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
 6 - It=s juuuuuust right at $200
    0 - Raise it to $225
    3 - Raise it to $250
    0 - Raise it to $275
    2 - Raise it to $300
    0 - I don't care

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 - $220 limit
    1 - $225 limit
    3 - $250 limit
    2 - $300 limit
    3 - No limit

Comments regarding this question:
[Wow, this is the most support there's ever been for increasing the entrance fee.  Last year it was 10-2 and 2002 it was 10-2.  This year: 7-5.  Interesting.  Of course, Drew's $200 limit would have squashed the idea anyway, but it's interesting that more people are starting to think it might be time to raise the stakes. - Chris Mal]

Presently there is nothing written to define what we should do if a player is traded to the NL between the roster freeze date and the draft.  It's actually quite amazing that it has never happened, and we should probably write something down before it does.

There are three options:
    6 - It should be the same as if you lost a player at any other time during the off-season:
            You lose the player automatically and get nothing in return
    0 - You must keep the player, afterall rosters are "frozen." No adjustments can be made and you don't lose the player.
    6 - It should be the same as if you lost a player during the regular season:
            You get the option of keeping him or you can drop him for FAAB money
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
[OK, I'm lost on what we should do here.  This is an odd case where we are not CHANGING a rule, but making one where, inadvertently, one did not exist before.  So a "tie" vote doesn't revert to the existing rule since there never was an existing rule.  What do we do?  Any suggestions?" - Chris Mal]

"Damn, Chris, I'm confused already.  I don't think I can make it all the way through this thing." -- Chicken

If we chose the first option where you lose the player and get nothing:
 6 - You can add another player to your keeper list that you hadn't originally kept
    4 - No, you can't add another player to your keeper list to replace the player you lost.
    2 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Not only are the keepers important on roster freeze day, but just as important is who is NOT kept.  Under no circumstances should an owner be allowed to add a keeper after freeze day." -- Matt Dodge  [As we discussed previously, I'm not sure I follow why you feel so strongly about this.  I can't think of any circumstance where my draft strategy would be completely thrown off kilter if someone added a marginal keeper to their team at the last minute. - Chris Mal]

If we chose the 3rd option where you can keep the player or drop him for FAAB:
    1 - You can add another player to your keeper list that you hadn't originally kept to replace the player you lost
 6 - No, you got FAAB $$$ so why should you get to add a player to your keeper list too?
    2 - You should have a choice:
            Keep the player just like he was traded during the season,
            Drop him for FAAB, but you can't replace him on your keeper list with another player,
            or Drop him without getting FAAB but you get to replace him with another player who wasn't originally kept
    3 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Damn, Chris, I'm confused already.  I don't think I can make it all the way through this thing." -- Chicken

Deja vu all over again!

I�m 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.
    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 5 players.
    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 10 players.
    4 - 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:
"Chris is more than just a little bit anal about this subject." -- Chicken

Someone suggested that we should be allowed to trade FUTURE reserve picks, and not be limited to trading picks during the Winter only for picks in the up-coming draft.  The downside to that idea for those who care about such things is that it's fuel for even more dump-trading.  Instead of trading some A-ball player, now you'll have a nearly infinite well of 7th and 8th round picks.  Perhaps a better idea would be to allow the trading of future reserve picks but only during the off-season.

 9 - No, keep it the way it is.  You may only trade reserve picks in the off-season for the up-coming draft.
    1 - You may trade future year's picks, but only during the off-season.
    2 - I like the whole idea.  You can trade future picks at any time, off-season and during the regular season.
    0 - I don't care.

To keep the trading of future picks from getting silly, perhaps we should put a limit on how far out into the future these picks could be traded.  Assuming we allow the trading of future picks, select one of the following options...

