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

    0 - 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.

 3 - $200 limit
    1 - $300 limit
    7 - No limit

Comments regarding this question:
>> no comments <<

Someone suggested that if teams are within +/-5 points of each other that they should be able to continue trading with each other through the end of the year.  Theory being that no one would be dumping if they were that close in the standings, so why cut off all trading on 8/31.  (If this rule passes, the "asterisk" rules will continue to be in affect through the end of the year.)

 10 - No, leave it the way it is.  The trade deadline for +/-5 point trades should remain 8/31.
     1 - Good idea!  Extend the +/- 5 point rule through the end of the year.

Comments regarding this question:
"Oh, there is always someone willing to dump, even in September." -- Drew Gallagher who voted to leave the deadline at 8/31. [I totally agree.  This would be a bad idea in my opinion.  It would only be a matter of time before someone would do something stupid. -- YPCM]

Deja vu all over again...and again...and again...and 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.)

 9 - Leave it at two, that is as high as I can count.
    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 3 players.
    0 - 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.
    2 - Allow teams to call up as many players from reserve as they want in September.

Comments regarding this question:
"I always have a deep reserve roster!" -- Scott Winterburn who voted to called up as many players as you want

Presently the trading deadline is noon on August 1st.  Someone suggested that the deadline be moved to "noon on the first Thursday after the scheduled All-Star Game."

 9 - No, leave it at 8/01.
    2 - Sounds good to me.  Move it to "noon on the first Thursday after the All-Star Game."

Comments regarding this question:
"Free enterprise is what America is built upon, don't screw us loyal to the Stars and Stripes!" -- Scott Winterburn who voted to leave the deadline at August 1st.

"Would we then allow a period of restricted trading until August 1?" -- Drew Gallagher who voted to move the deadline to the Thursday after the All-Star Game.

You'll notice that you only have one selection.  This is because this has to happen to close a loop-hole.  Drew pointed out that teams that don't pay their entrance fee are not allowed to make transactions, but if a person gives a check from a bank account without sufficient funds, that team would be able to make moves throughout the year, only for us to find out at the end of the year that that team never really paid after all.  The easy solution is that all checks should be cashed immediately.

 11 - That's a good point!  I agree, all checks should be cashed right away!

Comments regarding this question:
"I think all teams should bring cash to the draft!  That way I can visit nudie bars on the way home!" -- Scott Winterburn

"Way to go Drewer!" -- Matt Dodge

Someone suggested that we have a rule that each Rotisserie team must have at least 1 player from every AL team.  I'm not sure how we'd police this, or what you'd have to do if you owned a player traded to another team, so for now you're voting solely on the general concept of this rule.  If it passes, we'll work out the details.

 10 - No, I don't like this idea.
     1 - OK, that's interesting, I vote to continue discussing this concept.

Comments regarding this question:
"Hey, how about we each have to own a Royals' pitcher?" -- Drew Gallagher

"Perhaps the stat service could track this like positional eligibility.  If your one Devil Ray or Royal was traded or released, that (un)lucky owner would have to FAAB a player from that team at the next FAAB deadline, or have some default rules in place for the commish to select a player from the free agent pool to fill that slot." -- Matt Dodge

"I don't even like that for the All-Star game." -- Scott Metcalfe

This suggestion is to use a message area to let owners publicly post their offers against an announcement to dump certain player(s). While the details of the accepted deal could be hammered out individually, this would make public the basics of the process, give fair warning/ involvement for those who may be interested, and perhaps eliminate the shroud of secrecy surrounding certain dump trades.

Something similar but much more complicated was suggested a few years ago.  In this case, owners would simply post the players available to a message board - or we could use the Yahoo e-group - to alert the rest of the league that a player or players are available.  Before making a deal a team must use the message board or Yahoo e-group email to say "These players are available, make me an offer."  I would suggest that any deal must be at least 24 hours and no more than a week after the initial alert to the league.

Teams could work out their offer privately, or agree to post their offers in an attempt to get a better deal worked out.  The idea is generally to simply let everyone know when a team is dumping or willing to trade, and what players they would like to trade.

Simple as that.

    3 - No, keep it the way it is, I like giving my players away and not always getting the best offer available
 8 - Yes, this is a fine idea.  Let's do it.
 
