1. ENTRANCE FEE
2A. NUMBER OF KEEPERS, 8 VS. 13
2B. OFFENSIVE KEEPERS VS. PITCHING KEEPERS
2C. KEEPER VALUE
3. SEPTEMBER ROSTER EXPANSION
4. PLAYERS PLACED ON D.L. JUST AFTER FREEZE DATE
5. PLAYERS SENT DOWN OR RELEASED AFTER FREEZE DATE
6. FAAB$ BIDDING ON D.L. PLAYERS
7. TRANSACTION FEE OR NOT?
8A. ARE PLAYERS ON D.L. "ASTERISK" PLAYERS?
8B. TRADING DEAD-LINE
8C. ELIMINATE IN-SEASON TRADING?
8D. ARE PLAYERS TRADED TO NL "ASTERISK" PLAYERS
8E. CAN YOU TRADE PLAYERS INTERLEAGUE TRADE PLAYERS?
8F. TEAMS CAN RECEIVE ONLY TWO ASTERISK PLAYERS
8G. NO RESTRICTION ON TRADING AWAY ASTERISK PLAYERS
8H. ANTI-DUMPING: ANOTHER GOOD IDEA
9. UTILITY PLAYER AS A PITCHER
10. BID ON FREE AGENT PLAYERS IMMEDIATELY

Last year the entrance fee was $200. $40 of that went to All-Star Stats. Is there any desire to raise that fee?

    0 - No, actually, I�d like it lowered to $175
 6 - It=s juuuuuust right at $200
    0 - Raise it to $225
    1 - Raise it to $250
    0 - Raise it to $275
    2 - Raise it to $300

I wouldn=t want anyone to quit because we are playing for too much money. If everyone votes for $300 and one person would quit if we play for $275 or more, we=ll only raise it to $274.

 1 - $200 limit
    1 - $225 limit
    2 - $250 limit
    1 - $1000 limit
    4 - No limit

Comments regarding this question:
<None>

One owner has expressed an interest in actually REDUCING the number of keepers to 8.  I personally want to steer clear of any rule which reduces the fun involved in having keepers from year to year.  13 keepers seems like a reasonable number to me.  You decide!

(Some of you might be wondering "13? I thought the maximum was 12?"  Last year we voted to increase the maximum number of keepers from 12 to 13 effective 2001.  The 2000 Survey Results are still on-line for viewing, by the way.)

    2 - Let's reduce the maximum number of keepers to 8.
 5 - 13 is fine.
    2 - It makes no difference to me, I never have more the 6 keepers every year.

Comments regarding this question:
"The last statement is fitting for my team!" -- Dale Scott

"If the number of keepers is reduced to 8, I think we should wait a period of time to implement, I traded for a lot of 'futures' and don't want to get screwed!  WAH WAH WAH!" -- Scott Winterburn  (Note from YPCM: Any time we toy with rule changes like this one we would wait a year to implement, just as we voted a year to raise the number of keepers to 13 prior to the 2000 season and will now implement it in 2001.)

"It does make a difference to me, I think we should go back to 12." -- Drew Gallagher

Someone suggested that the number of keepers be limited by offense and by pitching.  For example, if the total number of keepers is 13, we would limit the number of offensive keepers to 8 and the number of pitching keepers to 5.  (And if we reduce the number of keepers from 13 to 8, the distribution would be 5 hitters and 3 pitchers.)

 7 - No thanks, I don't see what the point of this would be.
    1 - Sounds good: Maximum offensive keepers of 8, and pitching keepers 5.
    1 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
<None>

Someone suggested that to keep teams from having significantly better keepers than other teams, that we should agree on a source of player values, and say that no team can have keepers whose "book value" minus total salary is more than $40.  This person suggested using The Sporting News Fantasy Guide as the source for the player "book value".  If we went to this method, you could keep as many players as you'd like provided you didn't go over the $40 limit.  (i.e. "Book Value" minus Total Keeper Salaries must be not more than $40.)

 7 - No thanks, I don't like that idea.
    1 - Sounds good, let's do it.
    1 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"Who the fuck thought this was a fair and good idea? Please tell them that Nomar is not available for Brook Fordyce." -- Drew Gallagher

"Who's been smoking dope to come up with an idea like this?" -- Mike Drago

I�m fairly certain that the original Rotisserie book allows "Ultra" leagues to expand more than just two players onto their active roster for September Roster expansion. This is a reward for those teams that have built some sort of noteworthy reserve. It also makes scouring the box-scores in September that much more fun.

