[USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

Tue Jan 22 10:46:39 EST 2008

Mark,

To be fair, I didn't propose a "requirement" of a super-majority for Rich's proposal.? I merely suggested that it would be a good idea if people considered the wisdom of making rules changes in the absence of consensus.? You are correct that the constitution only requires a simple majority, hence my suggestion that we think twice before we push this issue.? I AM going to propose a requirement of a super-majority for future?changes to the constitution, but, of course, even if successful, that wouldn't apply retroactively.? And, ironically enough, that change to the constitution would officially only require a majority vote.

My appeal was not directed to a technical reading of the rules and voting requirements.? It was a request that people consider the consequences of changing rules in the absence of a semblence of league consensus.

As for the pro-rated stats proposal, I don't think its any sillier than allowing teams to accrue stats from players that switch leagues, but thats just my opinion.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: springkerb at aol.com
To: announce at usml.net
Sent: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:29 am
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

Regarding Winick's proposed requirement of a super majority for this rule change, that isn't the way the constitution is currently written.? If Jeff thinks it should be, then he needs to propose a rule change to that effect.

?

Also, the pro-rated stats proposal is sufficiently silly that I'm assuming it was offered up only for rhetorical purposes and therefore will not respond to it further.

?

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 9:11 am
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

I understand where you are coming from Jeff.  However, I have a different 
erspective on the bulk of what you're saying.  I'll respond more completely 
hen 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 
hy 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.  
 hope others will stick to that timetable.  Moreover, if you circulate a 
roposal, please suggest the necessary text to implement it.
-- Rich
----Original Message-----
rom: jhwinick at aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:21:40 
o:announce at usml.net
ubject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

ich,

I'm not sure I agree that the league?acknowledges a "fundamental" difference.? 
ather, the?league arrived at a compromise that provides limited?compensation to 
hose who lose a player to the other league.??We stay within the market system 
stablished by the draft and free agent bidding, but give the suffering team a 
ittle extra FAAB money.? But, even that compensation?was recently?scaled back 
o that there is only minimal compensation for reserve round players traded out 
f 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 
eague.

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

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

But let's not mess with success.? For the same reasons discussed in this 
essage, if the vote on trading FAAB dollars is close, I think we should leave 
hat 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

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

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

hanks 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 
ehalf 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 
oing to count, I'd like to add the following proposal:

If a player on a team is incapacitated?either?because of injury, steroids, 
uspension or any other reason?far less predictable than being traded to the NL, 
hen that player should continue to accrue pro-rated stats until he returns 
o?active major league status.? The pro-rated stats will be?calculated by taking 
hat player's?stats for the season to date divided by the number of games played 
y that player to date.? The USML team may continue to accrue stats for that 
layer 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 
layer is that player?being traded out of the league.? For example, all of 
akland's veterans, many of Baltimore's veterans, Paul Konerko, etc. are the 
ontinued subject matter of trade rumors.? They are therefore a bit higher risk 
han other players.? I have no doubt but that that will be factored into their 
rice.? If they get traded out of the league, the last thing we ought to be 
oing is not only eliminating the consequences of having taken that risk, but 
dding the lottery factor of a potential bonus associated with the player 
etting traded to a better NL team.? We don't compensate teams that suffer 
njuries.? We don't compensate teams whose players?get suspended.? Why would we 
ompensate teams whose players are traded out of the league???