    7 - OK, I'll agree to trading future picks but only picks one draft ahead.
    0 - OK, I'll agree to trading future picks but only picks no more than 2 drafts into the future.   
    0 - OK, I'll agree to trading future picks but only picks no more than 3 drafts into the future.
    1 - OK, I'll agree to trading future picks but only picks no more than 5 drafts into the future.
    0 - OK, I'll agree to trading future picks but only picks no more than 10 drafts into the future.
    1 - If someone wants to trade a pick in the year 3003, they should be allowed to do so.
    3 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"I don't think we should trade future picks. Who knows when Murph might join our league." -- Drew Gallagher

"I don't want to have to buy Benson's Top Little League Prospects 2004 tome." -- Kori Walter

"To quote our President (Bush, not Malinowski), 'That's a trick question, and I'm not gonna answer it.'  If I voted no in the first half of the question, what makes you think I'll vote for one of the six alternatives in the second part?  You're really stupid." -- Chicken  [Me thinks you missed the point of the second part.  The second part is IF the first part passes, what is your preferences for # of years ahead?  I would think if you voted NO for the first part, you'd vote "just one year ahead" in the second part.  Doesn't matter though since the rule didn't pass.  And THANK GOD for that.  Dumping is bad enough in this league.  I can't even imagine the absurdities we'd see if we allowed teams to trade their 8th round pick in 2037. - Chris Mal]

[...and, hey, you just called me stupid.  I resemble that remark. - Chris Mal]

Last year we voted in a rule that teams may only keep a maximum of five rookies going into the draft each year.  (Rookies drafted prior to 2003 were "grandfathered" and do not count against the 5-rookie limit.)

One person would like to get rid of the rookie limit and go back to the way it was before when you could keep as many rookies as you like.

 8 - No, the 5-rookie limit has worked out well, let's keep it.
    3 - I agree, I don't like the 5-rookie limit either, get rid of it.
    1 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"I personally think this is the rule that led to the beginning of the end of the DeCoursey Roto Dynasty.  He was so depressed upon learning this, he couldn't draft right." -- Chicken

I'm not sure where we came up with midnight as the FAAB deadline when we could have chose any time.  Someone suggested we move the FAAB deadline up to 9PM on Sunday instead of midnight.  That way, those who need their beauty sleep don't need to worry about a player becoming available just after they've retired to la-la land, but before midnight.

 7 - No, leave the deadline at midnight.  If you want a shot at every player, suck it up and stay awake.
    4 - Good idea, let's move the deadline to 9PM.
    1 - Who gives a rat's ass?

Comments regarding this question:
"How many MLB roster moves occur at 11:59 pm on Sundays?" -- Matt Dodge

"I own a bar - midnight is fine." -- Marty Slickers

"For those who want to change to 9:00pm, I hope the 4:00pm dinner line at Cracker Barrell is not too long." -- Jon Perkins

"Hey, you wanna be a pussy and go to sleep at 8:30 on a Sunday night, go right ahead pal.  Things only start getting interesting around midnight." -- Chicken [If I went to bed at 8:30, I'd still miss the trades between 8:30 and 9:00.  I'm not sure why 7 people were so in favor of this rule.  The Internet porn's the same at 9PM as it is at 11:59PM.  There's really no need to be awake so late. - Chris Mal]

Someone doesn't like the fact that you can drop an NL-player at the last minute, and then no one really knows how much FAAB $$$ some teams really will have.  It was suggested that to get the extra FAAB$ for that week, you must drop such a player 48 hours in advance.  I would then send an email to the entire league alerting everyone to the fact that someone is increasing their FAAB dollars.

OR, we could just say that if you drop a player for FAAB money, that money will not be added until the following week.  I'll do that every Monday giving everyone a nearly full week to notice that someone has increased their FAAB total.

The other problem with the way it is presently set up is that to increase the FAAB $$$, I have to do it manually, so if you drop an NL-player, you have to notify me.  That is problematic if I'm not home or can't be reached Sunday night.  It's also slightly unfair that I am sometimes the only person in the league who knows one team has increased their FAAB $$$ at the last minute.

