2001 ESL Survey

Home Links Market Place MPHS Class of 86 Movie Reviews Music Neurotic Pictures Quotes Rotisserie Softball Sudden Death Comments

Home
ESL
ASL

2007 ESL Survey
ESL Best/Worst
ESL Constitution
ESL Pics
ESL Standings
ESL Trades
2005 ESL FAAB$
2006 ESL Survey
2005 ESL Survey
2004 ESL Survey
2003 ESL Survey
2002 ESL Survey
2001 ESL Survey
2000 ESL Survey
2000 Winter Waivers
Bennett Info
Capilo Info
Capilo Trades
DeCoursey Info
DeCoursey Trades
DeWalt Info
Franz Info
Gabrielli Info
Gabrielli Trades
C.Gallagher Info
D.Gallagher Info
D.Gallagher Trades
Hannon Info
Julian Info
Maher Info
Malinowski Info
Malinowski Trades
Metcalfe Info
Metcalfe Trades
B.Miller Info
B.Miller Trades
R.Miller Info
Moyer/Keller Info
Orlando Info
Orlando Trades
L.Paul Info
Perkins Info
Perkins Trades
Rosa Info
Rosa Trades
Schlesinger Info
Schlesinger Trades
D.Scott Info
D.Scott Trades
Slickers Info
Winterburn Info
Winterburn Trades
Zalegowski Info
Zalegowski Trades
Zenyuch Info/Leaders

ETERNAL SQUABBLERS LEAGUE
2001 WINTER SURVEY RESULTS

1. ENTRANCE FEE
2. PLAYERS SENT DOWN BETWEEN FREEZE DATE & DRAFT DAY
3A. SHOULD PLAYERS ON D.L. COUNT AS "ASTERISK" PLAYERS?
3B. TRADING DEAD-LINE
3C. ELIMINATE IN-SEASON TRADING?
3D. PLAYERS TRADED TO THE AL - SHOULD THEY BE "ASTERISK" PLAYERS?
3E. CAN'T TRADE PLAYERS TRADED TO THE AL?
3F. CAN TRADE ONLY ONE "ASTERISK" PLAYER?
3G. ANTI-DUMPING, ANOTHER GOOD IDEA
4. NO MORE "FROZEN" TEAMS
5. NO MORE J.D.DREW
6. NUMBER OF ACTIVE PLAYERS
7. NUMBER OF KEEPERS
8. NUMBER OF SEPTEMBER CALL-UPS

1. ENTRANCE FEE

For the last three years the entrance fee was $200. $40 of that went to All-Star Stats and $15 of it goes to me because I need the money for my coke habit. Is there any desire to raise that fee?

    1 - No, actually, Id like it lowered to $175
 7 - I=m a loser and it=s juuuuuust right at $200
    0 - Raise it to $225
    0 - 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.

 2 - $200 limit
    2 - $250 limit
    6 - No limit

Comments regarding this question:
"Sorry to be a dick, but I'm saving for my college education."
-- Mike Capilo, who voted to reduce the entrance fee to $175.

"I love Hooters, so I need the extra money!!!!" -- Mike Zalegowski


2. PLAYERS SENT DOWN OR RELEASED
    BETWEEN FREEZE DATE AND DRAFT

The rule in the ESL has been that keepers who are placed on the D.L. between the time rosters are "frozen" and may be dropped back into the pool of players to be drafted at no cost to the team that had kept that player.

What about players who are sent down to the minors or released?  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
 7 - If a frozen player is released on sent down before the draft, you can drop him before drafting
    2 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"No, I don't just love Hooters, I really love Hooters!!!!!!" -- Mike Zalegowski


3. 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.


3a. ANTI-DUMPING:
    SHOULD PLAYERS ON D.L. COUNT
    AS "ASTERISK" PLAYERS?

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" players are supposed to be the top notch players in the league.  Clearly 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.

 5 - 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"
    2 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"I wish I were at Hooters right now!!! This survey makes no sense to me and I still finished ahead of 5 teams!!!!!"
-- Mike Zalegowski (who abstained on nearly every question)


3b. ANTI-DUMPING:
    TRADING DEAD-LINE

One other method of combating "mid-season" dumping would be move the trading dead-line up.  (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.  June would be 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 trades to that point are trades to help both teams and NOT dump trades.)

 7 - Keep it the way it is, teams should be able to trade thru 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
    1 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Man, I could really use a beer right now!!!!!" -- Mike Zalegowski


3c. ANTI-DUMPING:
    ELIMINATE IN-SEASON TRADING?

