trade of a prospect, albeit at the price of
> a running contract.
> 
> 1.  Before June 1, you can't trade a player whose USML contract is not
> running unless that player is, at the effective time of the trade, on a
> major league roster.  If a player on a major league roster but without a
> running contract is traded before June 1, the acquiring team must roster
> that player on his active roster.
> 
> 2.  Before June 1, you can't trade a player whose USML contract is not
> running unless that player is, at the effective time of the trade on a major
> league roster.  If a player on a major league roster but without a running
> contract is traded before June 1, that player will be deemed to be in the
> first year of his contract without regard to where the acquiring owner
> roster's the player.
> 
> 3.  Before June 1, you can't trade a player whose USML contract is not
> running.  If a player without a running contract is traded before June 1,
> the acquiring team must roster that player on his active roster.
> 
> 4.  Before June 1, you can't trade a player whose USML contract is not
> running.  If a player on a major league roster but without a running
> contract is traded, that player will be deemed to be in the first year of
> his contract without regard to where the acquiring owner roster's the
> player.
> 
> I'm sorry to drag the league through this but I see no way out.  These are
> the kinds of questions that we must address when revising our rules.  Once
> we understand which of the four variations we intend, we can turn to
> language that will actually work.  This is why I oppose making last minute
> rule changes.
> 
> -- Rich 
> 
> If we're going to incorporate the Barrett exception, I would propose that it
> be as follows:
>  
> Before June 1, if you trade a player whose USML contract is not running, the
> player will be deemed to be in the first year of his contract without regard
> to whether the acquiring owner rosters the player.
>  
> However, I would also like the league to vote on a blanket prohibition that
> would read:
>  
> Before June 1, a team can't trade a player whose USML contract is not
> running.
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at usml.net
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
> 
> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Richard E. Robbins" <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] You Asked For It
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:04:01 +0000
Size: 16820
Url: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20070329/f902ac29/attachment-0001.eml