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

reetings; I hereby respectively cast my annual "no" vote for both proposals. 
ick -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: 
pringkerb at aol.com <mailto:springkerb at aol.com> > I think it would be very hard 
o craft a rule that would accomplish that purpose > without skewing the exiting 
ules. > > > > 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 
eally interesting idea Jim. I'm very curious about what people think > about 
hat possibility. I'm not sure how I feel about it. My initial thought > is that 
e should not allow transferred FAAB to balance an otherwise imbalanced > trade. 
 say that just to be conservative. I offered the proposal merely > because I 
hought it was interesting and because it might add a fun element to > the game. 
f it could be used to diminish the force of our existing rules re > imbalanced 
rades 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 
nnouncements <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 
ut 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 
ule proposals. I'll leave it to Packer Fan Mark to call for a > vote at the 
ppropriate time. > The first is that we permit FAAB funds to be traded (which 
'm proposing on a > whim) and the second is to count in-season statistics of 
layers traded to the > NL. > Here is the text to implement each. > Proposal ? 
ermit Trading of FAAB Funds > Proposed Revised Section 12.6 > Trades may 
nclude FAAB funds (as defined in Section 14.2). Trades involving > FAAB funds 
hall be reported and become effective in accordance with Section > 11.3. No 
rade may be made for players to be named later, Auction funds, > Rotation Draft 
ositions or picks or future considerations of any kind. > Proposal ? Count 
tatistics of Players Traded to the National League > In order to implement this 
roposal, we would delete Section 14.6 and the > references to Section 14.6 
ound in Section 15.5 and 16.5. > We would add the following text as a new 
ection or perhaps a stand-alone > Article: > The statistics of a player who is 
n the Active Roster or the Reserve Roster of > any League team and who is 
raded to the National League during the course of a > season will be included 
n calculating the cumulative statistics of the League > team that owns that 
layer as if he remained in the American League. The > player > can be 
ctivated, reserved, waived or traded by his League team, on the same > basis as 
f he remained in the American League, except that if he is waived he > may not 
e claimed on waivers. This Section shall not limit the application of > Section 
7.1. >_______________________________________________ > announce mailing list > 
nnounce 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> > 
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> 
 > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > announce 
ailing list > announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> > 
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> 
 > > > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ 
 More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - > 
ttp://webmail.aol.com <http://webmail.aol.com/> > 

ttached 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 
 think it would be very hard to craft a rule that would accomplish that purpose 
ithout skewing the exiting rules. 

ark

-----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

hat'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 is 
hat we should not allow transferred FAAB to balance an otherwise imbalanced 
rade. I say that just to be conservative. I offered the proposal merely because 
 thought it was interesting and because it might add a fun element to the game. 
f it could be used to diminish the force of our existing rules re imbalanced 
rades that might be too much. It's an intriguing thought though. -----Original 
essage----- 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 
n favor of the FAAB fund trading but have a question?- should/can FAAB funds be 
sed to help balance trades? ? I'm opposed to the NL stats proposal. "Richard E. 
obbins" <RERobbins at iTinker.net <mailto:RERobbins at iTinker.net> > wrote: I've got 
wo rule proposals.? I'll leave it to Packer Fan Mark to call for a vote at the 
ppropriate time. The first is that we permit FAAB funds to be traded (which I'm 
roposing on a whim) and the second is to count in-season statistics of players 
raded to the NL. Here is the text to implement each. Proposal ? Permit Trading 
f FAAB Funds Proposed Revised Section 12.6 Trades may include FAAB funds (as 
efined in Section 14.2).? Trades involving FAAB funds shall be reported and 
ecome effective in accordance with Section 11.3.? No trade may be made for 
layers to be named later, Auction funds, Rotation Draft positions or picks or 
uture considerations of any kind. Proposal ? Count Statistics of Players Traded 
o the National League In order to implement this proposal, we would delete 
ection 14.6 and the references 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: The statistics of a player who is on the Active Roster or the Reserve 
oster of any League team and who is traded to the National League during the 
ourse of a season will be included in calculating the cumulative statistics of 
he League team that owns that player as if he remained in the American League.? 
he player can be activated, reserved, waived or traded by his League team, on 
he same basis as if he remained in the American League, except that if he is 
aived he may not be claimed on waivers.? This Section shall not limit the 
pplication of Section 17.1. _______________________________________________ 
nnounce mailing list announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> 
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> 
______________________________________________ announce mailing list 
nnounce 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 
nnounce 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 
nnounce 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 
nnounce 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 
nnounce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce 
http://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

________________________________________________________________________
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/20080122/2a7352c4/attachment-0001.htm