[USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

Tue Jan 22 09:12:05 EST 2008

I understand where you are coming from Jeff.  However, I have a different perspective on the bulk of what you're saying.  I'll respond more completely when time permits and I can check a few facts.

I'm glad that we have the luxury of time for a thoughtful discussion.  That's why I believe this is the time for rules proposals and not the eve of the draft.

Mark Blocker suggested that proposals be circulated before the end of the month.  I hope others will stick to that timetable.  Moreover, if you circulate a proposal, please suggest the necessary text to implement it.

-- Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: jhwinick at aol.com

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:21:40 
To:announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

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>  [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net?> ] On Behalf Of jhwinick at aol.com <mailto:jhwinick at aol.com> 
 Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:05 PM
 To: announce at usml.net <mailto: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 <mailto:rickgam at comcast.net> 
 To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net <mailto: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 ---------------------- From: springkerb at aol.com <mailto:springkerb at aol.com> > 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 <mailto:RERobbins at iTinker.net> > > To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net <mailto: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 > 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 imbalanced > 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 <mailto:chicagojab at yahoo.com> > > > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:51:12 > To:USML Announcements <announce at usml.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 of > any League team and who is traded to the National League during the course of a > 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 of > Section 17.1. >_______________________________________________ > announce mailing list > announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> > http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> > >_______________________________________________ > announce mailing list > announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> > http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > announce mailing list > announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> > http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> > > > > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - > http://webmail.aol.com <http://webmail.aol.com/> > 

Attached Message 
 From: springkerb at aol.com <mailto:springkerb at aol.com> 
 To: announce at usml.net <mailto: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 <mailto:RERobbins at iTinker.net> >
 To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net <mailto: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 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 imbalanced 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 <mailto:chicagojab at yahoo.com> > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:51:12 To:USML Announcements <announce at usml.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 of any League team and who is traded to the National League during the course of a 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 of Section 17.1. _______________________________________________ announce mailing list announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> _______________________________________________ announce mailing list announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> 
_______________________________________________ announce mailing list announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> 

----------------
 More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003> !

_______________________________________________ announce mailing list announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> 

_______________________________________________ announce mailing list announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> 
_______________________________________________ announce mailing list announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> _______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce