[USML Announce] Roster Question

[Jeffrey H. Winick]

Rich,

I'll certainly support a rule that requires all teams to play with a full roster of AL players. We could disallow DL activations, etc. My point was that, while arguably related, that is a separate issue. In this instance the issue is whether you must have a full roster of players, setting aside their status. 

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 16, 2010, at 5:47 AM, "Richard E. Robbins" <RERobbins at iTinker.net> wrote:

> I see your point Jeff -- but that doesn't answer my question. 
>  
> If the point is that we don't want people to play with empty slots to avoid the cap why aren't we also concerned about people using non-active players to avoid the floor?
>  
> Maybe the answer is that it's easier to address the cap issue and not practical to address the floor.  That's not a great answer but at least it's an answer.  OnRoto, as is, naturally enforces a full roster rule, so by inaction we require full rosters and permit duds to avoid the floor.  I may not like the lack of symmetry there, but I understand it.
>  
> -- Rich
> From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of Jeffrey H. Winick
> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 7:05 PM
> To: USML Announcements
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Roster Question
> 
> I think we're now expanding the question. I've played in dozens of leagues for more than 20 years and no league has ever permitted an incomplete roster. As much as it surprises me to say it, Buddha's analogy is spot on. 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:59 PM, "Richard E. Robbins" <RERobbins at iTinker.net> wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20100816/aec73bb2/attachment.htm