The present entrance fee is $220. $40 of that goes 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
    5- I=m a loser and it=s juuuuuust right at $220
    0- Raise it to $225
    0- Raise it to $250
    0- Raise it to $275
    2- Raise it to $300
    1- 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.

 2 - $220 limit
    1 - $225 limit
    1 - $300 limit
    1 - $1,000,000,000 limit
    4 - No limit

Comments regarding this question:
"Chris needs a raise at work, not at the ESL!" -- Drew Gallagher

When we drafted 17 players in the reserve roster, the salaries of players in Rounds 3 through 17 went from $15, down through $1, which each round going down by $1.

Then we reduced the reserve draft to just TEN rounds and made every player either $5 if he was a rookie, or $10 for all other players (and rookies on major league rosters.)

Last year we changed it to a 10 round graduated system that looks like this...
    Round 1 - $10 or $5 if player is a rookie in the minors
    Round 2 - $10 or $5 if player is a rookie in the minors
    Round 3 - $10
    Round 4 - $9
    Round 5 - $8
    Round 6 - $6
    Round 7 - $5
    Round 8 - $3
    Round 9 - $2
    Round 10 - $1

The problem with that is that the total salaries of the players on the reserve roster were significantly LESS than what they were under either past system.

I suggest we change it to this...
    Round 1 - $10 or $5 if player is a rookie in the minors
    Round 2 - $10 or $5 if player is a rookie in the minors
    Round 3 - $15
    Round 4 - $12
    Round 5 - $10
    Round 6 - $7
    Round 7 - $5
    Round 8 - $4
    Round 9 - $2
    Round 10 - $1

    6- Keep it the way it is: $10, $9, $8, $6, $5, $3, $2, $1
    2- Change it to this: $15, $12, $10, $7, $5, $4, $2, $1
    1- I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"I understand your point but I like the way we can get some bargains in the reserve draft, especially since we have inflation in the regular draft.  Although, this might cause some more inflation since it could give teams more keepers.  So I guess, my reason makes no sense." -- Jamie Schlesinger. [Exactly.  The point is that the lower salaries are going to create even more keepers from year to year, particularly with minor leaguers who may not see the draft until they have been kept for 3 or 4 years first.  There's not necessarily anything wrong with that.  It's just a matter of preference. -- YPCM]

"Actually, I would be in favor of $10/$5 [for the first two rounds] and then $10 for all subsequent rounds but that does not appear to be an option." -- Drew Gallagher [Oops, I forgot to read your mind before I typed the survey. -- YPCM]

    6- No, leave it the way it is.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    3- Yes, get rid of the period where any player traded goes to the last year of his contract, and use the "asterisk" rules all year.
    0- I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"Based on question four I guess I do not want to answer this question with I don't care. but I really do not care as either way I will do my best to trade within the rules." -- Jamie Schlesinger

One owner opposes the fact that we consider a majority vote to be "a majority of vote among those who voted one way or another."  This person feels that a "majority vote" should be seven or more votes, period.  That is, right now if 3 people vote yes, 2 vote no and 7 abstain, the YES vote passes.

The theory behind the present system is that a majority of issues are not "life-critical."  If, say, six people want to change a rule, and the other six owners really don't care, why should the rule not change?

The suggestion is that we eliminate the "I don't care" option and make people chose one side or another.

Obviously if we change this it will be effective after the results of this survey are tallied.

    3- Leave it the way it is.  I like having the option to "abstain."
    5- Get rid of the "I don't care" option.
    1- It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"I don't care." -- Jamie Schlesinger [You'd still be able to trade them.  As always you'd only be able to trade TWO of them.  The idea would be to eliminate even more dump trades. -- YPCM]

"That's my favorite answer." -- Scott Metcalfe [who voted to keep the "I don't care" option.]

"If Bush has to be president then we have to make a decision.  He can't stand flip floppers and I just want to belly up to his Republican bar and give away all of my personal freedoms as quickly as possible." -- Drew Gallagher

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.

    6- 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:
"With inflation we have several $30+ players so why get rid of even more players to trade." -- Jamie Schlesinger

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.

    6- No, I don't like this idea
    3- Yes, that sounds like a great idea
    0- I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
>>none<<

Under the present rules, the "Asterisk Rule" do not apply during +/-5 point rule period.  The theory was that if teams are within 5 points of each other, they are either both out of the money or both in contention in which case, why would one of them dump?  As we learned in the other league in 2004, that wasn't the case.  It was suggested that to eliminate the possibility of that happening in the ESL the "Asterisk Rule" should apply during the "+/- 5 point rule."

    4- No, leave it the way it is: No "asterisk rules" during the "+/- 5 point rule" period.
    5- Good idea, teams within +/- 5 points making trades must adhere to the "asterisk rules."
     0- I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"Unfortunately Drago has ruined it for the rest of us.  Penis." -- Drew Gallagher