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

    1 - No, actually, I�d like it lowered to $175
 9 - 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.

 1 - $200 limit
    1 - $225 limit
    3 - $250 limit
    1 - $300 limit
    6 - No limit

Comments regarding this question:
"'Limit' is a relative thing.  I think $200 is fine, but if 11 owners wanted to go to $225, I would go along.  Any higher than that, and I think there would need to be other rule changes to make it more competitive year by year.  (Let's see what the survey says...)" -- Matt Dodge

"I will defer to the opinion of the masses!  It raly doesn't matter as it's all going to Jolie's college fund so why don't you just figure how much we need to put in there for 4 years at MIT!" -- Scott Winterburn

"Is 'no comment' a comment? Figure that one out, Pete." -- Chicken

No computers, papers or any other draft support material allowed at the draft.  You would draft using a list of AL rosters & the keeper lists, and that's it!  Inspections at the door to catch anyone trying to sneak in "crib notes" in the margins or writing on their hands!

    1 - That sounds like a fun idea, let's do it.
11 - No, the word "naked" and the people in this league should never be linked together.  Leave it as is.
    0 - It makes no difference to me, I'm going to lose no matter how what stats I have in front of me.

Comments regarding this question:
"I suggest this be viewed as a one year experiment, with a chance to vote on it again next year if it passes this year." -- Matt Dodge

"What brought this to the front?  I can see no computers!  Does that mean no beer also as it seems to be the biggest support material for some of the owners!" -- Basement Boy (a.k.a. Hugh G. Rection, a.k.a. Scott Winterburn)

"Who in the hell came up with this idea?  Probably somebody too stupid to read, or too lazy to prepare . . . . Druuuuuuuuu?" -- Chicken

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.

(Yes, I know what you're thinking, but it's almost like a tradition to vote on this every year.)

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

Comments regarding this question:
"Two is plenty!" -- Matt Dodge

"There will be peace in the Mid-East before Chris gives this one up." -- Chicken

[Hey, I'm losing ground!  Last year it was 6 to 5 with 1 abstain.  This year it was 7 to 5 with no abstains!  DAMN! - Chris Mal]

If it's good enough for the midsummer classic, it should be good enough for us.  You must draft at least one player from each of the 14 teams.  After draft day, you must have one player from each of the 14 teams somewhere on your active and reserve rosters. If your one Devil Ray gets traded to another team (or otherwise becomes unsuitable for your roster), you have to FAAB one. If you don't FAAB one, the Commissioner FAABs one for you at $5.

(Note from the commissioner:  Obviously this is something that would have to be policed during the season.  It wouldn't be that difficult to do, but if we vote in this rule it would also have to be with the understanding that if someone breaks this rule and no one catches it, it wouldn't be something we could go back and correct.)

    3 - This sounds like an interesting twist.  Let's do it.
 9 - Naaaa, too hard to keep track of and/or I just don't like it.
    0 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"I also proposed this in the Ground Hog League (where I am commissioner) for this year's survey.  So far, of 9 votes logged, the only owner voting for it was me.  (Probably a message there...)" -- Matt Dodge

"Was this Pete's idea?" -- Drew Gallagher

"Who wants a stinking Devil Ray on their roster?!  Each team should select their team and not have to 'own' a player from every MLB AL team." -- Basement Boy (a.k.a. Hugh G. Rection, a.k.a. Scott Winterburn)

"I guess I wasn't invited to the crack-smoking party where this idea originated from.  Probably because I don't like to get naked with a bunch of dopes." -- Chicken

Any FAAB purchase over $25 must be kept at the following draft. Such a player can be traded, but the owner receiving the player must then keep him through draft day.  (Note this would make for a LOT of FAAB purchases being exactly $25 and going to the lowest team in the standings which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  The result would be that if you bid over $25, it either has to be a player you REALLY want PLUS a player worth keeping for next year.  This would essentially eliminate any bids over $50 unless Bonds or Vladimir would get traded to the AL.)

    4 - Cool idea.  Let's do it.
 7 - No, I like blowing my entire load in one shot each year.  Keep it the way it is.
    1 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"I notice that several of my proposals make more work for Chris - this will probably come back to haunt me at some point!" -- Matt Dodge

"Now we know what happened to all of the Communists who used to rule the USSR.  They moved to America and formed the Rules Suggestion Committe of the ASL." -- Chicken

The idea here would be that on roster freeze day each year, if you have more than five (5) rookies on your team, you'd have to select ones to drop so that you wouldn't have more than five going into the draft.

Note that if you go into the draft with (5) rookies already on your roster, you STILL WOULD be allowed to draft more rookies.  The limit of (5) would only apply when submitting your keeper lists.

Rookies that are already owned would be "grandfathered" and would NOT count against the (5) rookie limit.