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.

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

Comments regarding this question:
"Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Hooters, wings and beer, maybe I'll give My Pal Chris Mal a call." -- Mike Zalegowski


3d. ANTI-DUMPING:
    PLAYERS TRADED TO AL

One of the largest loop-holes in the "Anti-dumping" rules of 2000 was the fact that we allowed players traded to the AL 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 AL, that making ridiculous ESL dump trades no problem at all.  One suggestion was to say that any player traded to the AL could NOT be considered an "asterisk" player no matter what.

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

Comments regarding this question:
"Uhhhhhhh, what the hell is this thingy all about anyway?????." -- Mike Zalegowski


3e. ANTI-DUMPING:
    PLAYERS TRADED TO AL, Part 2

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

 5 - Keep it the way it is, players traded to the AL, or from the NL to the AL can be traded.
    2 - Any player involved in a major league inter-league trade cannot be traded in the ESL.
    3 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Wouldn't it make sense to determine if we should end in-season trading first, then discuss these issues?  I'm so bent on ending in-season trading that my mind isn't processing your questions properly."  -- Mike Capilo  (Note from YPCM: Yes, it would have made sense but I couldn't think of a good way to do that without having two surveys, and I didn't feel like doing that, so I just say 'fuck it' and threw everything together.  I kind of knew eliminating in-season trading wasn't going to happen anyway so it didn't really matter.)

"I still love Hooters!!!!!!" -- Mike Zalegowski


3f. ANTI-DUMPING:
    TRADE ONLY ONE "ASTERISK" PLAYER

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.

 6 - Keep it the way it is: As long as the net result is that a team only gains one "asterisk" player, it's OK
    0 - Teams may only receive ONE "asterisk" player from each team throughout the year.
    2 - Teams may only receive TWO "asterisk" players TOTAL per year and must be from different teams.
    2 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"I wonder what Steve Julian is doing right now." -- Mike Zalegowski


3g. ANTI-DUMPING:
    ANOTHER GOOD IDEA

One idea that someone suggested that I have heard another leagues of gone to in an effort to combat mid-season dumping is to set a deadline:  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 that date automatically have their contracts expire at the end of the year.  (This would, by the way, eliminate all the crap about "asterisk" players and the "Drew Rule.")

 5 - No, I don't like this idea.
    3 - I like this idea.
    2 - I don't care.

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

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

Comments regarding this question:
"Geez, I really could use a beer!!!!!" -- Mike Zalegowski


4. NO MORE FROZEN TEAMS?

This past year we did not enforce the "Frozen" teams rule which says that any team that owes $10 or more must reduce their debt to zero within one week or will not be allowed to making any transactions.  The league did not fall apart.  I suggest we eliminate the $10 "frozen" team rule, however, I don't think it was a very smart precedent to allow teams to pay their entrance fee whenever they want.  As it should be, all teams should be paying their entrance fee on draft day, and those that don't will not be permitted to make transactions until they do.

    2 - Leave it the way it is, if a team owes more than $10, they must reduce their debt to zero.
    0 - Change it to $20 - if a team owes more than $20, they are "frozen" and must reduce their debt to zero.
 6 - Get rid of the "frozen" concept - teams may pay their transaction debt at the end of the season.
    2 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Dude, if I go for my master's degree, I may not be able to pay a lump sum. I'd like to be able to pay in small increments.  Plus, I paid by check last year and Scott didn't cash it until the end of the year.  I think he should cash it immediately so that my bank statements can be balanced.  At times I was excited because I thoguht I had $200 when in fact I didn't." -- Mike Capilo.

"Hooters, Hooters, Hooters!!!!!" -- Mike Zalegowski

"(Get rid of the Frozen concept) as long as the deadbeats pay by November 1st!" -- Drew Gallagher


5. NO MORE J.D.DREW

Because J.D.Drew is an idiot and I don't think any of us actually enjoy even hearing his stupid stupid stupid name, it was suggested that after his contract runs out, that he be banished from ever being drafted again in the ESL.  Additionally, anyone who so much as speaks his name will be hit with a Cone Tariff of 25 cents per name violation.

    3 - No, I'm a pansy-ass just like J.D.Drew and I look forward to having him on my team.
 4 - That's a great idea!  J.D.Drew sucks big hairy donkey wee. Once his contract expires, good bye J.D.Drew!
    3 - I on the fence with this one (and boy does that fence post feel good up my butt.)

