2002 ASL Survey

Home Injuries MPHS Class of 86 Movie Reviews Neurotic Pictures Quotes Rotisserie Comments






Last year the entrance fee was $200. $44 of that went to All-Star Stats. Is there any desire to raise that fee?

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

 3 - $200 limit
    1 - $225 limit
    2 - $250 limit
    1 - $300 limit
    5 - No limit

Comments regarding this question:
"$200 just feels like the right amount, particularly for those of us who are in several leagues.  Not ready to tackle this as a 'big money' league yet." -- Matt Dodge

"I'm a friggin' newspaper reporter, not a GPU employee." -- Kori Walter

"It doesn't really matter how much it is since I apparently give Scott bounced checks.  Deposit the check when I give it to you, not 8 months later.  Actually, open a savings account and earn interest on the money during the season." -- Dale Scott (Note from YPCM: Opening an account for the league sounds like a great idea, but I don't see anyone stepping forward to volunteer to do that.  Unless that happens, we will continue to cash most of the checks at the end of the season.)


Two years ago we voted to increase the number of keepers from 12 to 13.  Someone suggested we bring it back to 12.

My personal opinion is that 12 has traditionally made it extremely difficult to trade in the off-season in the ASL because almost every team can find 12 keepers and no one wants to make trades where they get more keepers than they receive, reducing the trade possibilities to 1-for-1 or 2-for-2 deals.

For whatever it's worth, last year - the first year we allowed teams to keep up to 13 instead of 12, only FIVE teams out of 12 kept 13.  Some of the keepers on those 5 teams that kept 13 included Orlando Palmeiro $1, John Jaha $1, Dave Mlicki $1, Ryan Glynn $1, Joey Hamilton $1, Jeff Tam $1, A.J. Hinch $1.  Those are among the players that would have been back in the draft had teams been limited to 12.  If you look at it that way, clearly there's negligible difference between 12 and 13.  It just allows a few teams to keep an extra $1 player who sucks.

If we do reduce to 12, it would be effective 2003.

    5 - Let's reduce the maximum number of keepers to 12.
 7 - 13 is fine.
    0 - It makes no difference to me, I never have more the 6 keepers every year.

Comments regarding this question:
"I think fewer keepers are better for the whole league, unless everyone is into tying up roster slots with marginal players who are kept just because they have a low salary." -- Matt Dodge

"It [reducing to 12 keepers] should be effective for 2002." -- Dale Scott

"Why can't this [reducing to 12 keepers] be effective in 2002?" -- Drew Gallagher (Note from YPCM: Because if you don't delay the effective date of this kind of rule change, it becomes difficult for people to vote honestly.  A team that feels they have 13, 14 or 15 keepers will be inclined to vote that we continue to allow teams to keep 13.  A team that only has a handful of keepers naturally will be inclined to vote to reduce it to 12.  Since no one really knows how many keepers they will have in 2003, if you make this effective 2003, it maintains integrity in the voting.  We'll all vote for what we feel makes the league most enjoyable for the long-term, instead of what best suits our present situation.  Note that this isn't a new theory, either.  When we voted to go from 12 to 13, it also waited one full year.)


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.

 6 - Leave it at two, that is as high as I can count.
    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 3 players.
    2 - Allow teams to expand by up to 4 players.
    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 5 players.
    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 10 players.
    3 - 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:
"Anything less than 5 is OK." -- Matt Dodge

"September stats become way too skewed if you allow teams to call up 15 or so players." -- Drew Gallagher


One owner opposes the fact that we consider a majority vote to be "a majority of vote among those who voted one way or another."  This person feels that a "majority vote" should be seven or more votes, period.  That is, right now if 3 people vote yes, 2 vote no and 7 abstain, the YES vote passes.

The theory behind the system that is in place is that a majority of issues are not "life-critical."  If, say, six people want to change a rule, and the other six owners really don't care, why should the rule not change?  It makes no logical sense to me that you would not change a rule just because you don't have SEVEN "yes" votes as a result of a large number of people just don't care one way or another, so they abstained. 