 8 - I like this idea, it would cycle more players into the draft sooner.
    4 - I don't like this.  Teams should be allowed to have as many rookies as they like.
    0 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"I like this idea, but in the interest of fairness to anyone who has a large crop of rookies, it really should be implemented for the 2004 draft.  There should also be an upper limit: 9 players (40 man rosters less 23 active less 8 reserve draft leaves 9 remaining.)" -- Matt Dodge

"This would bring an end to civilization as we know it, not to mention a suicide pact signed by Chris and Pete.  Hmmmmm." -- Chicken

IMPORTANT!  PLEASE NOTE!
All rookies presently existing on any team's roster will have a contract designation on All-Star Stats of "L8" for all future seasons until they are no longer "rookies."  That will be our way of differentiating any "grandfathered" rookies who will not count against a team's 5 rookie limit.  This is actually an interesting rule change, which could quite possibly have a very pleasant affect on anti-dumping in the future.

At the 2000 draft there was some confusion over whether or not it was legal to draft Mark Teixeira who was still in college at the time.  The rules clearly indicated this was NOT legal, and we have maintained that rule.  It was suggested that we allow teams to draft any non-NL owned player as rookies in the reserve draft.  This would include college players, high school players, free agent players, Gerry Orlando, etc.

Note, for whatever it's worth, if this rule is voted in, it would match the ESL.

    5 - I like it, teams should be able to draft ANY non-NL owned player as a rookie on their reserve roster.
 7 - Keep it the way it is.  Teams may only draft players owned by an AL-team on draft day.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Matsui should not become eligible as a rookie." -- Matt Dodge [Well, even if this rule had changed, Matsui would not be a "rookie" unless he started the year in the minors which obviously he will not.  On the other hand, if you could figure out which Japanese stars might come to the majors some day, you could conceivably have drafted them and stored them on reserve as "rookies."  That would seem like a waste of roster space, though.  Plus, I'm guessing none of us had even heard of Matsui until this off-season, and so it would be a crap-shoot to try to guess who Japanese players might someday come to the U.S. -- Chris Mal]

"And we're all dying to get in goose-step with the beloved ESL and that's the naked truth." -- Chicken

8. ANTI-DUMPING...
And what would the ASL Survey be without a lot of suggestions about how we should handle in-season trading...

One person suggested that perhaps an "asterisk" player should be any player $20 or over instead of $25 or over, since there is a lot of excessive "dumping" that still goes on because the "asterisk" rule doesn't cover players in the $20 to $24 range.

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

Comments regarding this question:
"Why don't we play with the current Anti-dumping rules for a while.  After nearly 20 years, I think we're getting close to something that actually works.  Look, Chris won, so that should be enough proof." -- Chicken

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, and would like it moved back to 8/30 again.

 6 - Keep it the way it is, teams can trade freely thru the Thursday after the All-Star Game.
    5 - Move the trade-deadline to 8/30.
    1 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"The asterisk restrictions effectively curtail 'bad' dumping." -- Matt Dodge who voted to move it back to 8/30

"The All-Star game date is too restrictive.  But 8/30 is too late.  Why not a happy medium, say around August 10 or so?" -- Chicken

Someone noted that no one could possibly be dumping immediately after the draft, and suggested that teams be allowed to trade freely without any restrictions for the first two weeks of the season.

 6 - No, there have been at least 1 occasion when teams have dumped immediately after the draft, so this is a bad idea.
    5 - Good point, teams should be allowed to trade freely the first two weeks.
    1 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Once someone DOES dump in the first two weeks, there will be a great howl from the masses." -- Matt Dodge who voted to keep the dumping rule for the first two weeks.

"Free speach!  Free love!  Free sex!  Free food!  Free OJ!  Free clothes, so we won't have to go to the draft naked." -- Chicken who voted to allow free trading the first two weeks.

As it stands right now, each team receive two (2) "asterisk" players in a trade, as long as both players aren't received from the same team.  It was suggested that we reduce this to just ONE "asterisk" player received per team.

10 - Keep it the way it is, teams may received (2) "asterisk" players via trade as long as they are from two different teams.
    2 - Good idea, change it so that each team may receive only (1) "asterisk" player via trade during the season.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"It seems to work well as it is." -- Matt Dodge

"We're creeping closer to Joe Charboneau territory, aren't we, Chris? . . . . Hey, speaking of a 'Naked draft,' the truth is that Drew's been showing up 'naked' most years anyway.  Drunk, too." -- Chicken

As it stands today, you may RECEIVE two "asterisk" players in a trade, but you may trade away as many "asterisk" players as you want.  Voting this in would change the rule so that you may not trade away more than two "asterisk" players during the regular season.  This is actually how it was when we first set up the "asterisk" rules.

 7 - Keep it the way it is, I want to be able to dump as many of my players as I want.
    5 - Hey, that's a really good idea.  Teams should not be allowed to unload more than two "asterisk" players.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Again, this is working the way it is from my view." -- Matt Dodge

"Boy, this is a really short survey compared to years past.  Does that mean we're closer to finding rules that work, or that Chris is getting fat and complacent because he just blew away the field, and still retained the mantle of all-time Rookie Dick? . . . . By the way, how stupid was that 'Naked Draft' idea?" -- Chicken