Comments regarding this question:
"Don't we essentially publish via group email?  Half the people in the league don't look at All-Star Stats.  Do we really think they are going to go to another site or another posting?" -- Drew Gallagher

"Couldn't this already be done on the league message board?" -- Scott Metcalfe

"I like the 24 hours notice; not so sure about no more than a week.  Once a guy has been posted as available, why wouldn't he remain available?  Otherwise we are all going to be getting the same email notifying us that the same players are available every week." -- Mark Bennett [Because if there wasn't a expiration date, you could just post the day after the draft that all of your players are available, and never have to post again the rest of the season, thereby circumventing the spirit of this idea -- YPCM.]

Presently whatever you bid on a player is his salary.  For example, if you bid $2, that is the players salary going forward.

The suggestion is to separate that association, and give players a fixed salary regardless of what you bid on a player. For example, whether you bid $2 or $99, the player would have the same salary - say, $25 or $50 or whatever. This would ensure that players obtained via FAAB would not be keepers, which would put more players back in the draft and put more emphasis on drafting rookies on draft day.

 9 - No, keep it the way it is:  What you bid is the player's salary
    2 - That's a cool idea, let's do it.

If the above rule 8a passes, what should be the salary of players obtained via FAAB?

    5 - $25
    5 - $50
    1 - $99

Comments regarding this question:
"This would prevent me from FAAB'ing 9 middle relievers at $1 for next year's pitching keepers!" -- Matt Dodge

"Not that it happens that often, but the way it is today a bad team could still get a player to keep for next year." -- Scott Metcalfe, who voted to keep it the way it is.

[Hey, Matt Dodge, this was your idea but you voted against it.  Did you change your mind? -- YPCM]

For example, instead of Matt Dodge being guaranteed Joey Gathright next year (and another year) at $5, he would become available on draft day to all. When his name comes up in the draft, and the auction completed for him at, say, $15, Matt would have the opportunity to exercise one of my limited number "topper rights" and pull him back onto my roster. Salary could be defined as previous salary + 5, or midway between past year and auction (rounded up to whole dollar). This eliminates most true keepers (other than the minor leaguers), gets more players into the draft, but still gives you something to trade for during the season. The undervalued players are still useful for topper rights.

 10 - No thanks, I like having keepers just the way they are
     1 - Interesting idea, let's try it

If rule 9a passes, what should be the salary of a player reclaimed via "topper rights"?

    9 - His previous year's salary + $5
    2 - The midpoint of his previous salary and his auction price (rounded up to the nearest dollar)

If rule 9a passes, how many "topper rights" should a team have?

    5 - 5
    0 - 7
    0 - 10
    0 - 12
    5 - 13
    1 - 15

Comments regarding this question:
"How long would this make our draft????" -- Drew Gallagher

"I hate all these NL trade rumors about Joe Gathright!" -- Matt Dodge

This suggestion is to utilize a salary cap rather than worrying about trading asterisks.  The cap would be set at $325, which is a common cap for a $260 roster, that all trades (and daily rosters!) have to fit within.

(That $325 would be solely for your active roster, of course, and would cause an adjustment in how you'd have to think about FAAB bidding because a $99 bid on a single player would make it very difficult to fit that player on your active roster without going over the cap.)

 8 - No, I don't like this idea.  Keep the present trade restrictions (asterisk rules, etc.)
    3 - Yes, I like this idea, get rid of all other trade restrictions and add a "salary cap" of $325.

Only if 10a passes, you could also set a floor ($200) that a team�s salary could not go below to try to keep owners engaged throughout the season.

    7 - No, I don't like this idea.  If we add the salary cap, do not add a salary floor.
    4 - Yes, I like this idea, having a salary floor of $200 will keep owners engaged throughout the season even if they are out of the running

Comments regarding this question:
"What would be the penalty for falling through the floor?" -- Matt Dodge [If it happened on draft day, I doubt Scott Metcalfe's mom would invite us back again. -- YPCM]

It has been suggested (particularly in stable, long running leagues where most of the owners have been participating together for some time), that those leagues don�t really need dump trade restrictions, because if the owners see ridiculously one sided trading or evidence of collusion, they will just throw the offending owners out.

The suggestion is to get rid of all trade restrictions.

 10 - No, I don't like this idea.  A league without trade rules is asking for trouble.
     1 - Yes, I like this idea, let trading free of any restrictions.

Comments regarding this question:
"Have you met some of the owners in our league?" -- Drew Gallagher, who voted to keep trade rules

"I like less trade restrictions, but I have been known to make some really stupid trades.  (Without trade restrictions) would I have been thrown out of the league yet? ... Would a league vote on a trade that could be 1-sided work?" -- Scott Metcalfe

[Matt, this was another one that you came up with but voted against.  Do you just like to come up with ideas? -- YPCM]