[USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report

Wed Apr 3 11:38:45 EDT 2013

I tend to agree with Mark that, if the constitution intended to prohibit
under-representation it should say so.  Especially since Section 4
explicitly indicates over-representation as well as a number of other
scenarios that require remedying; yet no mention of under-representation is
ever discussed.  Therefore, reading 3(1) together with 3(4), I think "SHALL
consist of the following players.." should be construed as setting forth
the maximums for each roster spot. I'm also not terribly concerned about
demoting players to the reserve roster to circumvent salary rules because
the reserve roster has a maximum number of spots available.

But then again, I'm still just a law student (whose weakest subject
admittedly is constitutional law) and not yet admitted to practice.... so I
could be entirely wrong.  Just my 2 pennies worth of input....

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Jeffrey Winick <jhwinick at aol.com> wrote:

> Mark,
>
>  I beg to differ.  Article III, Section 1 says that a team's active
> roster SHALL consist of the following positions.  That seems 100% clear to
> me that teams are required to have each of those slots filled.
>
>  Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: springkerb <springkerb at aol.com>
> To: announce <announce at usml.net>
> Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 10:06 am
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report
>
>  I looked at the constitution, and I think it's 100% clear.
> Over-representation is not allowed, but under-representation is.  Article
> III, Section 4.  It's absolutely 100% clear.  If the answer were otherwise,
> III(4) would also contain the words "or under-represented" (which it does
> not). BA, ERA and WHIP are addressed by the AB and IP minimums.  One can
> argue about whether it should work that way, but it does unless and until
> we amend the constituation.
>
> Easy answer, clear as a bell, nothing left to talk about.  The
> commissioners are empowered to interpret the constitution, but not to
> change it on the fly, so the whole discussion is pointless.
>
> Mark
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Winick <jwinick at harriswinick.com>
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 9:59 am
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report
>
>
>
>  Mark,
>
> I agree that it is an interpretation issue.
>
> And I agree that FA’s can be used to fill slots, but NL players can only
> be used in slots if they first occupied that slot while they were something
> other than an NL player.  I think we cleared that up earlier.
>
> Jeff
>
>  *From:* announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net<announce-bounces at usml.net?>]
> *On Behalf Of *springkerb at aol.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 03, 2013 9:52 AM
> *To:* announce at usml.net
> *Subject:* Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report
>
>
>  It's not a policy issue.  It's an interpretation issue.  To the extent
> it's a policy issue, it would get addressed in the offseason via amendment.
>
> (By the way, as discussed previously, it's also permissible to fill slots
> with FAs or NL players that were properly acquired--e.g., Valverde.  That's
> sufficiently clear in the rules that I don't think there's anything to
> discuss.)
>
>  Mark
>
>   -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Winick <jhwinick at aol.com>
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 9:03 am
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report
>  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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> announce mailing list
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing listannounce at usml.nethttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
>   _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Dennis F. Adams III
Candidate, Juris Doctor 2013
Northwestern University School of Law
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://usml.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20130403/b3a380b6/attachment-0001.html>