[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification/Draft Dates
Andrew Klein
anrklein at gmail.com
Mon Mar 22 11:08:30 EDT 2010
Personally, April 3 works better than April 2 so long as we start in the
morning. This would let me drive up on Saturday (instead of Friday
night) and return home after the draft.
So ... let's hear from the group about putting April 3, 2011 on our
calendars!
-Andy
springkerb at aol.com wrote:
> That's OK w/ me, too.
>
> (I have no known conflicts this far in advance. Any problems I might
> have won't be known until about Sept-Oct.)
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard E. Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
> To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net>
> Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2010 6:05 am
> Subject: RE: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification/Draft Dates
>
> 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> [mailto: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> [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net?>]
> > *On Behalf Of *springkerb at aol.com <mailto:springkerb at aol.com>
> > *Sent:* Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:54 PM
> > *To:* announce at usml.net <mailto: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 <mailto:RERobbins at iTinker.net>>
> > To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net <mailto: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?>>
> > [mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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?>>
> > [mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto:RERobbins at iTinker.net <mailto:RERobbins at iTinker.net?>>>
> > To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net>
> > <mailto: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?>>
> > [mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto:mbblocker at aol.com <mailto:mbblocker at aol.com?>>>
> > To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net <mailto:announce at usml.net>
> > <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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
>
More information about the Announce
mailing list