In politics an "abstain" is close to a "no" vote from what I've been told, because it does take "yes" votes from more than half of the voters to change a law - no matter how many people decided not vote.  In my opinion, though, Rotisserie isn't like politics at all.  If someone abstains it just means they really don't have an opinion.

Obviously if we change this it will be effective after the results of this survey are tallied.

 8 - Leave it the way it is.  A majority is "the majority of people have an opinion."
    3 - A majority should be SEVEN total votes or more, period.
    1 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"For minor rule changes I agree [with Chris].  For very substantial changes (for example: realignment, moving to 5x5, throwing out an owner, etc.) I think you need the full majority to protect the commissioner." -- Matt Dodge  (Note from YPCM:  I still don't agree.  If someone suggested that we should play 5x5 in the ASL, for example, and no one cared one way or another except that one guy, why not play 5x5 and make that one guy happy?)

"To change a rule, the majority of votes in the league should be required.  Without a majority, seven, of the league in favor, no change." -- Pete DeCoursey

"One question: How will we decide what a majority is in order to determine the voting totals that will decide what a majority is?  In order to determine what a majority is . . . . in order to determine what a majority is . . . ." -- Mike Drago


As it is today, the last place team picks first, 11th place team picks second, etc.  This is the last remaining perk that could tempt someone to finish as low as possible in the standings once they are out of the pennant race.

There are two ways to combat this that are kind of fun...

(1) As defined by the Official Rotisserie Ultra rule book (and as we do it in the NL League that Perk, Dale, Drew, Gerry, Scott and I are in), the order for every round of the reserve draft shall be as follows: 5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-4-3-2-1.  This is good because it gives the 5th and 6th place teams some sort of reward for just missing the big money positions.  As it is today, if you just miss finishing in the top 4, not only don't you get any money (well, 5th place gets 5%), but you also get a crappy position in the reserve draft order.  By doing it this way there is total incentive to finish as high as possible in the standings.

(2) Make the first 6 picks (1st round only) in random order.  We actually did it this way for a couple years in the ASL and I don't remember why we stopped.  On draft day, the bottom 6 teams from the previous team would have their names drawn from a hat to determine the order of the first 6 picks.  (Starting the 2nd round the order would go back to the 12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 order that we used in 2001.)

Whatever we decide to do, it will not be effective until 2003.

    3 - Leave it the way it is:  Reserve draft order 12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
 7 - Change the draft order to 5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-4-3-2-1
    2 - Put the first 6 picks in the 1st round only in a random order
    0 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"And I think that it [5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-4-3-2-1] should take effect in 2002!" -- Matt Dodge (who finished 5th)

"Actually, I would like to try this format, for one season only, beginning in 2002, just to see how it would work: 6-5-6-7-6-8-6-9-6-10-6-11-6-12-6-4-6-3-6-2-6-1-6.  You never know till you try." -- Mike Drago

"This rule change should not take effect until I am no longer finishing in last place." -- Mark Bennett

"Again, why can't this be effective in 2002?" -- Drew Gallagher

(Note from YPCM: A couple people asked me why this change would have to wait until 2003.  If we change this for 2002, it certainly would not be fair to Mark Bennet, for example, who ended 2002 thinking that he at least was going to have the first reserve pick for following season.  But more importantly, if you don't delay the effective date of this kind of rule change, it becomes difficult to vote honestly.  The last place team will obviously vote that they should get the 1st pick, the 5th place team will vote for the order that gives them the first pick, and the 8th place team might vote that the first six picks are in random order.  By delaying the effective date of the change, everyone votes honestly since we don't know what the order of finish will be 2003.)


Does it make sense that you can't FAAB$ bid on free agent players who are on the D.L.?

The first year that we used FAAB in the ASL in 1999 we allowed teams to bid on players on the D.L.  Then we voted that for 2000 we would NOT allow teams to bid on players on the D.L.

Should we change it back again?

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

Comments regarding this question:
"If we allow this, the next thing you know, Pete will want the roster limit raised to 50, so that he can house yet more lame players." -- Mike Drago

"It's your FAAB$, spend it!!!" -- Marty Slickers


One owner suggested that we should be allowed to trade FAAB dollars.  You decide...

