[USML Announce] Roster Question

Mon Aug 16 12:34:54 EDT 2010

Stats don't accumulate.  There is a specific setting in the onroto
system.

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On
Behalf Of Richard E. Robbins
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 12:34 PM
To: 'USML Announcements'
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Roster Question

I think we'd end up with real problems if we disallowed DL activations
while also requiring full rosters.

The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to agree that it's
easier to either require (or not) full rosters without getting into the
issues I raised on the other end of the spectrum.

What happens if someone leaves a player traded out of the AL on their
roster?  I assume stats don't accumulate.

-- Rich

________________________________

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey H. Winick
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:50 AM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Roster Question

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

****************************************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20100816/e1475c8f/attachment-0001.htm