Comments regarding this question:
"I believe that Cone Tariffs should be handed out without prejudice. Therefore, I believe you should end the per-homer fine of his owner and allow the offending player to remain in the league.   As such, I appeal to your sense of decency to end this charade.  Les the ass stew in his swill, but don't kill the owner, so to speak.  But, I must admit my butt did feel fine for a few minutes before the decision was made." -- Mike Capilo.  (Not from YPCM: Pansy-ass J.D.Drew loving homo!)

"Ahhh, a question I can actually answer!!!!" -- Mike Zalegowski

"I think I came up with this idea and it is pure genius. Plus it might get us into Baseball Weekly." -- Drew Gallagher


6. NUMBER OF ACTIVE PLAYERS

One person suggested that we reduce the number of active players from its present number of 27.  I should remind everyone that the number of keepers was once 23, but that was prior to the expansion of the NL by adding the Arizona Diamondbacks and Milwaukee Brewers.  That means that the NL had expanded by 14% (16 teams / 14 teams = 114%).  It stood to reason that to keep our "mental values" of players in the NL the same as they had always been, that the number of active players would also increase by 14%, so we went from 23 active players to 27.  There are now 50 more players to draft, so it makes sense that we would add 40 more active players, does it not?

 6 - Keep it the way it is, there should be 27 active players for $290.
    3 - Reduce the number of active players to 26, and the amount of draft money to $280.
    1 - I'm undecided, kind of the same way I am about my sexuality.

Comments regarding this question:
"I've finally decided on my sexuality...so I can finally answer this question.  Oh happy day." -- Mike Capilo.

"I really think I need a beer after filling out this survey!!!!" -- Mike Zalegowski

"It should be even lower." -- Jon Perkins


7. NUMBER OF KEEPERS

One person suggested that we reduce the number of keepers from its present number of 16.  As noted in Survey Question #6, the NL expanded by 14% a few years ago.  At that time we kept the number of keepers at 16, since we had gone from 15 to 16 a few years prior to that.  In reality, we should have expanded the number of keepers by 14%, but we left it at 16, so I see no reason to go the opposite direction, do you?  (If this is changed, it would be effective for the 2002 season.)

 5 - Keep it the way it is, teams may keep between 0 and 16 players from year to year.
    3 - Reduce the maximum number of keepers to 15.
    2 - I abstain from this question, not unlike the way I abstain from sexual relations.

Comments regarding this question:
"You sir are a salesman. I'd like to suggest in the future making these questions more cut and dry.  I feel as if I'm offending you by voting opposite of your opinion.  You should seriously consider sales if you ever lose your job.  Well done!!!!!" -- Mike Capilo.  (Comments from YPCM: Although I agree with your assessment, I don't think it applies to this question. Here I was merely stating the facts as they are.  I don't think it would be prudent to suggest a change without providing the truth of the matter, particularly in this case when the facts aren't necessary apparent.  By the way, I am offended when you disagree with me. Just kidding. :-)

"Beer and Hooters, that's all I need in life!!!!!!!!!" -- Mike Zalegowski

"Um, why don't we have a reduce it even further option?" -- Drew Gallagher

"Lower..." -- Jon Perkins


8. NUMBER OF SEPTEMBER CALL-UPS

One person suggested that we reduce the number of September call-ups to "a couple."  Presently you are allowed to activate as many players as you want off of your reserve roster (as long as they are not on the D.L. or in the minors.)  This is the same as in the major leagues where they can activate as many players as they want from their 40-man roster, and identical to the way the Official Rotisserie Baseball book wrote the rules.  Personally, I think it rewards those teams that have built a strong group of reserves.  Plus, I think the more players you have to follow for that month, the more fun it becomes, but that is clearly a matter of opinion.

 5 - Keep it the way it is, teams may activate as many players as they want from their reserve roster.
    2 - Reduce the maximum number of September Call-Ups to a maximum of two.
    3 - My brain is starting to hurt.

Comments regarding this question:
"I'd also like to buy one hundred widgets. Have them shipped to Paul Rosa @ Penske and have the bill sent to Pete Gabrielli.  Thank you." -- Mike Capilo.  (Comments from YPCM: You are funny.)

"Yeah, this f-in survey is finally over!!!!  HOOTERS here I come!!!!" -- Mike Zalegowski

"My brain really is starting to hurt!" -- Mike Zalegowski


Number of visitors to this page:
Hit Counter