[USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

Tue Jan 22 08:22:16 EST 2008

Rich,

I'm not sure I agree that the league?acknowledges a "fundamental" difference.? Rather, the?league arrived at a compromise that provides limited?compensation to those who lose a player to the other league.??We stay within the market system established by the draft and free agent bidding, but give the suffering team a little extra FAAB money.? But, even that compensation?was recently?scaled back so that there is only minimal compensation for reserve round players traded out of the league ($5).? We did that for the very reason that I oppose your proposal - we didn't want teams to get a windfall from a player being traded out of the league.

Turning serious for a moment - the bottom line for me is this -?if we can't reach something approaching a consensus (i.e.?2/3's), we shouldn't change the rules.? It seems to me that if a rules proposal is going to leave nearly half of the league disappointed, its not a change worth making.? And that's true for every rules proposal - not merely this one.? Last year in the face of controversy regarding a proposal to change the rules concerning the trading of minor leaguers, the league arrived at a compromise that, I believe, was unanimously adopted.? I thought that was a success and its?the way we should change the rules when we change them.

This proposal is controversial and will either pass or fail in a very close vote.? That's the way its been for years.? I believe that our current rules reflect a compromise position, but I'd be willing to consider alternatives.? Admittedly I don't know what those might be, but I trust Rich to come up with something.

But let's not mess with success.? For the same reasons discussed in this message, if the vote on trading FAAB dollars is close, I think we should leave that issue alone as well and I will change my vote to No.

Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard E. Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 5:23 am
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

We already recognize that there is something fundamentally different about being traded out of the league and suffering an injury, suspension etc.? That's why we compensate the USML owner by adding back FAAB.? To my mind the only question is whether the compensation is adequate and whether there is a suitable alternative.? I think that our current system does not adequately compensate the owner of a player who is traded out of the league and that this proposed rule change offers a superior alternative.? If a player suffers an injury, both the major league team and the USML team suffer without compensation.? If a player is traded out of the AL, the major league team gets whatever they negotiated in trade, the USML team gets a few FAAB dollars.? 

?

This has been a close call in the past -- I think the last time we voted our then ten owner league split down the middle on the issue.

?

Thanks for your consideration.

?

-- Rich

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of jhwinick at aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:05 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

I vote yes to trading FAAB and no to NL stats.??

But if the NL stats proposal passes and stats for players?traded to the NL are going to count, I'd like to add the following proposal:

If a player on a team is incapacitated?either?because of injury, steroids, suspension or any other reason?far less predictable than being traded to the NL, then that player should continue to accrue pro-rated stats until he returns to?active major league status.? The pro-rated stats will be?calculated by taking that player's?stats for the season to date divided by the number of games played by that player to date.? The USML team may continue to accrue stats for that player on that basis until he returns to active major league status.

Guys....the most predictable of all of the?"bad" things that can happen to a player is that player?being traded out of the league.? For example, all of Oakland's veterans, many of Baltimore's veterans, Paul Konerko, etc. are the continued subject matter of trade rumors.? They are therefore a bit higher risk than other players.? I have no doubt but that that will be factored into their price.? If they get traded out of the league, the last thing we ought to be doing is not only eliminating the consequences of having taken that risk, but adding the lottery factor of a potential bonus associated with the player getting traded to a better NL team.? We don't compensate teams that suffer injuries.? We don't compensate teams whose players?get suspended.? Why would we compensate teams whose players are traded out of the league???

Should we be changing the rules to safeguard the values of Eric Bedard, Brian Roberts, Paul Konerko and others?? We've certainly never done anything like that in the past and I hope we don't deviate now.? But if we do, I say we maintain philosophic consistency and eliminate as much risk as possible associated with drafting a player:? injuries, suspension and being traded out of the league.? No sense merely going half way.

Jeff Winick

Original Message-----
From: rickgam at comcast.net
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 9:28 pm
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

Greetings;
    I hereby respectively cast my annual "no" vote for both proposals.
  Rick
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
rom: springkerb at aol.com
 I think it would be very hard to craft a rule that would accomplish that 
urpose 
 without skewing the exiting rules.

 Mark

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Richard Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
 To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
 Sent: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 6:31 pm
 Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

 That's a really interesting idea Jim.  I'm very curious about what people 
hink 
 about that possibility.  I'm not sure how I feel about it.  My initial thought 
> is that we should not allow transferred FAAB to balance an otherwise 
mbalanced 
 trade.  I say that just to be conservative.  I offered the proposal merely 
 because I thought it was interesting and because it might add a fun element to 
> the game.  If it could be used to diminish the force of our existing rules re 
 imbalanced trades that might be too much.  It's an intriguing thought though.
 -----Original Message-----
 From: Jim Barrett <chicagojab at yahoo.com>

 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:51:12 
 To:USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
 Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

 I'm in favor of the FAAB fund trading but have a question - should/can FAAB 
 funds be used to help balance trades? 

