[USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report

Richard Robbins rerobbins at itinker.net
Wed Apr 3 15:41:02 EDT 2013


I'm happy to propose text to do what you suggest Mark, but can we do that
in the off-season?  I won't forget.  It's reasonable to codify in season
interpretations in the off season. I just don't want to get into the habit
of tweaking the text of the rules in season.


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:21 PM, <springkerb at aol.com <javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'springkerb at aol.com');>> wrote:

>  Regarding under-representation, I think we should amend to clarify
> either way.  I'm not against requiring a "full" roster, but if that's what
> we intend, we should fix III(4) by explicitly precluding both over- and
> under-representation. Then III(4) would be consistent with Rich's reading
> of III(1).  Better to do it now when no one is adversely affected than to
> have it come up again in ten years or so.  (The first time it came up was
> in September 2001, I believe.)
>
> Messing with the AL/NL thing ought to wait until off-season, if we do it
> at all.
>  Mark
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Robbins <rerobbins at itinker.net <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'rerobbins at itinker.net');>>
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'announce at usml.net');>>
> Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 1:47 pm
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report
>
>  Wow.
>
>  How is it possible we've not dealt with this before?
>
>  It seems to me that Section 3.1 is pretty clear about what an active
> roster is supposed to look like.  It doesn't contemplate up to 9 pitchers.
>  It says 9 pitchers.  No more and no less.  I should have recognized this
> at the start of this thread.  That's what I get for trying to do this stuff
> without the text in front of me.
>
>  I don't think its obvious that 3.4 should be read to permit under
> representation in an active roster just because it speaks about what to do
> if you have over representation at a position during the middle of a
> reporting period.  If you have a 23 player roster and there's over
> representation somewhere doesn't that also mean you have under
> representation somewhere else?  If the over representation is prohibited
> then shouldn't the under representation be prohibited?  The bottom line is
> that 3.4 simply doesn't answer the question must you always carry 23
> players on your active roster.  So 3.4 can be read (perhaps) to support
> either argument.  The thing is, Section 3.4 tells us that you can do a
> trade that causes your roster to be out of whack, i.e., you clearly can
> trade an active pitcher for an active catcher which would cause you to have
> too many catchers so long as before the end of the relevant reporting
> period, i.e., before the transaction becomes effective, you fix your
> roster.  Same thing with trades that bust the cap or floor.  That's all it
> does.  It doesn't attempt to talk about whether you can have less than 23
> on your active roster.  To a point I think Brad made above, it can't be the
> case that you can only trade a catcher away if you get another catcher in
> the same deal.  We've never run our league that way and there's nothing in
> the rules that should lead us to that result.
>
>  So, put another way, I think that 3.4 just stands for the proposition
> that you can do whatever you'd like in a single trade so long as you get
> your act together with other moves before the thing becomes effective.
>
>  As Cardinal Kerber (hey did anyone notice that the Lady Golden Bears are
> in the Final 4?) has stressed, each team started out the year with
> compliant rosters, so they should be required to maintain compliance.  If
> you want to do a deal or a bunch of deals in a reporting period, that's
> fine.  But when the dust settles, you need to have a compliant roster.  You
> can't do a deal that leaves you without a pitcher on the assumption that
> you will pick up another one in FAAB in a later reporting period.  If you
> want to pick up a FAAB pitcher in the bidding that ends on Saturday and do
> your trade Sunday morning before the deadline, that's fine.
>
>  What you can't do is assume you will fix it in later reporting periods.
>
>  If we want to permit teams to have less than 23 players on their active
> roster then we'd need to amend the Constitution.
>
>  Dead spots with useless guys (like my second catcher slot right now) are
> OK.  Empty slots are not.  If we want to permit empty slots then I think we
> need to amend the constitution and we should never do that in season in my
> opinion at least. (and per the constitution too, I believe)
>
>  Finally, I'm not sure that there's agreement with Jeff's interpretation
> about what can and can't be done with NL players.  For example, I am
> relatively (not not 100% confident) that owners have placed NL players on
> their reserve rosters in the past and used them deal with cap or floor
> issues later on or to fill out their rosters etc.  I think I did that a few
> years ago.  We've probably included NL players as asterisk guys to balance
> deals too.  To say that I can only have an NL player on my active roster as
> a place holder if he happened to be there as an AL guy when he was traded
> and if he hasn't been put on reserve since then is, I think, a new wrinkle
> and one that we'd need agreement on.  I'm not saying this would be a good
> or bad result, but I think it would be a clear rule change and departure
> from prior practice as well.  Because this issue goes to roster composition
> / roster integrity issues I think it would be good to consider it together
> with the empty slot issue.  You guys may prefer to separate them and I get
> that too.
>
>  Ugh.
>
>  -- Rich
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2013, wrote:
>
>> Even if I'm wrong, making it clear and explicit can't hurt, but I'm also
>> interested in Rich's take.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeffrey Winick <jwinick at harriswinick.com>
>> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
>> Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 11:52 am
>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Daily Roster Audit Compliance Report
>>
>>
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>>  Despite Mark K's belief that this issue is clearly addressed in the
>> Constitution in the manner he reads it, I, for one, do not agree.
>>
>>  Lets wait until Rich is available and then ask him to pose a question
>> to the league for a vote.
>>
>>  Jeff
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2013, at 11:39 AM, "springkerb at aol.com" <springkerb at aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 r
>>
>>        _______________________________________________
> announce mailing listannounce at usml.net <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'announce at usml.net');>http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at usml.net <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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/a9fe72fb/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Announce mailing list