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
 7 - It=s juuuuuust right at $220
    0 - Raise it to $225
    0 - Raise it to $250
    0 - Raise it to $275
    1 - 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.

 0 - $220 limit
    1 - $225 limit
    2 - $250 limit
    1 - $300 limit
    1 - $1,000,000,000.00 limit
    3 - No limit

Comments regarding this question:
"That extra $25.00 could be the difference between a state school and a private college for the heir to my empire." -- Drew Gallagher

"One of the drivers for the entry fee is the cost of the stats service. I believe that there are other stats services out there (most notably, TQStats) that provide everything we are using on allstarstats. I like allstarstats a lot, but for what we pay (12 x $44 = $528), we could get same from TQStats for less than $200, which would put more into the prize pool. (In fact, I believe returning leagues are $99 at TQS if you re-up by January.)" -- Matt Dodge

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."
 4 - Get rid of the "I don't care" option.
    1 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"Bush says we have to have opinions now so I do care.  The president told me to. He also thought trading Sammy Sosa was a good idea.  Eejit." -- Drew Gallagher

"I predict the 'I don't care' option wins the 'I don't care' question... Not that you want other choices, but perhaps there needs to be a minimum quorum on voters on an individual question - maybe there should be a minimum of 6 that care... NAH!!!" -- Matt Dodge

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.)

 4 - 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.
    1 - 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.
    0 - It makes no difference to me.

Comments regarding this question:
"Someone needs to check those original Ultra rules.  I can't because my work computer finds that web site equal to porn and a big no-no." -- Drew Gallagher

"Anything 4 or less is OK with me. By the way - take a look at the year end rosters, and see how many were actually worth rostering as September additions. With daily transactions, this is almost a moot point." -- Matt Dodge

There seems to have been a rash of people not responding to emails this year.  I'm not sure what that's about.  If you aren't interested in trade offers, just respond "not interested."  It takes 2 seconds.  It's a little frustrating when you are waiting on an answer that never comes.

My suggestion is that teams have a maximum of one week to acknowledge and respond to all emails.  The second offense results in a loss of $10 FAAB, third offense is $20 more FAAB, 4th offense is $30 more FAAB, etc.  Once a team is out of FAAB $$$, the remainder will be taken from a team's draft budget the following season.  I don't think it will ever come to any penalties because this should be enough to get everyone to start being a courteous about responses.

 5 - No, keep it the way it is.  If a team wants to ignore someone, that's there prerogative.
    3 - Good idea, the threat of a penalty should be enough to give the lame people incentive to respond to trade offers.
    0 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"Would the person that wants to slap pee-pees for not responding to e-mails also like us to send our vacation schedules for the year prior to draft day?" -- Drew Gallagher

"Big Commissioner Headache! How will you know that they are truly ignoring? maybe their mail server is down or their computer crashes, or they are on extended vacation, or as has been reported before, the "e-mail owners" function at allstarstats DOES NOT WORK. Also worried that devious owners could create ways to penalize owners with bogus e-mail messages. Unless you are willing to remake the league, with 12 owners that want to trade, leave this alone. Penalizing the non-trading owners will chase all of them and their buddies out of the league.  Actually, the lack of a winter meeting (real or real-time virtual) is really hurting us here. There are many adjustments that could be made relative to trading, that we could discuss & debate in an open forum. Without that forum, we have to consider each rule change incrementally, and we miss out on the discussion & the combination possibilities. Is it possible to get us all together in the off-season? Probably not, but for those who wish for a true change in trading popularity, we may not get any significant changes until that forum can be convened...." -- Matt Dodge

"Some offers do not deserve a response." -- Jon Perkins

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, anyone who has to get to sleep before midnight doesn't need to worry about a player becoming available between the time they go to bed and midnight.

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

Comments regarding this question:
"Tell them to move to the West Coast so it will be 9 p.m. where they are." -- Drew Gallagher

"I'd like to see how many AL transactions involving players worth FABing occurred between the hours of 9 pm & midnight on Sunday night. Besides - July 31, 2005 is a sunday. Do we really want to push any of those last-minute waiver-deadline player eligibles to the next week by cutting the deadline at 9pm? Not me!" -- Matt Dodge

Two years ago you could, in theory, drop a player who had been traded to the NL at 11:59PM, and receive FAAB money for him.  Last year we changed the rule so that all FAAB drops for an increase in FAAB $$$ had to be submitted at least a week in advance.  All FAAB adjustments were always made on a MONDAY, so if you dropped a player on Tuesday, you'd have to wait until the next Monday for it to be added to your FAAB total.

It was suggested that we make the deadline for dropping players each week to be Thursday night at midnight (3 days in advance.)

In the ESL, the rule is the FAAB drops must be made 48 hours in advance, in case anyone wants the two leagues to be consistent.

    2 - No, keep it the way it is, FAAB adjustments should be made every Monday.
 2 - FAAB drops must be made 3 days in advance.
    4 - FAAB drops must be made 2 days in advance.
    0 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"2 or 3 are fine by me!" -- Matt Dodge

7. 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.

 6 - Keep it the way it is, an "asterisk" player is any player $25 or over.
    2 - Good idea, an "asterisk" player should be any player $20 or over.
    0 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
>> no comments <<

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.

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

Comments regarding this question:
"Reduces overall keepers, more talent in the draft, less inflation, I love it!" -- Matt Dodge

Under the present rules, the "Asterisk Rule" ends when the +/-5 point rule begins.  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 2004, that wasn't the case.  It was suggested that to eliminate the possibility of that happening again we simply overlap the "Asterisk Rule" and the "+/- 5 point rule."

    3 - No, leave it the way it is: When the "asterisk rule" ends, the "+/- 5 point rule" begins.
 5 - Good idea, teams within +/- 5 points making trades must adhere to the "asterisk rules" already in effect from the start of the season.
    0 - I don't care.


Comments regarding this question:
"One person ruined it for everyone.  Now the whole class has to stay inside for recess." -- Drew Gallagher

"I would rather change the dates - asterisk rule thru 8/31, +/-5 points for September" -- Matt Dodge
[I'll add this to the docket for next year -- The Commish.]

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.

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.

 6 - No, I don't like this idea.  Keep the farm system.
    2 - Yes, I like this idea, eliminate the farm system (all existing rookies would be grandfathered.)
    0 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"I think by limiting the farm system to five players in the offseason we have begun to police the preponderence of rookies." -- Drew Gallagher

"Used up all my comments on the other questions." -- Matt Dodge

"Eliminating farm systems will not stop bad dump trades. They will just be made for guys like Craig Monroe and Jeff DaVannon instead. Drafting minor leaguers is interesting, if people really feel like the trading of minor leaguers is a huge problem, then it would be easier to just say that no player can be traded during the season unless they are on an active Major League Roster." -- Mark Bennett