[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification
Bbuddhas
bbuddhas at aol.com
Mon Mar 22 07:32:33 EDT 2010
I agree. FAAB $$ should be used to fill a slot. No free replacements.
Going forward it's the same. The pick was illegal and thus is
forfeited. I need someone else to verify my roster if possible.
Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 21, 2010, at 10:37 PM, "Mark Blocker" <mbblocker at aol.com> 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 affi
> liation, a team either (a) should not draft that player, or (b) real
> ize they are taking a risk in doing so by proceeding with imperfect
> information. In my view, it is no different than when Team X drafte
> d Ivan Rodriguez, knowing he was likely to sign somewhere, but not d
> efinitely 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, the
> re is still additional information available when a team selects a r
> eplacement. 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 s
> tops the replacing team from selecting a Cleveland bullpen pitcher a
> s a flier? I think the easiest rule is just the bright line rule th
> at 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]
> 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]
> 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: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net]
> On Behalf Of jhwinick at aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:30 PM
> To: 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>
> To: 'USML Announcements' <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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100322/104dca88/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Announce
mailing list