[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification/Draft Dates
Brad Jansen
bljansen at gmail.com
Mon Mar 22 13:00:46 EDT 2010
I need to buy my 2011 calendar. But put me down.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Richard Robbins <RERobbins at itinker.net>wrote:
> 8 am start! I've got it on my calendar.
>
> -- Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On
> Behalf
> Of Blocker, Mark B.
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:14 AM
> To: USML Announcements
> Subject: RE: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification/Draft
> Dates
>
> I put in on my calendar.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On
> Behalf
> Of Andrew Klein
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:08 AM
> To: USML Announcements
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification/Draft Dates
>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ************************
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100322/1fc198dc/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Announce
mailing list