[USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals
jhwinick at aol.com
jhwinick at aol.com
Wed Jan 23 08:24:00 EST 2008
First, I am not suggesting that my proposal to require a super-majority be applied retroactively, so this issue will be resolved in accordance with the current terms of the constitution - by majority vote.? But I do encourage those who proposed the rule, as well as those who support it to consider the principle to which my rules proposal is addressed.
To my recollection, this league has never adopted a rule, ANY rule, without consensus.? We've come close and every time we do it creates great acrimony.? As recently as last year, a proposal to ban the trading of minor leaguers threatened the very survival of the league.? I don't suggest that this rule poses a similar risk, but why would we ever adopt a rule that a significant (in this case, nearly 50%) of the league opposes?
This league survives and prospers because we all have fun playing in it.? Rules disputes make it considerably less fun for me and I assume the same is true for others.? There will be times when we come to a consensus about rules changes - like moving to Ultra or moving to 5x5.? That's part of the evolution of any league.? There may come a time when using NL stats is acceptable to more than a simple majority of the league.? But when Mark Blocker and Jeff Winick, the?two remaining original members of the league (and two fellows who never agree on ANYTHING)?actually agree on something and it still appears that it may pass over their objection, it seems to me that we're probably making a mistake.
FAAB compensation is an imperfect remedy for players traded out of the league.? But in most cases, the risk of a player being traded out of the league is something that can be evaluated and factored into the bidding.? Paul Konerko is on the block.? If he isn't cheap, I won't be buying him because there's a significant chance that he'll be traded out of the league.? The same is true for Baltimore and Oakland veterans.? Eric Bedard is on the block.? I have no doubt but that Mark B. could find a team willing to take a chance on his being traded to an AL team or not traded at all.? But once again, there is a means of addressing the risk.? FAAB compensation, while an imperfect remedy, isn't controversial.? I say we stick with it.??
By the way, I do have one?tweak to FAAB adjustments that might address one of Rich's concerns.? He argued that teams with cheap veterans on retained contracts might get FAAB compensation that?isn't reflective of the current value of the player.? How about we modify the FAAB compensation so that any team that loses a player to the other league that has a contract less than $10 and is on a retained contract (i.e. wasn't picked up in the auction or drafted in the current year) gets FAAB compensation of no less than $10.? I could be persuaded that the appropriate number is as much as $15, but you get the idea.
Jeff Winick??
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard E. Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 7:19 pm
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals
For what it's worth (which is probably very little), here is my response to Jeff's message from earlier today.
?
First, a bit of history.? The notion of compensating owners who hold players that leave the AL for the NL was something we discussed at a winter owner's get together that we had in Mark Blocker's old apartment back when we used to hash through this stuff in person.? This was around the time we started playing Ultra.? We talked about the possibiity about giving the league owner losing a player some sort of priority on players that came back into the AL in the real-world trade.? That was unworkable for a whole host of reasons.? I tossed out the possibility of FAAB compensation as a joke.? Much to my shock, the others in the room said that we should adopt the rule.? The FAAB rule stayed pretty much as drafted originally until we added the rules about imbalanced trades, floors and caps etc.? We tinkered with the FAAB compensation rules to address the impact of those rules within the context of the then recently adopted rules meant to address dump trades.? My memory on the exact details may be off here or there, but you get the idea.
?
I'm not sure how forcing teams to suffer a loss means that they will get a windfall if we changed the rule.? It all depends on your starting point.? If you spend $50 for Arod and he's traded to the NL then you get back $50 to toss into some bidding war later on.? Perhaps that's reasonable compensation.? What if you have a cheap, undervalued player who gets traded to the NL.? Under those circumstances, you get back a few FAAB dollars -- that seems wrong to me.? To me the big difference between trades and injuries, loss of effectiveness, suspensions etc. is that in the majors, the trading team gets something of value in return while with injuries, suspensions etc. the major league and roto team each suffer a harm.? I think that reason alone warrants different treatment -- especially when we can easily do it.
?
I'm honored that Jeff thinks I can come up with a reasonable compromise here.? I just can't see it.? Having lived with the current regime for many years, I think that we should try the alternative.
?
Look folks, it's clear that reasonable people can disagree.? We need to hear from Buddha, John and Blocker.? Blocker has opposed this one for a long time.? I think that Buddha supports it.? That means that the deciding vote will be to John -- unless of course we decide to impose a super-majority voting requirement on this matter, in which case, I think the proposal is, once again, toast.
From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of jhwinick at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:22 AM
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] On Behalf Of jhwinick at aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:05 PM
To: 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
To: USML Announcements <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 ----------------------
rom: springkerb at aol.com
I think it would be very hard to craft a rule that would accomplish that
urpose
without skewing the exiting rules.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
To: USML Announcements <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
hink
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
mbalanced
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>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:51:12
To:USML Announcements <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> 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
f
any League team and who is traded to the National League during the course of
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
f
Section 17.1.
_______________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com
Attached Message
From:
springkerb at aol.com
To:
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>
To: USML Announcements <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
bout that possibility. I'm not sure how I feel about it. My initial thought
s that we should not allow transferred FAAB to balance an otherwise imbalanced
rade. I say that just to be conservative. I offered the proposal merely
ecause I thought it was interesting and because it might add a fun element to
he game. If it could be used to diminish the force of our existing rules re
mbalanced trades that might be too much. It's an intriguing thought though.
----Original Message-----
rom: Jim Barrett <chicagojab at yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:51:12
o:USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
ubject: Re: [USML Announce] Two Rule Proposals
'm in favor of the FAAB fund trading but have a question?- should/can FAAB
unds be used to help balance trades?
'm opposed to the NL stats proposal.
Richard E. Robbins" <RERobbins at iTinker.net> wrote:
've got two rule proposals.? I'll leave it to Packer Fan Mark to call for a
ote at the appropriate time.
he first is that we permit FAAB funds to be traded (which I'm proposing on a
him) and the second is to count in-season statistics of players traded to the
L.
ere is the text to implement each.
roposal ? Permit Trading of FAAB Funds
roposed Revised Section 12.6
rades may include FAAB funds (as defined in Section 14.2).? Trades involving
AAB funds shall be reported and become effective in accordance with Section
1.3.? No trade may be made for players to be named later, Auction funds,
otation Draft positions or picks or future considerations of any kind.
roposal ? Count Statistics of Players Traded to the National League
n order to implement this proposal, we would delete Section 14.6 and the
eferences 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:
he statistics of a player who is on the Active Roster or the Reserve Roster of
ny League team and who is traded to the National League during the course of a
eason will be included in calculating the cumulative statistics of the League
eam that owns that player as if he remained in the American League.? The player
an be activated, reserved, waived or traded by his League team, on the same
asis as if he remained in the American League, except that if he is waived he
ay not be claimed on waivers.? This Section shall not limit the application of
ection 17.1.
______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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/20080123/6eba5656/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Announce
mailing list