[USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report

Wed Apr 3 10:34:24 EDT 2013

Does Art. III(4) address point 3?

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jeffrey Winick <jhwinick at aol.com> wrote:

> Rich,
>
>  As always, you raise a litany of excellent points.
>
>  My thoughts:
>
>  1.  The fact that allowing open slots implicates all kinds of potential
> strategy issues is why it should not be allowed.
> 2.  If a team somehow gets innocently put in the position of not being
> able to field a legal roster, then it should have to rectify the problem
> during the next FAAB period.  That should be the only penalty.  But if
> there is any alternative, i.e. activating a minor leaguer - they should
> have to do so.
> 3.  But a team should not be allowed to trade itself into this position.
>  Any such trades should be disallowed.
>
>  Your thoughts?
>
>  Jeff
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Robbins <rerobbins at itinker.net>
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 9:18 am
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report
>
>  That may not always be possible due to the thinness of the FAAB pool and
> inter league trades.
>
>  I realize its more often possible to accomplish.
>
>  Nevertheless, what is an owner supposed to do if they simply cannot
> comply?
>
>  What is the penalty?
>
>  Should we distinguish from situations outside of the control of the
> owner and those that arise from a USML trade, ie, perhaps we shouldn't
> allow teams to trade themselves into rostering problems?
>
>  While I appreciate the Jim/Jeff position I continue to think it opens up
> unnecessary problems and that at core, we should simply rely on our
> minimums, including the salary floor.  Why tolerate DL players, minor
> leaguers, previously rostered players, all of whom accumulate no stats but
> not tolerate a open slot?
>
>  Going through that litany I now realize there's another aspect of this
> that merits some consideration and which may support the Jim/Jeff position.
>  If we permit open slots that allows a team to use those slots to avoid the
> impact of the salary cap.  Perhaps that's a bigger problem than I might
> have expected.
>
>  So going through all this I'm clearly confused at this point.
>
>  I'm left with the questions I raise above.
>
>  What's the penalty for being out of compliance and what is a owner who
> cannot comply with his roster supposed to do?
>
>  Fascinating.
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2013, Jeff Winick wrote:
>
>>  I think Jim's point is that you have to maintain the ability to fill
>> the slots whether with minor leaguers or DL players in the AL. I expect
>> that is always the case, but teams don't want to start the contracts on
>> minor leaguers.
>>
>>  That's my understanding of the rule. I'm with Jim.
>>
>>  Jeff
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Richard Robbins <rerobbins at itinker.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>   So you toss in a guy on DL or a player getting no abs etc. There may
>> be instances where you can't fill a slot etc. Thats why we have minimum
>> requirements.  Would you prohibit rostering of DL guys or previously
>> actives who have been demoted?  We've never precluded those.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Jim Barrett <chicagojab at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>   Sorry to harp on this but I don't think empty slots are legit despite
>> minimum at bat requirements. I think all slots need to be filled. Otherwise
>> what's to stop most from not fielding that 2nd catcher or crappy MI that
>> kill your BA? Especially at end of year when minimums have already been
>> reached? If you use an injured AL player or someone sent down to minors or
>> that guy who never gets off the bench  so be it. But you need an AL
>> eligible player in the slot. Same goes for pitchers with both ERA and WHIP
>> in play.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 2, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Richard Robbins <rerobbins at itinker.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>   I believe Cardinal Mark has it right.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:53 PM, <springkerb at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> This came up a long time ago, and at the time I think we decided empty
>> slots were allowed. However, I also thought there were later amendments
>> that changed that--but I may be wrong.
>>
>> We have both AB and IP minimums.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bljansen at gmail.com
>> To: USML Announcements **
>> Sent: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 11:43 am
>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report
>>
>>   Yes. See Article X(4).
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Dennis Adams <dadams17 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> AFV moved Juan Rivera from its reserve roster to its Active Roster in the
>> CI slot.  Therefore, I now have 23 active and 16 reserve.
>>
>>  In regards to the rules though, I agree that there does not appear to
>> be a minimum number of players required and that the rule serves only to
>> impose a maximum.  Leaving empty spots on your active roster only prevents
>> you from accruing stats and does not provide an advantage.  I suppose the 1
>> argument is that of batting average, but I assume there is a minimum
>> number of at bats that must be met?
>>
>>
>>
>>       _______________________________________________
>> announce mailing listannounce at usml.nethttp://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 mailing listannounce at usml.nethttp://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://usml.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20130403/bbd8017e/attachment-0001.html>