 8 - Bad idea, you shouldn't be allowed to trade FAAB dollars.
    3 - That sounds fine, teams should be allowed to trade FAAB dollars.
    1 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"The real question is:  Is the commissioner willing to track and post this?  I don't know if it is supported by All-Star Stats." -- Matt Dodge.  (Note from YPCM: It wouldn't be difficult to track at all.  Presumably, trading FAAB dollars would be something that would be done infrequently anyway.  When it does happen, it's just a matter of the Commissioner making a few keystrokes on the All-Star Stats web page to change the amount of FAAB dollars a team has.)

"You wouldn't offer an alcoholic discount drink coupons, would you?  Why offer Pete a way to screw his team up even quicker than usual?" -- Mike Drago

"Talk about an invitation to dump." -- Kori Walter

"Maybe [allow teams to trade FAAB$ with] a limit of $50" -- Marty Slickers


One owner suggested that we move the FAAB bidding period thru the end of the season, but with a $5 minimum bid in September and October.

    4 - Bad idea, leave the deadline where it is - the last weekend in August.
 8 - That sounds fine, FAAB bidding thru the end of the year, $5 minimum bid in Sept/Oct.
    0 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"I never have anything left by September." -- Dale Scott


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.

 8 - Keep it the way it is, transactions should be free, players can rotate in and out daily
    4 - Each transaction should be 25 cents each
    0 - Each transaction should be 50 cents each
    0 - Each transaction should be $1.00 each
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Screw the transaction fee!" -- Dale Scott

"The idea to make all the moves gratis was to save the league secretary countless hours of counting.  We came to this solution after it was apparent that no one wanted to be secretary." -- Mike Drago

"If you are going to add a transaction fee, you need to re-evaluate the entrance fee.  It is very easy to accumulate 100 transactions in an ultra season - at $1/transactions, the cost of participating goes from $200 to $300, and that might chase some owners out.  (Of course, abuse of daily transactions may tick people off to.)  I never looked - is there a transaction summary available on the web page?" -- Matt Dodge.

(Note from YPCM: Yes, All-Star Stats does, in fact, support this, so no manual tracking would not be necessary.  They have an input screen were you tell them the cost of each type of transaction, and then there is a screen that you can access throughout the season that tells you how much each team has spent on transactions.  And Matt is right, if we would add a transaction fee, we should revisit the entrance fee.)

Once again we have a large number of ideas and suggestions regarding how we handle mid-season trading...


One person suggested that perhaps an "asterisk" player should be any player $20 or over instead of $25 or over.

10 - Keep it the way it is, an "asterisk" player is any player $25 or over.
    2 - Good idea, an "asterisk" player should be any player $20 or over.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Sounds like something Drew came up with, so I'm totally against it." -- Mike Drago


Last year we moved the trading dead-line from 8/30 to the Thursday after the All-Star Game.  At least one person thinks that we've made it too early in the season.

    5 - Keep it the way it is, teams can trade freely thru the Thursday after the All-Star Game.
 2 - Move the trade-deadline back to 8/01
    1 - Move the trade-deadline back to 8/08
    4 - Move the trade-deadline back to 8/15
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Move it back to 8/30.  Experts need time to make trades." -- Scott Winterburn

"How about moving it back to 8/30?" -- Dale Scott

"You might as well end the season at the All-Star break if you're going to end trading there.  For contenders, at least as far as I can remember, the season only begins at the All-Star break.  That's when the real trades, among contenders should be made.  Everything else before that is just, 'Bend over...fine, I'm done. See ya.'" -- Mike Drago


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?

What about this:  Are you 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.

10 - 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:
"Trading is good!  Death to those that oppose it!" -- Scott Winterburn

"We talkin' Joe Charboneau here?" -- 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.  (Remember an "asterisk"-for-"asterisk" trade used to be considered a wash.)

So we changed the rule for 2001 so that players traded to the NL would NOT be "asterisk" players, but at the same time we changed the rules so that teams can only trade two "asterisk" players, total, period.  Oops.  We kinda screwed up by making BOTH of those changes.

