[USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

Brad Jansen bljansen at gmail.com
Tue Jan 22 14:37:20 EST 2008 

Hey, where's Klein?  Still campaigning for Fred Thompson?

--BLJ



On 1/22/08, Richard Robbins <rerobbins at itinker.net> wrote:
>
>  I'm not sure what would have happened last year if we had a
> super-majority requirement in place.  A minority would, in effect, have veto
> rights.  I suspect that where we came out last year was, to a large degree,
> attributable to a number of the DUMP types willing to accept weaker medicine
> as an alternative to a stronger (and more controversial) rule that was
> likely to have passed with a slender majority.  Moreover, the timing of last
> year's proposal was really poor, which meant that some of us voted for a
> rule change just to end the dispute.  If we had a super-majority requirement
> last year I'm not certain we would have done anything at all.
>
> Our league has not been marked by wild rule changes.  I don't think we've
> suffered at all with the majority vote regime.  I see no reason to change
> this particular rule now.  Beware unintended consequences.
>
> I'll comment more on the NL proposal stuff later.
>
> -- Rich
>
>  ------------------------------
>  *From:* announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] *On
> Behalf Of *springkerb at aol.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:19 PM
> *To:* announce at usml.net
> *Subject:* Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals
>
>
> I might support a super-majority requirement.  I think are rules are
> pretty good right now--notwithstanding the majority's strange unwillingness
> to embrace the side of truthfulness and light on the issue of NL stats.
>
> Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhwinick at aol.com
> To: announce at usml.net
> Sent: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:42 am
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals
>
>  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
> 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 <announce-bounces at usml.net?>>
> [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net <announce-bounces at usml.net?> <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net <announce-bounces at usml.net?>?> ] On
> Behalf Of jhwinick at aol.com <mailto:jhwinick at aol.com <jhwinick at aol.com?>>
>  Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:05 PM
>  To: announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net <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 <rickgam at comcast.net?>>
>  To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net <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 <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 <RERobbins at iTinker.net?>> > > To: USML Announcements
> <announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net <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 <chicagojab at yahoo.com?>> > > > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:51:12 > To:USML
> Announcements <announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <springkerb at aol.com?>>
>  To: announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net <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 <RERobbins at iTinker.net?>> >
>  To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net <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 <chicagojab at yahoo.com?>>
> > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:51:12 To:USML Announcements <announce at usml.net
> <mailto:announce at usml.net <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <announce at usml.net?>> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
> <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing listannounce at usml.nethttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing listannounce at usml.nethttp://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 listannounce at usml.nethttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing listannounce at usml.nethttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080122/7dc6ec7b/attachment-0001.htm

More information about the Announce mailing list