    3 - No, keep it the way it is, I like the strategy of being able to increase my FAAB $$$ at the last minute.
    3 - FAAB drops must be made 48 hours in advance and then an email should be sent to the league.
 6 - FAAB drops will be effective after the next FAAB deadline.  In other words, FAAB increases will happen every MONDAY.
    0 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"A loop-hole that should have been closed before.  Thanks for bringing it up." -- Matt Dodge

Someone thought it would be cool to make the salary of the very last reserve player drafted on each team $1 instead of $10 (or $5 if the player is a rookie.)  It would make for interesting strategy, I guess, to try to save someone for the last round in hopes that no one else drafts that player ahead of you.

    3 - No, I don't like it.  All reserve players should have a salary of $10 (or $5 if they have rookie status.)
 9 - Yes, I like that idea, let's do it.
    0 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"Dumb!" -- Matt Dodge  [This "dumb" rule was just implemented.  If you want, your last reserve slot can still be $10.  :o) - Chris Mal]

"Why not a graduated scale for the entire reserve draft?" -- Chicken [I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but we just voted that in in our NL league, believe it or not. - Chris Mal]

"Who wants Esteban Loiaza for a buck, anyway?" -- Kori Walter who obviously voted NO. [Loiaza really was Kori's last reserve pick, by the way. - Chris Mal]

I just noticed a serious problem with allowing teams to FAAB bid into September.  Gerry had $60 left (plus could have dropped Ugueth Urbina for +$37 to bring him to $97).  The team with the next most FAAB$ was Dale at $31.  Gerry could have conceivably dropped all of his big-name players and essentially just bid on them for bargain prices and only Dale could have stopped him on the first player.  Heck, Mark and Dale probably could have done that same thing since Gerry didn't seem to be paying attention to FAAB down the stretch, and no one else had any money except Gerry, Mark and Dale.  It appears that we need a rule that says that if you were the last person to own a player, you may not bid on that player in September.

    2 - No, don't change anything.  I like having this loop-hole.
 10 - Woah, good point, in September, you may not bid on any players that were last owned by you.
    0 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"I already thought we had a rule that if you drop a player you can't be the next person to pick that player up again.  We should have a rule like that." -- Drew Gallagher

"Chris, this is no place for personal insults.  Gerry not paying attention to FAABs down the stretch?  Com'mon!  What an ancalled for cheap shot against a person of great integrity.  I won't stand for it, dammit!" -- Chicken [You're right, I'm sorry, Gerry. - Chris Mal]

It was suggested that one of the ways we could build more in-season interest
would be to tinker with the roster size.  Perhaps a 12 player reserve roster (as opposed to the present 17)?  This would get 50-60 players back into the FAAB pool.

Another suggestion was a variation on this theme - gradually expanding the rosters during the season as follows:  13 reserve slots through April, 14 during May, 15 during June, 16 during July and 17 during August and September.  Or, alternatively, we could bump the reserve rosters from 12 to 17 on 8/1, just in time for all of those last minute deadline deals in MLB.

 7 - No, don't change anything.  Keep the reserve rosters at 17.
    5 - Yes, we should go with one of the reserve roster reduction plans listed above.
    0 - I don't care.

If we do reduce the size of the reserve roster, which plan would you prefer:

    2 - Reduce it to a 12 man reserve roster and it stays that way all year.
    5 - 13 reserve slots through April, 14 in May, 15 in June, 16 in July and 17 during August and September.
    3 - Reduce reserve roster to 12, and then allow it to increase to 17 on August 1st.
    2 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"What's the damned difference?  If the player pool is going to be limited, you can make the roster size 1,000 and it won't matter, people won't be able to fill it." -- Chicken

11. 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.

 9 - 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.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Is this the same 'One person' who cropped up earlier?  Is he a dope with a name that sounds like dew?" -- Chicken [No, he's a dope who sounds like piss.  Hey, what can I say?  Anything to make it harder to trade midseason, I'm all for it. - Chris Mal]

Someone suggested that any player traded during the season should have his contract status reduced by one year.  For example, a player just drafted would then enter the very next season into his "option year."  A player in his 2nd year would become a free agent the following season, etc.

