[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification/Draft Dates
Richard E. Robbins
RERobbins at iTinker.net
Mon Mar 22 06:05:24 EDT 2010
How about Sunday, April 3 instead of Saturday, April 2? That's the back end
of spring break for Glencoe grade schools and it's likely that we'll be out
of town. I'd rather not shorten a family vacation too much to allow for the
draft. A Sunday draft would permit us to return on Saturday. A Saturday
draft would require an earlier (and not popular) Friday return.
-- Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of Andrew Klein
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 5:49 AM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification/Draft Dates
Agree with Blocker on the rules issue.
BTW ... during the run-up to the draft, Jeff suggested that we actually
calendar a date for 2011 right now. Obviously, something could come up that
would change availability. But there would be benefit to having something
set in advance -- other events could be planned on different dates if
possible, and we could work on re-setting the draft earlier if an
unavoidable conflict arises. With that in mind, I suggest SATURDAY APRIL 2,
2011 as our next draft date. Easter and Passover are both later in the
month next year, so the holidays would not pose a conflict.
I vote "yes" on my proposal!
-Andy
Mark Blocker wrote:
>
> 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 <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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net?>] *On Behalf Of
> *jhwinick at aol.com <mailto:jhwinick at aol.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:43 PM
> *To:* announce at usml.net <mailto: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
> <mailto:RERobbins at iTinker.net>>
> To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net
> <mailto: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:* announce-bounces at usml.net
> <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net>
> [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net
> <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net?>] *On Behalf Of
> *jhwinick at aol.com <mailto:jhwinick at aol.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:30 PM
> *To:* announce at usml.net <mailto: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 <mbblocker at aol.com <mailto:mbblocker at aol.com>>
> To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:announce at usml.net>
>
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> announce mailing list
>
> announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net>
>
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net>
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at usml.net <mailto: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
More information about the Announce
mailing list