[USML Announce] Contiguous trades

[Jim Barrett]

And what about the too bad it's not hypothetical situation when an owner very publicly announces he's abandoning the rest of the owners in the league for the remainder of the season? Do the team owners above and below him get to act like he is not there?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 18, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Rich.  And I think that's what we've done in previous years -- contiguous when the trade is announced via listserv.
> 
> -Andy
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Richard Robbins <rerobbins at itinker.net> wrote:
>> It's a bit of a mess at present.  I think that for now, at least, we should expect that the owners be contiguous when they announce the trade and use the honor system since we don't have a way to record standings.  Requiring that they be continguous when processed by the system puts the owners at risk due to the passage of time, processing matters which they don't control and something as small as a player getting an RBI etc.  We will need to address this off season, but for now, I suggest we proceed as described above -- unless someone has a cleaner recommendation.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:07 AM, <springkerb at aol.com> wrote:
>>> Based on the existing wording of the rule, as applied to daily standings reporting, I would understand the rule to apply as of the day a trade is made--which for official purposes is the day it is submitted into the system.  I suppose it could also the day the trade is publicly reported.  If those two were the same day, and the teams were contiguous on that day, then I think you'd be good.
>>> 
>>> Since we've always tried to interpret the rules to be consistent with whatever site we were using, I don't think it would make sense to engage in the fiction that we are still using weekly reporting.  If we were to go that way, I think it would require a language change.
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mark Blocker <blockermark at gmail.com>
>>> To: USML <announce at usml.net>
>>> Sent: Sun, Aug 18, 2013 7:56 am
>>> Subject: [USML Announce] Contiguous trades
>>> 
>>> I know we just had this discussion, and decided we needed to clarify the rules for next year, but what did we decide is the rule under which we are currently operating?  For example, Jim and I were contiguous yesterday.  Is that sufficient?  This question is time sensitive.
>>> 
>>>   -- Mark
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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://usml.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20130819/5480c645/attachment-0001.html>