[USML Announce] Setting Lineups

Thu Apr 24 16:10:23 EDT 2008

My eyes are wide open.

I think we need to take this risk.

-- Rich

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of Blocker, Mark B.
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:08 PM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Setting Lineups

League:

  I am not sure my primary concern has been fully conveyed.  If we change
the number of games needed to qualify from 2007, the system will make the
change "retroactively."  (When I started to do this, it gives you a warning
notifying you that this may cause prior rosters to show up as illegal).  As
you may recall, at the beginning of this year, every time we made a
retroactive change, it caused problems in the entry of roster and FAAB
moves, for reasons that are not at all apparent.  My concern is that, if we
make the retroactive change to 2007 games-played requirements -- even one
which logically should have no impact -- it may inadvertently screw up the
system in ways we do not currently anticipate.  So, my question is whether
it is worth taking that risk to fix a single-player, single-team problem?
If the league concludes that this is risk is worth taking, I will go ahead
and make the change (changing 20 to 18), but I want the league to do so with
eyes wide open in case this creates new, unanticipated problems.

  -- Mark B.

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of Richard Robbins
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:58 PM
To: 'USML Announcements'
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Setting Lineups

I'm fine with what you propose, but would suggest that in order to minimize
inadvertent mistakes, we set the number to the highest number needed to
solve the problem, i.e., in this case, 18.  If we need to lower it to
another amount during the season to address other instances discovered, then
so be it.

-- Rich

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of springkerb at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:23 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Fwd: [USML Announce] Setting Lineups

Mark Blocker has asked me to raise an issue with the league.

I have discovered that the current website does not line up with our
league's rule on position eligibility.  For 2007, the site requires the
league to set a single value, so it cannot accomodate the normal rule which
is based on either 20 games or the position at which the player appeared in
the most games (if less than 20).  Currently, our default is set at 20,
which means that a player that qualified at a position last year but did not
play 20 games at that position cannot be activated at that position.

I currently have this issue with Alberto Callaspo, who I'd like to roster at
3B based on 2007 games played.  It seems likely to me that several other
players would potentially be affected as well.

As noted below, I have proposed that we fix this glitch simply be resetting
our default value to 1, and requiring the league's owners to take
responsibility for positioning players consistent with our rules.  (The rule
would not change, just the settings on the site.)  In effect, this is what
we did for years before all this was automated.  Mark notes that we will
essentially be on the honor system, which is correct and which I don't have
a problem with.

Mark's other concern is that any changes will be applied retroactively and
might affect standings, etc.  Logically, that should not be a concern here,
since it has been impossible to position any player based on less than 20
games of 2007 playing time.  Therefore, there should be no transactions
capable of being affected retroactively.  Mark agrees with this from a
logical perspective, but would like me to get league concurrence in case
something screwy happens if/when he makes the change.

Does anybody have a problem with re-setting the 2007 eligibility default to
1 game and having us all take responsibility for position eligibilty for our
own teams?  (Winick, of course, will be keeping an eye on all of us.)

Thanks.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: springkerb at aol.com
To: announce at usml.net
Sent: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 2:04 pm
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Setting Lineups

Can we just re-set the 2007 number?  We could put it at 18, which would fix
the situation with Callaspo, or we could put it at one and handle position
eligibility on an honor system.  In either case, our rules say Callaspo is
eligible at 3B, and that's where I want him.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Blocker, Mark B. <mblocker at Sidley.com>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>; MBBlocker at aol.com
Sent: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:10 pm
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Setting Lineups

Mark:

  This cannot be fixed.  The system determines position eligibility by
number of games played at position in 2007 and 2008 (and we select what the
number is).  As to 2007, the number is set at 20 and for 2008 the number is
1.  There is no setting for "most games played at a position."

  -- Mark B.

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net
<mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net?> ] On Behalf Of springkerb at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:20 AM
To: announce at usml.net; MBBlocker at aol.com
Subject: [USML Announce] Setting Lineups

I'd like to activate Alberto Callaspo at 3B (and reserve Marte).  3B is
Callaspo's primary position from 2007.  However, our website does not
recognize him as eligible at 3B.  Can that get fixed?

Mark 

  _____  

Get the MapQuest Toolbar
<http://www.mapquest.com/toolbar?NCID=mpqmap00030000000003> , Maps, Traffic,
Directions & More! 

Sidley Austin LLP mail server made the following annotations on 04/23/08,
12:10:52:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury
regulations, we inform you

that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this

communication, including attachments, was not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be

used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be
imposed on such 

taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.  In addition, if any such tax
advice is used or referred

to by other parties in promoting, marketing or recommending any partnership
or other entity,

investment plan or arrangement, then (i) the advice should be construed as
written in connection

with the promotion or marketing by others of the transaction(s) or matter(s)
addressed in this

communication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the
taxpayer's particular

circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

****************************************************************************
************************

This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential.

If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
attachments and notify us

immediately.

****************************************************************************
************************
_______________________________________________

announce mailing list

announce at usml.net

http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

  _____  

Get the MapQuest Toolbar
<http://www.mapquest.com/toolbar?NCID=mpqmap00030000000003> , Maps, Traffic,
Directions & More! 
_______________________________________________

announce mailing list

announce at usml.net

http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

  _____  

Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com
<http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap00030000000004> : America's #1 Mapping
Site. 

Sidley Austin LLP mail server made the following annotations on 04/24/08,
16:03:01:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------