 I'm opposed to the NL stats proposal. 

 "Richard E. Robbins" <RERobbins at iTinker.net> wrote:   
 I've got two rule proposals.  I'll leave it to Packer Fan Mark to call for a 
 vote at the appropriate time.  
 The first is that we permit FAAB funds to be traded (which I'm proposing on a 
 whim) and the second is to count in-season statistics of players traded to the 
> NL. 
 Here is the text to implement each.  
 Proposal ? Permit Trading of FAAB Funds  
 Proposed Revised Section 12.6  
 Trades may include FAAB funds (as defined in Section 14.2).  Trades involving 
 FAAB funds shall be reported and become effective in accordance with Section 
 11.3.  No trade may be made for players to be named later, Auction funds, 
 Rotation Draft positions or picks or future considerations of any kind. 
 Proposal ? Count Statistics of Players Traded to the National League  
 In order to implement this proposal, we would delete Section 14.6 and the 
 references to Section 14.6 found in Section 15.5 and 16.5. 
 We would add the following text as a new Section or perhaps a stand-alone 
 Article:  
 The statistics of a player who is on the Active Roster or the Reserve Roster 
f 
 any League team and who is traded to the National League during the course of 

 season will be included in calculating the cumulative statistics of the League 
> team that owns that player as if he remained in the American League.  The 
 player 
 can be activated, reserved, waived or traded by his League team, on the same 
 basis as if he remained in the American League, except that if he is waived he 
> may not be claimed on waivers.  This Section shall not limit the application 
f 
 Section 17.1.
 _______________________________________________
 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

 ________________________________________________________________________
 More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
 http://webmail.aol.com

Attached Message

From:

springkerb at aol.com

To:

announce at usml.net

Subject:

Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

Date:

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:26:37 +0000

I think it would be very hard to craft a rule that would accomplish that purpose without skewing the exiting rules. 

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

That's a really interesting idea Jim.  I'm very curious about what people think 
bout that possibility.  I'm not sure how I feel about it.  My initial thought 
s that we should not allow transferred FAAB to balance an otherwise imbalanced 
rade.  I say that just to be conservative.  I offered the proposal merely 
ecause I thought it was interesting and because it might add a fun element to 
he game.  If it could be used to diminish the force of our existing rules re 
mbalanced trades that might be too much.  It's an intriguing thought though.
----Original Message-----
rom: Jim Barrett <chicagojab at yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:51:12 
o:USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
ubject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

'm in favor of the FAAB fund trading but have a question?- should/can FAAB 
unds be used to help balance trades? 

'm opposed to the NL stats proposal. 

Richard E. Robbins" <RERobbins at iTinker.net> wrote:   
've got two rule proposals.? I'll leave it to Packer Fan Mark to call for a 
ote at the appropriate time.  
he first is that we permit FAAB funds to be traded (which I'm proposing on a 
him) and the second is to count in-season statistics of players traded to the 
L. 
ere is the text to implement each.  
roposal ? Permit Trading of FAAB Funds  
roposed Revised Section 12.6  
rades may include FAAB funds (as defined in Section 14.2).? Trades involving 
AAB funds shall be reported and become effective in accordance with Section 
1.3.? No trade may be made for players to be named later, Auction funds, 
otation Draft positions or picks or future considerations of any kind. 
roposal ? Count Statistics of Players Traded to the National League  
n order to implement this proposal, we would delete Section 14.6 and the 
eferences to Section 14.6 found in Section 15.5 and 16.5. 
e would add the following text as a new Section or perhaps a stand-alone 
rticle:  
he statistics of a player who is on the Active Roster or the Reserve Roster of 
ny League team and who is traded to the National League during the course of a 
eason will be included in calculating the cumulative statistics of the League 
eam that owns that player as if he remained in the American League.? The player 
an be activated, reserved, waived or traded by his League team, on the same 
asis as if he remained in the American League, except that if he is waived he 
ay not be claimed on waivers.? This Section shall not limit the application of 
ection 17.1.
______________________________________________
nnounce mailing list
nnounce at usml.net
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
 _______________________________________________
nnounce mailing list
nnounce at usml.net
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

_______________________________________________
nnounce mailing list
nnounce at usml.net
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

_______________________________________________
nnounce mailing list
nnounce at usml.net
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

_______________________________________________
nnounce mailing list
nnounce at usml.net
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

_______________________________________________
nnounce mailing list
nnounce at usml.net
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20080122/eb749b4f/attachment-0001.htm