 5 - Leave it at two, that is as high as I can count.
    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 3 players.
    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 4 players.
    1 - Allow teams to expand by up to 5 players.
    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 10 players.
    2 - Allow teams to call up as many players from reserve as they want in September.
    1 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"Chris, this rule suggestion will be carved into your tombstone." -- Mike Drago

To avoid teams getting screwed when a player gets hurt between the time rosters are "frozen" and draft day, perhaps it makes sense to allow teams to drop a player if he goes on the D.L. during that week before the draft.  This particularly makes sense if a player has something horrible happen to him that puts him out for the year - it wouldn't be very fair to force a team to keep such a player.

(Side note: The rule in the ESL has been that such players CAN be dropped just before the draft if the owner chooses to do so.)

Note that this would only count for players who go on the D.L. that week.  If a player is on the D.L. on freeze-day and you keep him, you can not then change your mind and drop the player on draft day.

    0 - If you freeze a player, you should have to keep him even if he goes on the D.L.
 8 - If a frozen player is placed on the D.L. before the draft, you can drop him before drafting
    1 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"Should be called the Orber Moreno rule." -- Kori Walter

"I used to be a mean-spirited prick, but now I've mellowed. I'm just a prick." -- Mike Drago

What about players who are sent down to the minors or released between the time rosters are frozen and draft day?  Should the owner also be allowed to drop those players or should that team have to keep that player.

The rationale, I suppose, behind making a team keep such a player is that - unlike a player who suddenly gets hurt - if a player is released or sent down, it couldn't have been a totally "unforeseen" event (as it would be if a player was suddenly injured.)

    1 - If you freeze a player, you should have to keep him
 5 - If a frozen player is released on sent down before the draft, you can drop him before drafting
    3 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"Our draft date is forever changing; we can't punish people for this." -- Drew Gallagher  (Note from YPCM: It doesn't really matter when the draft date is, there is always exactly a week between the freeze and the draft when a player can get sent down or released.)

Does it make sense that you can FAAB$ bid on free agent players who are on the D.L.?

I am of the opinion that you should only be allowed to bid on players who are on an active major league roster.  (This would also make the ESL and the ASL consistent.  In the ESL you can NOT use your FAAB budget on players on the D.L.)

    0 - Keep it the way it is, what's wrong with FAAB$ bidding on players who are on the D.L.
 7 - Good point, you should NOT be allowed to FAAB$ bid on players on the D.L.
    2 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"I'd have a different opinion if we expanded our rosters to say, 65 guys." -- Mike Drago

Last year we decided to eliminate the transaction fee all together to simplify things.  This seemed like a fine idea until people started rotating offensive players daily which, in my opinion, is not exactly in the spirit of the game.  Plus, it's sort of unfair for those teams who don't have the time to check daily to see which AL teams have an off day. I don't think the transaction fee should be so large that teams will stop making moves after they are out of the race, but I do think there should be some deterrent to (or price for) rotating players in and out of your line-up almost as if you have a 40-man active roster.

Someone suggested in lieu of transaction fees, we should simply require that if you send a player down, that he must be deactivated for at least three days.  The problem with this, obviously, is that there is no way to police this - I am not going to keep track of every transaction and All-Star stats can't do it, so that leaves it up to each team to be honest and conscientious.  Is that a good idea?  I don't know.  I'll let you decide.

 4 - Keep it the way it is, transactions should be free, players can rotate in and out daily
    0 - Each transaction should be 25 cents each
    3 - Each transaction should be 50 cents each
    0 - Each transaction should be $1.00 each
    1 - Let's go with the idea that transactions are free, but players must remain on reserve for 3 days
    1 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"You shouldn't be penalized for rotating players on your roster." -- Dale Scott

"Quit your whining, losers." -- Mike Drago

8. ANTI-DUMPING...
Brace yourself, the following items on "Anti-Dumping" are going to bore you to tears.  Don't blame me.  There were a LOT of different ideas and suggestions.  Hopefully the results of this cumbersome exercise will result in putting an end to these discussions once and for all.

And sorry these are in a more logical order, either. I entered these as I received them and it would have been a behind-the-scenes programming chore to rearrange them.

One way to possibly combat a loop-hole in the "asterisk" rule is to say that once a player goes on the D.L. he can not count as an "asterisk" player.  The logic would be that "asterisk" player are supposed to be the top notch players in the league.  If a player is injured, that most likely isn't true.  This would stop teams from trading a $30 player away as an "asterisk" player when he is out for the season.