 7 - No, I don't like this idea
    4 - Yes, that sounds like a great idea
    1 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Too harsh on the rebuilder.  It would reduce interest during the season." -- Matt Dodge

I think everyone has read the various emails from me and other interested parties about the merits of why this may or may not make sense, so I'll spare you from repeating all of that.  Here is how I propose that this rule would work...

• Nothing will be revealed or announced to the league until two teams agree on a trade.
   
• When 2 teams agree on a trade, you can either contact me and I will send an email to the league, or you can send an email to the league yourselves.
   
• From the moment the email is sent, the clock begins ticking.  In the off-season, there will be a 3 day waiting period, and during the season there will be a 24 hour period.
   
• During that waiting period, all other teams have the opportunity to attempt to match or better the offers to one or both teams.
   
• If a "better" deal does not come along, the trade becomes official when the 24 hour (or 3 day) period is over.  (As always the trade does not become official in the stat service system until it is actually entered by one of the teams involved in the trade.)
   
• If a "better" deal does come along, the original trade becomes void, another email will be sent out with the new deal, and the 24 hour (or 3 day) clock period begins again.
   
• Both teams MUST respond to all counter-offers.  A trade cannot be entered as official until a response is made to all counter-offers.  Teams have 12 hours to respond to a counter-offer and negotiate, so if a counter-offer comes in at 23:59 hours, you have ANOTHER 12 hours to try to negotiate the new counter-offer.  In theory, that means it could take 36 hours to make a trade, but I'm guessing most counter-offers will be declined immediately or at least quickly, making the 1st offer official within 24 hours in most cases.
   
• For trades made just before trading dead-lines or just before roster freeze dates, the "clock" period will be truncated.  So, in other words, if freeze lists are due at 6PM, and a trade is made at 4PM, an email should still be sent out, but teams then have just 2 hours to make a better offer.
   
• The effective date of the trade during the regular season would be after this whole process is complete and one of the teams is able to enter the trade into the stat service system, NOT retroactive to the date the trade was first consumated.

 6 - No, I don't like it.  This is a ridiculous idea.
    2 - Yes, I like this idea, but let's make it only apply during the regular season.
    1 - Yes, I like this idea - and it should apply during the season AND during the off-season.
    3 - I don't care.

There is some fine-tuning that needs to be clarified...

• Does the "better" deal have to include ALL of the players in the original deal or must it just include at least one of them???

Say for example, you have a deal on the table to trade Players A, B and C for Players X, Y and Z.  And someone makes a counter-offer of Player A for Player Q that knocks your socks off.  That ABC-for-XYZ trade is voided, and then new deal on the clock becomes A-for-Q.  There was some concern that this would be a bad idea because if the owner of ABC becomes convinced that ABC-for-XYZ is a bad trade, he can simply trade, say Damian Jackson (Player C) for Adam Melhouse to get out of the trade.  On the other hand, maybe that isn't such a bad thing since the idea of this whole concept is to eliminate unfair trades.  If the owner of ABC realizes that he was involved in making an unfair trade, perhaps it would be in the best interest of the league that he can somehow get out of it if he can cleverly include one of the players in the deal in a new trade.

    1 - Hmmmm...good point, the "better" deal must include ALL of the players on one-side from the original deal.
    3 - Hmmmm...good point, the "better" deal must just include at least ONE of the players from the original deal.
    7 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"I'm so confused!  These surveys give me migranes!" -- Scott Winterburn  [Ummmm, this rule was YOUR idea. - Chris Mal]

"My head hurts." -- Jon Perkins  [You and Scott should be buddies. - Chris Mal]

"That second part lost me.  I don't think we should run our own little eBay with trades." -- Drew Gallagher  [I think a lot of people were lost on the second part based on the SEVEN "I don't care"'s which I should have instead called "I don't get it." - Chris Mal]

"Let's try it for one year only.  If it passes, I want it on the ballot again next year." -- Matt Dodge

