[USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report

Wed Apr 3 12:26:56 EDT 2013

I think the one point to confirm agreement on right now is this: a trade
cannot be made if it leaves a team's roster imbalanced in any way (i.e., a
team cannot trade a CI unless it gets one back or has someone on reserve to
fill the slot). I don't think that should be in issue. Do we all agree on
that point?

--BLJ

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Dennis Adams <dadams17 at gmail.com> wrote:

> For whatever its worth (which very well might be nothing), I am in a
> couple other leagues (albeit head-to-head ones) that frequently witness
> managers moving players from their active roster to their bench spots at
> the end of a weekly matchup to secure AVG/ERA/WHIP at the expense of Runs,
> HR, Wins, Ks, etc.  Under-representation in any league seems to me like a
> strategy move that carries risk and that risk tends to make people
> comfortable with accepting others who choose to under-represent.
>
> I guess my point is, even if it were an oversight, I'm not so sure
> under-representation should be prohibited.  Glad my temporary oversight in
> forgetting to promote Juan Rivera led to this debate on the league bylaws
> though!
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:06 AM, <springkerb at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> What the roster "shall consist of" is not the same question as whether
>> and how it has to be filled.  Section 1 addresses the former; Section 3
>> addresses the latter.  When the constituation expressly says you can't be
>> over-represented and doesn't mention under-representation at all, then
>> under-representation has to be allowed.  Intent doesn't matter and a
>> thousand other leagues don't matter.  We have a written rule, and it's
>> clear.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeffrey Winick <jhwinick at aol.com>
>> To: announce <announce at usml.net>
>> Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 10:46 am
>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report
>>
>> Guys - just because one can create an ambiguous reading of the
>> constitution doesn't mean we should do so.  It wasn't anticipated that
>> someone would intentionally understaff their team.  And it certainly wasn't
>> discussed and agreed that it would be allowed.  It simply wasn't
>> anticipated as a potential problem.  Had it been, I'm quite confident it
>> would have been addressed.  That makes it an oversight not an indication of
>> intent.  If I'm wrong about this, Rich should chime in.  But I don't think
>> so.
>>
>>  My understanding of the intent of this league and every other league I
>> have ever been in is that you have to have a complete roster.
>>
>>  Jeff
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dennis Adams <dadams17 at gmail.com>
>> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
>> Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 10:38 am
>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report
>>
>>  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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ad049869/attachment-0001.html>