 6 - Keep it the way it is, a player can still be an "asterisk" player even if he's on the D.L.
    3 - Good idea, if a player goes on the D.L. clearly he isn't as valuable and shouldn't be an "asterisk"
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Not all players on the DL are out for the season (15-30 day DL). I don't recall any DL asterisk players being traded in 2000.  Seems like a further attempt to restrict trading." -- Kori Walter  (Note from YPCM: I'm not sure there were any solid examples in 2000, but in 1999 a $35 Jim Edmonds got hurt around May and was out for the rest of the year.  Edmonds was used in a blockbuster ASL trade that year and was necessary to make the trade happen.  I think it was Edmonds and a couple prospects for Jeter or something like that.  You might not have seen any examples in 2000, but the Edmonds fiasco will happen again and everyone who voted this one down will be sorry they did.  At least, that's my opinion. :-)

One thing that was overlooked in our "tweaking" of the trading rules in the ASL last year was that the previous Commissioner had oddly moved the trading dead-line way out to 8/30.  One other method of combating "mid-season" dumping would be move the trading dead-line up significantly.

(Note that I didn't include an option for a June deadline because I think that is a dangerous area to have the dead-line.  It's early enough for teams to think they are out of the money and dump, and it's also early enough that there is so much season left to play that any dump trades at that point seriously affect the Rotisserie pennant race.  May dead-lines should assure that any mid-season trades are trades to help both teams and NOT dump trades.)

    3 - Keep it the way it is, teams should be able to trade thru 8/30.
 4 - Move the trade-deadline to the Thursday after the All-Star Game
    0 - Move the trade-deadline up to 5/30
    0 - Move the trade-deadline up to 5/15
    2 - Move the trade-deadline up to 5/01
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"The problem here, and I'm not sure you can resolve it in the voted method you have adopted, is that so many of these anti-dumping suggestions conflict with each other, that voting for certain ideas counteracts other choices.  So, I'll pick the All-Star date here, though the really good suggestion - 8H - will change this.  Not sure how you're gonna sort this out." -- Mike Drago  (Note from YPCM: I knew this would be easy to sort out because I knew that a majority of these rules would not pass, proving once again that most people don't really know what's good for them. :-)

Here's a concept: Eliminate in-season trading all-together. Shouldn't the winner of the season be the person who has had the best draft? What better way to assure that than to eliminate dump trades all together by just eliminating in-season trading?

Tired of half the teams having 90% of the keepers going into every draft?  What better way to assure that all of the keepers remain equally distributed among all the teams than to just eliminate in-season trading.

Tired of having to "keep up with the Joneses" every year by being forced to trade along with your competition?  We're all busy these days - do we all have time to worry about trading in mid-season just because if you don't, you are at a disadvantage?  Let's just get rid of in-season trading all together.

 7 - No, in-season trading is good, leave it the way it is.
    2 - Good point, let's just get rid of in-season trading.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"To quote Ed Wade and other GMs whose teams are out of the race by May 1: 'Dumping has been berry, berry goooood to me.'" -- Kori Walter

"Same problem as above. I'm not 100 percent for ending trading, but it would be better than some of these ideas, or our current system." -- Mike Drago

One of the largest loop-holes in the "Anti-dumping" rules of 2000 was the fact that we allowed players traded to the NL to be considered "asterisk" players because they were automatically in their last year of their contract once traded to the "other league".  By mid-season, so many journeyman players had been traded to the NL, that making ridiculous ASL dump trades no problem at all.  One suggestion was to say that any player traded to the NL could NOT be considered an "asterisk" player no matter what.

    3 - Keep it the way it is, players traded to the NL are "asterisk" players.
 6 - Good idea, that would help, if a player is traded to the NL, he is not an "asterisk" player.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Really good idea.  Rick White ain't no asterisk player." -- Kori Walter

"Sort of like slamming the barn door shut after the entire heard has stormed out, but at least you have good intentions." -- Mike Drago

Someone also suggested taking the previous suggestion one step farther, to say that a player traded to the NL can not be traded - PERIOD.  And also that any player traded FROM the NL to the AL and picked up via FAAB$ cannot be traded either.

 6 - Keep it the way it is, players traded to the NL or from the AL can be traded.
    3 - Any player involved in an inter-league trade cannot be traded in the ASL.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"I forget because it's been so long, but I think we were able to retain players on our active roster after they were traded. I remember this because B.J.Surhoff went 0-for-24 in his first two weeks in Atlanta. Great. I thought I was getting a BJ and I got it jammed up my ass instead." -- Mike Drago  (Note from YPCM: You CAN retain players traded to the NL.  What this idea was suggesting was that perhaps you shouldn't be able to trade players like B.J.Surhoff to another ASL team once they go to the NL.)

Allow teams to receive only one "asterisk" player per year from any given team.  (This will totally eliminate those 2-"asterisk" for 1-"asterisk" trades where one of the 2 is some schmoe who is injured or in the last year of his contract.)  Or, alternatively and more strict, allow teams to only receive TWO "asterisk" players per year and they MUST be from different ASL teams.

