[USML Announce] NOTICE OF HOT WAX SEAL

Sun May 13 11:03:38 EDT 2007

That's an interesting observation Jim.

Are you suggesting that we specifically rejected what Andy seeks and that he
needs to activate Sweeney and then wait a week before trading him to Brad?

-- Rich

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of Jim Barrett
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 10:56 AM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] **NOTICE OF HOT WAX SEAL**

These were the options.  I voted for 2A but 2B won.

2A.  Amend the USML Constitution by adding the following provision:

"From the commencement of the USML auction until June 1, if a player whose
USML contract is not running is traded, that player will be deemed to be in
the first year of his USML contract without regard to whether the acquiring
owner rosters the player." 

2B.  Amend the constitution by adding the following provision:

"From the commencement of the USML auction until June 1, a team can not
trade a player whose USML contract is not running."

Jim Barrett <chicagojab at yahoo.com> wrote:

I believe if you review the history, you'll see that I proposed the variant
that the team trading the player away did not need to activate the prospect
before the trade, provided that the acquiring team did so on receipt.
However, when we did the actual voting, my variant was not approved.
Rather, the winning variant was the "simpler" version that required the
player's contract had to be running at the time of trade.  

"Richard E. Robbins" <RERobbins at iTinker.net> wrote:

Me and Justice Scalia . . .

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of Andrew R. Klein
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 9:23 AM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] **NOTICE OF HOT WAX SEAL**

Are you ignoring Jim Barrett's personal proclamations concerning the Barrett
Rule?  You're probably the type that ignores Thomas Jefferson's statements
concerning the Constitution ...

Richard E. Robbins wrote: 

Legislative history?

You might also recall that I circulated four possible variations of text for
this rule that dealt with this issue specifically, however, in order to
simplify things given the compressed time period in which we acted, I
believe Jeff circulated the simplest variant.  Gee, maybe we should allow
more time to fuss with rules.  Naah -- it's more fun this way.  (grin)

-- Rich

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of Andrew R. Klein
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 9:00 AM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] **NOTICE OF HOT WAX SEAL**

On the merits, I have no preference either way -- for this trade or future
trades.  My recollection is that the creator of the rule -- Jim Barrett --
suggested that players could be activated by the receiving team.

I will amend my usmltrans message on the assumption that the trade goes
through this week, as that seems to be the consensus (Doug notwithstanding).
Brad -- don't forget to activate Sweeney!!!

-Andy

jhwinick at aol.com wrote: 

I agree with Rich on this one. It seems to me that as long as there is a
consensus, either rule would be fine.     Is anyone else entertained (but
not surprised) that its these   two gentlemen that are testing the
parameters of the

 new rule?     Jeff   Sent from my BlackBerryR wireless handheld
-----Original Message-----  From: "Richard E. Robbins"
<mailto:RERobbins at iTinker.net> <RERobbins at iTinker.net>  Date: Sun, 13 May
2007 07:27:34   To:"'USML Announcements'"  <mailto:announce at usml.net>
<announce at usml.net>  Subject: RE: [USML Announce] **NOTICE OF HOT WAX SEAL**
I don't have a strong view either way on this one.    New Section 12.13
doesn't clearly address the matter.    I wouldn't object to permitting the
activation of a player whose contract  isn't running to be coincident with
the trade.    -- Rich     -----Original Message-----  From:
announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net]   On Behalf  Of
Andrew R. Klein  Sent: Sunday, May

 13, 2007 6:04 AM  To: USML Announcements  Subject: Re: [USML Announce]
**NOTICE OF HOT WAX SEAL**    It occurs to me that this trade might not be
effective until next Sunday, as  Sweeney's contract will not be "running"
until today at noon.      Commissioners ... a ruling please.  I have Sweeney
set to go active today.  Does that mean he is a Riptorn this week or next
week?    -Andy    Andrew R. Klein wrote:    

Happy Mother's Day.    The Klein Nine trades Ryan Sweeney to the Riptorns
for Hammern' Hank   Blalock.    -Andy
_______________________________________________  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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20070513/4d36218c/attachment.htm