"What's next, we gonna hold hands at the draft when bids exceed $30?  We gonna show each other what kind of Looney Tunes underwear we have on before the draft gets going?  We gonna send each other sympathy cards when our star players go on the DL? Why not just call this the Pussy Boys League and get it over with?  Is this a men's league or a little girl's league?" -- Chicken [Tweetie Bird, for the record. - Chris Mal]

"You are going to run into all kinds of problems with subjective terms such as 'fair' and 'better' with trades.  If you're too lazy to shop your players for the best trade, that's your problem.  If the other owners are conspiring to screw opponents in a trade, this remedy will not fix that and may in fact encourage that type of behavior." -- Kori Walter

As it stands right now, each team can 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.

 9 - 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.
    1 - I don't care

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.

 6 - Keep it the way it is, I want to be able to dump as many of my players as I want.
    6 - 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:
"Damn, 11's a tough friggin' number this year." -- Chicken

Someone suggested that we give part of the prize pool to the winner of each category...say $25/per category.  It probably wouldn't eat into the 1st place team's pay-out since the 1st and 2nd place teams will probably win a couple categories.  But, at the same time, it might make teams out of the money less inclined to dump a category they are winning.

Another person noted that he would only be in favor of this idea if we increased the entrance fee to accommodate for the additional prizes.

 4 - No, I don't like this idea.
    3 - Yes, I like this idea, but only if we keep the entrance fee at $200.
    3 - Yes, I like this idea, would prefer to keep the $200 entrance fee but don't mind if it is increased for the extra prizes.
    2 - Yes, I like this idea, but only if we adjust the entrance fee accordingly to accommodate for the extra prizes.
    0 - I don't care.

If we keep the prize pool at $200, how much should we give the winner of each category?

    4 - $20 to the winner of each category.
    5 - $25 to the winner of each category.
    0 - $30 to the winner of each category.
    0 - $40 to the winner of each category.
    0 - $50 to the winner of each category.
    3 - I don't care.

If we increase the prize pool, how much should we give the winner of each category?

    4 - Give $20 to the winner of each category which would increase the entrance fee to $213.
    2 - Give $25 to the winner of each category which would increase the entrance fee to $217.
    2 - Give $30 to the winner of each category which would increase the entrance fee to $220.
    0 - Give $40 to the winner of each category which would increase the entrance fee to $227.
    2 - Give $50 to the winner of each category which would increase the entrance fee to $233.
    2 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Since I proposed this idea, regardless if we increase the entrance fee or not, I vote yes." -- Marty Slickers

"Let's take it a step further and fine a team $25 for every category they finish last in." -- Chicken [Hey, I actually LIKE that idea!  I'd say we vote on it next year, but I know it wouldn't pass because we're in the Pussy Boys League.] 

[For the record, here's how I concluded this rule didn't pass.  If we said we were going to increase the entrance fee to do this, the votes are 7 NO to 5 YES.  If we said the we'd do it but the entrance fee must remain the same, the votes are 6 NO vs. 6 YES.  Either way, the rule does not pass. If someone sees a flaw in that logic, let me know. - Chris Mal]

It was suggested that we simply eliminate the drafting of minor league players.  The only players eligible for the reserve draft would be players on an active major league roster or on the DL, and obviously not selected in the auction draft.

Pros...

• It could, in theory, decrease the lop-sidedness of most of our beloved "dump trades." If teams can't acquire $5 farm players in trades, they'll be more likely to get equal current value in trades, or maybe even less likely to jump off the bridge at the slightest hint of trouble.
   
• It would save time before the draft in researching minor league players, many of whom will never see the a major league roster.
   
• We would reduce the reserve portion of the draft to 5 rounds, eliminating about 15-30 minutes of generally uninteresting draft time.  (Leaving more time to eat and laugh at the mess we've made of our team!)
   
• It would make the weekly FAAB drafts much more interesting if, throughout the season, we were able to bid on these hot young players as they trickle into the major leagues.
   
• By bidding on the top young prospects as they make their major league debuts, their salaries would better reflect market price, rather than the unrealistic $5 price tag they all have.
   
