[USML Announce] **NOTICE OF HOT WAX SEAL**
Andrew R. Klein
anrklein at yahoo.com
Sun May 13 14:55:15 EDT 2007
I'm not sure that's clear -- the rejected proposal concerns whether the
receiving team needs to roster the player to start the contract
running. But, as I said from the start, I'm fine either way. I set
Sweeney to be active myself this week, so the trade could simply take
effect next week. Either way, we'll have common law established, Mr.
Justice Robbins Scalia ...
-Andy
Richard E. Robbins wrote:
> 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 BlackBerry? wireless handheld -----Original Message----- From: "Richard E. Robbins" <RERobbins at iTinker.net> Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 07:27:34 To:"'USML Announcements'" <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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d0a7460c/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Announce
mailing list