[USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report

springkerb at aol.com springkerb at aol.com
Wed Apr 3 12:38:51 EDT 2013


No, I don't think we do.  To the contrary, it appears clear (at least to me) that under-representation at a position is allowed--period.  By contrast, a trade that left a team below the salary floor or above the cap would not be allowed.



-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Jansen <bljansen at gmail.com>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 11:27 am
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report


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] 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 

_______________________________________________
nnounce mailing list
nnounce at usml.net
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce


_______________________________________________
nnounce mailing list
nnounce at usml.net
ttp://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 

_______________________________________________
nnounce mailing list
nnounce at usml.net
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce



_______________________________________________
nnounce mailing list
nnounce at usml.net
ttp://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





_______________________________________________
nnounce mailing list
nnounce at usml.net
ttp://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://usml.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20130403/9d2e47d8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Announce mailing list