[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