[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Sun Mar 21 22:37:53 EDT 2010

Mark/others:

  I vote no on the Kerber Alternative Proposal, but Mark, I certainly respect that there are other points of view on this.

  First, some additional data.  I looked back at my notes, and we had this issue arise last year.  One team selected Ivan Rodriguez, who was signed in the NL shortly after the draft, and Matt Murton, who was simply in the NL.  The owner was not permitted to name replacement players, but simply had to replace the slots via FAAB.  So I agree with you that past precedent is simply to fill the slots via FAAB, and that is what I think we should do for this year.

  Second, I disagree that our past practice imposes a pointless penalty.  If there is uncertainty about a player?s minor league affiliation, a team either (a) should not draft that player, or (b) realize they are taking a risk in doing so by proceeding with imperfect information.  In my view, it is no different than when Team X drafted Ivan Rodriguez, knowing he was likely to sign somewhere, but not definitely in the NL.  More importantly, a problem with your rule is that ?discovery? could occur well after the draft (query: what if it occurs mid-season?), and even if it doesn?t happen way after, there is still additional information available when a team selects a replacement.  For example, we now know Kerry Wood is likely to be out for a bit, which is something we did not know on draft day.  What stops the replacing team from selecting a Cleveland bullpen pitcher as a flier?  I think the easiest rule is just the bright line rule that the player is waived and you can replace the slot later.

  Anyway, just my views.

  Mark B.

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of springkerb at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:54 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

As noted in my prior e-mail, I agree that any rule change would not affect the current situation.  We've never allowed rule changes on the fly and we shouldn't do so now. 

My take on the current situation is that the rules are silent, so we just do whatever makes sense--or whatever we've done in the past if there is a precedent.  It appears, based on the discussion, that the precedent is to treat the slot as empty and allow it to be filled via FAAB.  That's OK w/ me.

For the future, I think allowing a replacement makes more sense, as long as the replacement occurs soon enough that circumstances have not changed significantly. Otherwise, the team that made the erroneous selection is limited to FAAB-eligible players, which is a much smaller pool than those eligible for the Rotation Draft.  Seems like a pointless penalty for a good-faith mistake--particularly given that it is difficult to find up-to-date info on the affiliations of minor league players.  Obviously, no player that was not eligible on Draft Day should be available as a replacement, and I would propose that language be included to make that clear.  As modified, my proposal for future years is as follows:

5.6  If a team acquires a player in the Rotation Draft that does not meet the criteria set forth in Section 5.2, the player will, upon discovery, be removed from the roster of the team selecting that player.  Such team shall be permitted to select one or more replacement players, as appropriate, within 24 hours of the time of discovery.  If more than one team selects such players, replacement players shall be chosen by the affected teams in the same order as the order of the Rotation Draft.  Any replacement player must have been eligible to be selected in the Rotation Draft on Draft Day.

I think it would make sense to vote now, just to take care of it while the issue is fresh.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard E. Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Mar 21, 2010 3:24 pm
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

I vote against this proposal because I do not think it is timely and would prefer that we deal with this informally as we do so many other things until it's time to codify the result.  Think about how our rules concerning early drafting came into being -- a few years of informal trial followed by timely formal rule voting.

I believe that amending the rules in season, for any reason, sets a very dangerous precedent that could one day result in bitter difficulties for the league.  It makes it too easy for people to toss out possible rule changes at any time.

If I'm the only one who feels this way then so be it.  However, if there's even a single other person who agrees with me I'd ask that the proposal be withdrawn and that we just deal with this instance informally and not tinker with the text of our rules now.

Now I need to find me a closer. . .

-- Rich

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net?> ] On Behalf Of Jim Barrett
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:00 PM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

I agree as well.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 21, 2010, at 3:46 PM, "Mark Blocker" <mbblocker at aol.com> wrote:

I agree with Jeff on the rule change.  We forget about all these issues in the off-season.  When someone starts off their e-mail with ?does anyone remember how we handled X? last time it occurred, I think that?s a sign that we should simply codify our resolution.  I am not talking about massive re-writes of the rules.  I just want to tweak the small things that occur occasionally.  As for rules that affect the draft, the perfect time to tweak them is right after the draft.

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net?> ] On Behalf Of jhwinick at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:43 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Since Jim faced this situation before and we waived the player and made him wait until the first FAAB, I think we should consider this discussion closed.  There's absolutely no reason to deviate from past practice.  I took Mark B's proposal as a request to codify the league's prior practice.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard E. Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Mar 21, 2010 2:39 pm
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Can we deal with the current issue on an ad hoc basis right now and then deal with rules proposals and text amendment during the deep off season?

Right now people may vote one way based on how it impacts their current situation and another if dealing with the issue in the abstract.

I don't have strong feelings either way about the substance of this one -- but I really do prefer to keep in line with our well established framework for amending our now, pretty stable rules.

Would we need a substantial super majority or will a simple majority carry the day?

Over and out.

-- Rich

  _____  

From:  <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net> announce-bounces at usml.net [ <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net?> mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of  <mailto:jhwinick at aol.com> jhwinick at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:30 PM
To:  <mailto:announce at usml.net> announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Mark,

I like the rules proposal and vote yes.

As for my roster:

1.  You have the correct Josh Fields

2.  You're missing Ramon Castro at $2

Thanks.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Blocker < <mailto:mbblocker at aol.com> mbblocker at aol.com>
To: 'USML Announcements' < <mailto:announce at usml.net> announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Mar 21, 2010 1:59 pm
Subject: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Since the problem of teams acquiring players from the NL has occurred in the past, and will likely occur in the future, I propose we codify our proposed solution in the rules for future reference.  Here is a proposed rule, to be inserted as section 5.6 of our rules:

5.6  If a team acquires a player in the Rotation Draft that does not meet the criteria set forth in Section 5.2, the player will, upon discovery, be deemed waived effective as of the conclusion of the Rotation Draft.  Such team shall have no right to select a replacement player, but instead may acquire a player for that slot in accordance with Article XIV.

_______________________________________________
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/20100321/0e91b575/attachment-0001.htm