What we need to do is change it BACK so that all players traded to the NL are "asterisk" players since they are essentially in the last year of their contract.

    4 - Keep it the way it is, players traded to the NL are not "asterisk" players.
 7 - Good idea, that makes sense, if a player is traded to the NL, he is an "asterisk" player.
    1 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Anything to enhance trading is good!" -- Scott Winterburn

"This is a loophole that needs to be closed.  It's too easy to call a guy an asterisk player just because he jumps leagues.  It's not within the intent of the rule." -- Mike Drago

"What difference does it make?  If asterisk trades are no longer a wash, why would anyone trade for a guy that is now in the NL?" -- Mark Bennett  (Note from YPCM:  Very hypothetical example, if you had Alex Rodriguez for $1 and he was traded to the Mets.  By the rules that we had in place in 2001, Alex Rodriguez is NOT an "asterisk" player.  The team that has A-Rod knows they essentially lost him, and will get a free dump trade by trading him to a contender.  By changing the rule, such a player WOULD be an "asterisk" player.)


One person suggested that getting rid of the farm system would cure much (or at least some) of the dumping problem.  In his own words...

It does three things, all of them a plus:

1. It will cut down on the dumping. The majority of dump trades are motivated by the lure of young, high-ceiling stars. While most of these youngsters fizzle out and never reach their projected stardom, the allure is there, like winning the lottery. Teams out of the race will quickly -- too quickly -- trade away this year's hope for next year's pipe dream. If you take away these rookies, maybe people won't be so quick to dump in April and give up on the current season.

This rule, of course, would grandfather all existing minor leaguers in ASL farm system. We would start in 2002 by not allowing anyone to be drafted in the supplemental draft unless they are on a major league roster.

2.  It will severely reduce draft inflation. The biggest reason that inflation exists at this point is because so many good players are kept at the ridiculous $5 rookie price. Eliminate farm systems, and you eliminate this problem.

3. It will add more pizzaz to the FAAB process. When these hot-shot rookies do make the major leagues, they can then be bid upon in an open, fair market, with the marketplace setting their value.

10 - Keep it the way it is, I like drafting minor leaguers.
    2 - Hey, that's a really good idea.  Let's get rid of the farm system all together.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Farm systems build winners as long as you spend time doing research!  Death to bin Laden and his henchmen who oppose farm systems!" -- Scott Winterburn

"Really good idea?  Hell, it's brilliant.  Friggin' brilliant.  Osama Bin DeCoursey will say otherwise, but that's only because he spends too much time in caves." -- Mike Drago

"Another option would be to limit the number of farm system keepers to a low number, say 5.  You still would have the option of drafting minor leaguers, but limiting the number of farm system keepers would cut down on dumping because you could not keep all of them." -- Mark Bennett  (Note from YPCM: This is a good idea.)


As an alternative to getting rid of the farm system each year, we could do as it has been done in the NL league that Drew, Perk, Dale, Gerry, Scott and I have been in for years - increase the salaries of rookies retained each year by $5.

That is, when you draft a rookie on reserve, he is $5.  If you retain that player in your farm system the next year, his salary increases to $10.  If you keep him a third year on reserve, his salary increases to $15, and so on.

This eliminates the overabundance of $5 players in the league and creates a quicker turn-over of players in the draft.  The way it is now in the ASL, except for that rare player that sneaks his way into the majors without being in someone's farm system, just about EVERY player spends his first 3 or 4 years in the majors on someone's team for $5 before he ever sees the draft.

(All rookies already on someone's team would be grandfathered, of course, and would remain $5.)

 6 - Keep it the way it is, rookies stay $5 no matter how long it takes them to reach the majors.
    6 - Good idea, increase the salaries of any rookie retained from one year to the next by $5.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Owners should be able to have varying goals.  This [adding $5 to rookie salaries each year] is just another way to punish owners in the bottom half of the standings by devaluing their best option." -- Pete DeCoursey

"[Increasing rookie salaries by $5 each year] stops people from drafting A-Rod out of high school..." -- Drew Gallagher

"Of course, if we eliminate the farm system all together, this point is moot." -- Mike Drago


Here would be a great way to eliminate all of our complicated rules about "asterisk" players, would cure the "dumping" problem once and for all, and would still allow teams to make trades during the season.  (Sounds like the perfect plan!)...

