[USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report

Wed Apr 3 10:49:44 EDT 2013

Rich,

I think the likelihood of a team being without FAAB and/or there being no available players and a team having no minor leaguers to activate is a sufficiently remote possibility that we could deal with that on an ad hoc basis.  I would recommend that if that circumstance arose that the team be given a $5 FAAB balance strictly for the purpose of securing a player.

But the prohibition against teams trading into difficulty seems like a no brainer.

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of Richard Robbins
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 9:45 AM
To: USML Announcements
Cc: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report

Fair enough. What if the team is unable to rectify through FAAB. Perhaps no catchers are available or the team has no FAAB money?

Would simply prohibiting a team from trading into difficulty work?

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 3, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Jeffrey Winick <jhwinick at aol.com<mailto: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<mailto:rerobbins at itinker.net>>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 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 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

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://usml.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20130403/673094c9/attachment-0001.html>