[USML Announce] NRIs

Thu Mar 12 10:05:13 EDT 2009

Good god must I do everything?
  Balt: keep Eaton and Quiroz...and Hennessy?
  BOS: keep Wilkerson
  CWS: keep MacDougal, Broussard, Restkovich, Miller (I think he lost rookie
status last year)
  CLE: keep Aquino, Herges and Marte
  DET: keep Williamson
 KC: keep DiNardo
  LAA: they're all kids
  MIN: ditto
  NYY: keep Igawa, Mitre, Duncan and Berroa
  OAK: all kids
  SEA: keep Burke and Woodward
  TB: keep Isringhausenm, Orvella, Kennedy and Ensberg
  TEX: keep Benson (well, keep Anna), Donnelly, Guardardo, Jennings,
Turnbow, Vizquel, Andruw Jones
  TOR: keep Clement, maroth, barrett, Adams, Millar and Lane

On 3/12/09, Richard Robbins <RERobbins at itinker.net> wrote:
>
>  I think that we should assign this task to Brad.  Thanks in advance
> Brad.  Please circulate the updated list by the end of the day tomorrow if
> possible.
>
>
>
> -- Rich
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Blocker, Mark B.
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:15 AM
> *To:* USML Announcements
> *Subject:* RE: [USML Announce] NRIs
>
>
>
> You know, Brad is like a CEO.....he is constantly delegating tasks to
> others but I am never quite sure what he does himself.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Brad Jansen
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:12 AM
> *To:* USML Announcements
> *Subject:* [USML Announce] NRIs
>
> So will JHW circulate an amended list?
>
> On 3/11/09, *Richard E. Robbins* <RERobbins at itinker.net> wrote:
>
> I've had a chance to read the rules.  Section 4.3 clearly addresses this
> situation.  Under our rules, only non-rookie NRI players are eligible to be
> designated for inclusion in the auction by any of us without other league
> action.
>
>
>
> I won't object if people agree that another collection of players should
> also be eligible -- but I think that that list should be by league consensus
> rather than simple designation by any one of us.  In keeping with recent
> year's debates, I trust that we will rely on the rules as written if going
> beyond the text of our rules garners less than some sort of super-majority
> support.
>
>
>
> We've always needed to accept the fact that pre-opening day drafts are less
> than perfect.  I'm not sure where I stand on the substantive issue Jeff
> identifies.  I can see good reasons on both sides of this one.
>
>
>
> One thing that is clear to me though, is that this is not the best time to
> tinker with our rules.
>
>
>
> You guys are going to pick me clean on Sunday.  Please have mercy.  Who is
> this Devine guy anyways?
>
>
>
> -- Rich
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] *On
> Behalf Of *jhwinick at aol.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:08 PM
> *To:* announce at usml.net
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [USML Announce] Non Roster Invitees
>
>
>
>
> An excellent point and one worthy of discussion.  Someone will need to vet
> the list to remove players that are still rookie eligible.
>
> Also, in light of the fact that certain rookie-eligible players look likely
> to start the season with the big league club (like Gordon Beckham and maybe
> Joshua Fields) - we may want to discuss whether we ought to be making
> certain exceptions.  It has always seemed incongruous to me that when we
> draft early, we should not allow the market to fairly price guys that are
> likely to be big league players from the get go.  Otherwise you run the risk
> of outcome determinate draft selections.
>
> TOeFuKi
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Sent: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 5:47 pm
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Non Roster Invitees
>
> Thanks Jeff.
>
>
>
> I'm stuck in a meeting at the moment and don't have our rules handy.
>
>
>
> As I read your message -- but without having a chance to peruse the attachment
>
> -- I get the sense your list might include players who've not yet lost rookie
>
> status.
>
>
>
> I thought (but could be wrong) that the NRI eligible rules allowed only players
>
> who have already lost MLB rookie status to be added.
>
>
>
> Can someone check our rules on that point?
>
>
>
> Forgive me if I'm wrong on the rules or how Jeff has constructed the list.
>
>
>
> I just wanted to flag the issue.
>
>
>
> Back to my meeting. . .
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: jhwinick at aol.com
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:38:11
>
> To: <announce at usml.net>
>
> Subject: [USML Announce] Non Roster Invitees
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession<http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlweuscare00000001>
> .
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at usml.net
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury
> regulations, we inform you
> that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice
> contained in this
> communication, including attachments, was not intended or written to be
> used, and cannot be
> used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be
> imposed on such
> taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.  In addition, if any such tax
> advice is used or referred
> to by other parties in promoting, marketing or recommending any partnership
> or other entity,
> investment plan or arrangement, then (i) the advice should be construed as
> written in connection
> with the promotion or marketing by others of the transaction(s) or
> matter(s) addressed in this
> communication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the
> taxpayer's particular
> circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
>
> immediately.
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090312/71ed38d0/attachment-0001.htm