• These more realistic market-price salaries would lead to quicker turnover of players as well; it's easy to keep guys at $5, even if they're not panning out. It would be a harder decision if they were priced at $15 or $18; any really big names, guys who would go for $30 or $35, would be thrown back the next year.

Cons...

• It limits the trades that teams can make if they are not good enough to compete.
   
• Instead of dumping A-ball players, it's possible that teams might instead dump for whatever slop they can get instead.
   
• It eliminates a part of the league that a number of people enjoy.

An alternative to the above was proposed.  Instead of eliminating the farm systems all together, we could simply eliminate the trading of any player that starts the regular season as a rookie player.  That would allow teams who enjoy building a farm system to continue to do so, but would, at the same time eliminate the lop-sidedness of most of our league's dump trades.

This rule would be grandfathered, of course, so that any existing rookies would be unaffected, and still could be traded just like any other player.

Please rank the choices from 1 to 3, with #1 being the choice you like best, and #3 being the choice you like the least...

 6 -  No, I don't like this idea.  Keep the farm system.
    3 -  That's a cool idea, let's eliminate the drafting of minor leaguers completely.
    3 -  I like the alternative idea to KEEP the farm system, but eliminate the trading of minor leaguers during the regular season.

As noted above, if this rule is adopted, we would draft just 5 players on reserve on draft day.  Should the 17 man reserve roster be reduced in size, since there should be less players to put on your reserve roster?

    5 - No, keep the maximum reserve roster size at 17.
    0 - Reduce it to 16.
    1 - Reduce it to 15.
    0 - Reduce it to 14.
    4 - Reduce it to 13.
    1 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"What took so long to get around to this question? I'll be several guys passed out from brain-lock before getting this far." -- Chicken

[For the record, here's how I concluded this rule didn't pass.  We had SIX "Keep Farm" votes and THREE "Kill Farm" votes.  Of the three who voted for the "alternate" idea, at least one of them chose "Keep farm" as his second choice, so that's at least SEVEN "Keep Farm" votes.  For the record, I'm really surprised there were only THREE votes for the Alternate idea.  I really thought the alternate provided the best of both worlds.  It allowed the rookie dicks to continue to scout minor leagues year round, and it would eliminate a lot of the silly A-ball All-Star for A-Rod dump trades that are rampant in this league.  Oh, well. - Chris Mal]

It was suggested that the league treasurer get some sort of fee for performing his duties of collecting the money at the beginning of the year, keeping the money through the season and then writing checks and mailing them out to the winners at the end of the year.  Scott has been doing it for free for a number of years.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BE TREASURER?  If you'd like to be Treasurer if the treasurer is going to get paid, please put that in the "Comments" box below.

 6 - Keeping the money and writing out 5 checks each year is something we should ask to be done by a volunteer.
    3 - Good idea, the treasurer should get $25.
    0 - Good idea, the treasurer should get $50.
    3 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
[For the record, it was my idea to give the treasurer money.  After all, it's not like dealing with it is NO hassle what-so-ever.  Oh, well, the majority rules.  Scott says he has no problem with continuing to do it for free, so that's the way it will stay. - Chris Mal]

"Chris, I like the treasurer job, paid or not.  It's great wondering from year to year if any checks will bounce!  I would suggest we add a place on the website where 'current addresses' are kept so as to avoid checks being sent to the family from hell and never getting forwarded to the rightful owner!" -- Scott Winterburn [If I'm not mistaken, the addresses ARE on the All-Star Stats site.  Unfortunately, I can't check right now because they have their site down for Winter upgrades and maintenance.  I know they are on there for ME to view because I always keep them up to date, so I would assume anyone else in the league can view them and not just the League Commissioner. - Chris Mal]

"I will be treasurer if no one else wants to." -- Pete DeCoursey

"I vote for Gallagher." -- Jon Perkins

"A mere $25 for this thankless task is an insult.  Raise it to $2,500." -- Chicken

"I would be happy to do this if Scott is tired of it." -- Mark Bennett