[USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

Doug Shabelman doug at burnsent.com
Tue Jan 22 16:32:55 EST 2008


Wait, Favre threw another INT? Mark, where's my cool, hard cash??

----- Original Message -----
From: announce-bounces at usml.net <announce-bounces at usml.net>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Tue Jan 22 16:29:24 2008
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals

Actually, I think there were six teams that supported my ill-advised proposal.  But the compromise prevented Kerber from driving to Indianapolis and wringing my neck, so I supported that in the end.

On the current proposals, I have long been a supporter of the NL rule.  At this point, I would vote against trading FAAB $, largely because I haven't thought it through.  Jim's question about using FAAB $ to balance trades is a good example of possible consequences that we haven't considered.

As to Brad's query about the lateness of response, I have been busy sitting in my basement watching a TiVo replay of Favre's interception over and over and over again.  It was truly a beautiful thing.

-Andy

jhwinick at aol.com wrote: 

	Rich,
	 
	I have a very different perspective on last year's rules debacle.  Jim and I both proposed the compromise.  At least in my case, it wasn't because I thought a worse rule was going to pass.  In fact, I think Andy's ill-advised proposal was going to fail.  I proposed the compromise because I thought it was a good idea to encourage teams to hold off on dumping for at least a few months.  My impression was that Jim felt the same way.  So, unless there was a group of 3 or more owners that were prepared to stick their necks out and defend early season dump trades, I think you're wrong about how this proposed rule would have changed things last year.
	 
	For what its worth, I'm not at all concerned about the unintended consequences to which you refer.  This is a 20 year old league that as far as I can recall has never adopted a rules change that met with significant dissent.  I have a feeling that's a large part of the reason we're still around.  The unintended consequences I would be concerned about are those resulting from changing the rules to accomodate a slim majority of owners.
	
	Jeff
	
	-----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: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 2:28 pm
	Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals
	
	
	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 <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 <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net?> >  
	[mailto: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 <mailto:jhwinick at aol.com?> > 
	 Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:05 PM
	 To: announce at usml.net <mailto: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 <mailto:rickgam at comcast.net?> > 
	 To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:RERobbins at iTinker.net?> > > > To: USML Announcements 
	<announce at usml.net <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/>  <http://webmail.aol.com/> > 
	 
	 
	Attached Message 
	 From: springkerb at aol.com <mailto:springkerb at aol.com <mailto:springkerb at aol.com?> > 
	 To: announce at usml.net <mailto: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 <mailto:RERobbins at iTinker.net?> > >
	 To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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
	
	
	_______________________________________________
	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://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003> !
	
	_______________________________________________
	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
	
	
	
________________________________


	_______________________________________________
	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/20080122/6981219b/attachment-0001.htm



More information about the Announce mailing list