[USML Announce] Contiguous trades

[Brad Jansen]

Jim,  what do you mean? My fellow owners always act like I'm not there.
--Brad "Box Boy" Jansen


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Jim Barrett <chicagojab at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 listannounce at usml.nethttp://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://usml.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20130819/09700d25/attachment-0001.html>