    2 - Keep it the way it is.
    2 - Teams may only receive ONE "asterisk" player from each team throughout the year.
 5 - Teams may only receive TWO "asterisk" players TOTAL per year & must be from different teams.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Again, I'm all for 8H, and I'm gonna vote for that one about six times. But if that doesn't go through, I guess this is a possible alternative." -- Mike Drago (who voted that teams may only receive two "asterisk" players TOTAL per year.)

As it stands today, teams may only "dump" one time.  It was suggested that teams should be allowed to trade AWAY (dump) as many "asterisk" players as they want in an effort to rebuild.

    3 - No, keep it the way it is, teams may only trade away one "asterisk" to each team, net.
 5 - Good point, teams should be allowed to trade away as many "asterisk" players as they want.
    1 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"I'm going to have to hire a lawyer to keep track of all of these trading rules." -- Kori Walter

"I'm corn-fused. I went to sleep in Pennsylvania and woke up in Florida." -- Mike Drago  (Note from YPCM: Essentially, the way the voting has ended, the new rule is that a team may only receive TWO "asterisk" players per year and they must be from different teams, but a team may now trade AWAY ask many "asterisk" players as they like...they'll just have to spread them around.)

One idea that someone suggested is to set a deadline like so:  You can make any trades that you'd like before the deadline just as you normally would, but any players involved in any trades after May 15th automatically have their contracts expire at the end of the year.  (I have actually heard other leagues using this rule.)

Note that this would eliminate all of our rules involving "asterisk" players! 

 5 - No, I don't like this idea.
    4 - I like this idea.
    0 - I don't care.

If we go with this idea, when should the dead-line be?

    2 - May 1st
    0 - May 15th
    1 - May 30th
    4 - June 14th
    2 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"Should be called the Steve Forbes rule for its simplicity (i.e. flat tax.)" -- Kori Walter

"I'm getting a boner just thinking about this one.  Who thought of this great idea . . . . Make me happy and say it was me." -- Mike Drago

Minor thing: Let's allow the "Utility Position" (a.k.a "Wild Card") to be an offensive player OR a pitcher.  This really isn't a big deal one way or another, but it would then make the ASL the same as the ESL - which most people in the ASL are also a part of. It also adds a twist to the draft when teams have filled all their pitching slots but still have that utility spot to fill - you could draft a pitcher there.

 5 - No, keep it the way it is: The "Utility" player MUST be an offensive player.
    3 - I like this idea, the "Utility" player can be an offensive player or a pitcher.
    1 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"The dreadful pitching alone should be a big enough deterrent to make this an irrelevant option." -- Kori Walter (Note from YPCM: You'd be surprised, in our other league there are always one or two teams that fill their utility slot at the end of the draft with a pitcher when there's not much else left over - those teams should, of course, be worried about their chances, but it does give them a small amount of extra flexibility that's full to watch...and mock.  It's always fun to go, "Hey...do you know you just put Dan Plesac in your utility position?  Baaaaahahahaha.")

"This sounds like a Finglassian suggestion." -- Mike Drago

10. ALL FREE AGENT PLAYERS AVAILABLE
        IMMEDIATELY VIA FAAB$??? 

As it is right now, free agent players must be on an AL team's major league roster for at least 7 days before you can bid on them.  Unfortunately, there is a glitch in the All-Star stats system when it comes to players traded to the AL from the NL which makes those players available immediately.  If you try to place a bid on them the system will not stop you like it will for AL players who have just come up from the minor leagues.

This has been a pain in the buttocks since everyone must then keep track of exactly when players were traded, and multiple times every year I will have to go back in an clean things up when teams bid on players they shouldn't.  This problem would all be solved by just saying that all players are available as long as they are listed as being in the AL by All-Star Stats. The downside of that is that if a player is traded to the AL Sunday, teams may bid on that player Sunday night while some owners may not know of the trade until Monday morning.

Which way is the lesser of two evils?  You decide...

    1 - No, keep it the way it is: Player must be in the Majors for a minimum of 7 days first.
 7 - OK, let everyone bid on players as soon as they become available.
    1 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"That's why God invented RotoNews." -- Kori Walter

"Screw the rest of you weenies who go to bed by 7 on a Sunday night.  While you're sleeping, I'm running around gobbling up great free agents like Luis Sojo and Al Martin and Mike Lansing and ... god, what a great country this is." -- Mike Drago  (Note from YPCM: I'm not sure being up late on a Sunday night is going to matter anyway, now that I think about it.  All-Star Stats doesn't run their updates until early in the morning, so if a player comes over to the AL Sunday afternoon or night, I don't think you'll see him on All-Star Stat's free agent list until Monday anyway.)

Number of visitors to this page: