[USML Announce] Roster Question

Sun Aug 15 18:59:07 EDT 2010

Will we continue to permit teams to stay above the floor by rostering
players that aren't active on an AL roster?

Should we address both sides of this issue or just the ceiling concern?

If we decide against allowing teams to roster inactive players to keep above
the floor, what happens if a team simply can't fill a spot?

-- Rich

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of Mark Blocker
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 5:03 PM
To: 'USML Announcements'
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Roster Question

It sounds like a good chunk of the league has spoken.  

However, this is why I have in the past said that we should clarify our
rules on the spot each time we resolve any ambiguities.  This is exactly
what happens each time we have one of these: someone relies on a
recollection of what we have done in the past, others can't recall or
remember those events differently, and we end up with what amounts to an
in-season fix by vote with no lasting effect.  I'd be inclined to adopt a
rule right now that says you either can or cannot have an open slot.  I
don't care which (I am in 8th place!), but let's have an easy to read rule.

  -- Mark B.

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of springkerb at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 4:56 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Roster Question

Actually, to the best of my recollection, the exact reason that we removed
the language change that temporarily banned the practice was the belief that
the salary floor and cap set the minimum and maximum roster requirements, so
there was no longer any reason to impose a ban on empty roster slots, as
long as the salary requirements were met. 

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Aug 15, 2010 3:06 pm
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Roster Question

I'm with Jim B.  The argument based on the rules is questionable at best.
If there was prior "custom," it we had a salary cap.  I don't think teams
should be able to duck the cap by having empty slots on active rosters
unless the rules clearly permit it.

-Andy

On 8/15/10 1:10 PM, Jim Barrett wrote: 

If there is no evidence of it being permitted, the Constitutional argument
is questionable, and the whole point is to dodge the salary cap then the
answer should be no.  He should have to juggle his roster to fit within the
salary cap and positional requirements.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:59 AM, springkerb at aol.com wrote:

I haven't seen a decision on my question.  If permitted, please activate
Saltalamachia, reserve Fox, and reserve Mijares.  Mijares is out for the
season, so this could effectively be accomplished by assigning him a salary
of zero. 

Mark

_______________________________________________
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/20100815/8d682e3c/attachment.htm