Any player traded mid-season would have his salary jump to $25.  Unless the player's salary is already $25 or more, then such a player would automatically be in the last year of his contract.

 9 - No, I don't like this idea, keep all the rules the way they are.
    3 - Good idea, that would work, any player traded mid-season becomes $25, etc.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"This [making a player $25 if traded mid-season] would eliminate trading for keepers, but I am willing to consider it.  I would propose an exemption for players who have not yet had 1 plate appearance or 1/3 of an inning pitched." -- Pete DeCoursey

"Yet another brilliant idea.  So long, rebuilding plans.  It's time for men to act like men!  Quit lifting up yer skirts, ladies, let's play ball!  (segue to Notre Dame Fight song at this point)" -- 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.

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

Comments regarding this question:
"Actually, I don't care, but I know this is really important to Chris, so I'm voting against it.  I don't think anyone else but Chris cares.  If we all voted honestly, it would end up 1-0-11 (1 for, 0 against, 11 abstain.)" -- Mike Drago


Most leagues have a "restricted trading" period after the trading dead-line has passed.  The logic being that there isn't any reason, for example, the 1st place team shouldn't be able to continue to trade with the 2nd place team, or the 11th with the 12th.

The method that has worked best and has the least chance of a loop-hole is to allow restricted trading thru 8/31 where all teams may continue trading if they are within 5 points of each other in the standings.  Also any teams 40 point or less may trade with each other no matter how close they are in points.  (This would then also make the ASL identical to the ESL.)

    5 - No, keep it the way it is: there should be no trading what-so-ever after the trading dead-line.
 7 - OK, allow "restricted trading" as outlined above.
    0 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"Change the ESL rule if you want the same." -- Pete DeCoursey

"If the trading deadline is set at a reasonable time, this point becomes moot.  However, if it isn't, I'm not against restricted trading.  I don't like the point system, however.  I would favor being able to trade with teams WITHIN two spots in the standings.  Under the point system, it's possible that a contending team could be on an 'island' and not be able to trade:  Say, in second place, seven points back of first, 10 points ahead of third, and unable to do much about it.  Not fair." -- Mike Drago  (Note from YPCM: Actually, I think that scenerio is totally fair.  If you are 7 points back of first and 10 points back of 3rd, you could make some minor dump deals with the 4th place team, and know you are still going to finish 2nd.  Or, more likely, what happened in the ESL a number of years ago when you could trade 2 teams away, the team in 4th place was 12 points ahead of the 5th place team.  So the 5th place team dumped everything they head to the 4th place team.  The point system eliminates that possibility.  By using points instead of position in the standings, you are assured that no trade is going to be a dump trade in late August.)


I, personally, don't think 900 innings is quite sufficient to say that a team has compiled a "significant" amount of innings.  Apparently neither do the Rotisserie Gods since the most leagues use a 1000 innings rule.  Even if you have 3 starters (about 180 IP each), that means your other 6 pitchers only have to have 60 IP each.  That hardly seems "significant", particularly when we allow teams to rotate their pitchers in and out everyday.  It just seems to me that requiring 1000 innings would totally eliminate the "almost all-relief" strategy and force people to draft their teams as a "real" baseball team would.

    4 - No, keep it the way it is: 900 innings should be the minimum.
 8 - You're right, 900 innings is still not a significant amount, increase it to 1000 IP.
    0 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"Compromise at 950?" -- Drew Gallagher

"Damn bin Laden wants to make changes and screw our great league!  May Allah send a hoard of sand mites to infest his tunic, most notably his genitilia area!" -- Scott Winterburn

"Not only should we move it to 1000, but we should name it the Dodge Rule, for teams who try to dodge starting pitching.  Just a coincidence, Matt, that that's my suggestion for the rule change.  Hey, I really had my sights set on fifth." -- Mike Drago

Number of visitors to this page:
Hit Counter