ETERNAL SQUABBLERS LEAGUE
2002 WINTER SURVEY RESULTS

1. ENTRANCE FEE
2. ELIMINATE IN-SEASON TRADING?
3. ANTI-DUMPING: ANOTHER GOOD IDEA?
4. NUMBER OF ACTIVE PLAYERS
5. NUMBER OF KEEPERS
6. NUMBER OF RESERVE PLAYERS DRAFTED

For the last four 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, I�d like it lowered to $175
 6 - 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
    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
    0 - $225 limit
    1 - $250 limit
    0 - $300 limit
    6 - No limit

Comments regarding this question:
"I have a wife now and my money is no longer my own." -- Drew Gallagher

"I'd like to go on record that I don't think I am a loser, at least most of the time, but I do like the $200 entrance fee." -- Pete Gabrielli

"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.)

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 good 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.

 6 - 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:
>>none<<

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.")

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

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

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

Comments regarding this question:
"It could work, but it would need some tweaking and be better explained on draft day so everyone is clear on how it works." -- Drew Gallagher

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?

 5 - 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.
    0 - I'm undecided, kind of the same way I am about my sexuality.

Comments regarding this question:
"Reduce the number of active players to 24 or 25." -- Dale Scott

Someone suggested that we reduce the number of keepers from its present number of 16.  As noted in the previous Survey Question, 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?

 4 - Keep it the way it is, teams may keep between 0 and 16 players from year to year.
    1 - Reduce the maximum number of keepers to 15.
    3 - Reduce the maximum number of keepers to 14.
    0 - I abstain from this question, not unlike the way I abstain from sexual relations.

Comments regarding this question:
"Reduce the number of keepers to 12 or 13." -- Dale Scott

(Note from YPCM: Apparently at the 2001 draft we agreed that if we voted to reduce the number of keepers that it would be effective for 2002.  This, as a general rule, is a bad practice for this sort of rule change, and is why I always have made a point of delaying the effective date of such rule changes.  Why?  Consider if you are team that feels you have 16 or 17 keepers.  Even if you think the number of keepers should be reduced, you would tend to vote to keep 16 players.  Suppose you feel you have only a handful of keepers, you would tend to vote that the number of keepers should be reduced.  To keep voting honest, the results of this vote should not have been effective until 2003 just because none of us really knows how many keepers we will have for 2003.  We voted not to change the number of keepers, so this point is moot, but in the future, we will do what we've always done, and delay the effective date of any rule changes where the voting would be affected by a team's present status.)

It has been suggested for some time that we reduce our tedious reserve draft format.  No one has really suggested exactly what a new reduced version of the reserve draft should look like.  My suggestion is that we allow teams to have the same SIZE reserve roster as we do today, but that teams simply start out by drafting only 10 reserve players instead of 19.

This is similar to how the reserve draft is in the A.L. league that Drew, Perk, Scott, Gerry, Dale and I are in and it is a hell of a lot less painful than our NL reserve drafts have been.  In our AL league, 12 teams draft 8 reserve players or 96 players. This would be 10 teams drafting 10 reserve players, or 100 players total.

To further clean up the complexity of our ESL reserve draft, I suggest non-rookies simply have a salary of $10, and players with rookie eligibility simply have a salary of $5 when drafted on reserve.  This is also how it is in our A.L. league.

    1 - Keep it the reserve draft the way it is: 19 rounds of selections.
 6 - Yeah, what you said: Only 10 players will be drafted on reserve instead of 19.
    1 - My brain is starting to hurt.

Comments regarding this question:
"My brain is starting to hurt by the way....Merry Christmas - Chris, Bev, Spot, and 'soon-to-be 'lil pal'." -- Pete Gabrielli

(Note from YPCM - I was NOT the person who voted to keep the reserve draft the way it is, by the way.)

Number of visitors to this page: