RedHopeful wrote:Chiming in late, but I like the idea of an IR spot(s). If we were to do this, should we reduce the size of the bench on our active rosters? Either way, Jimmy or I will set up a vote in the near future.
I'd be open to reducing the bench with the addition of IR spots, but think that it's something to think about more because the two aren't exactly interchangeable. It's my understanding that the larger bench was to help alleviate the problems with having keeper-quality players that weren't immediately valuable. However, people may want to stash players who have potential but are still learning the game, and those players would not be eligible for IR spots.
geodbear wrote:First, all the best to you Phil in law school.
Second, I think the IR should be structured so it would primarily be for players out for a long period of time. The icon is probably a good indicator but I've noticed that it isn't always accurate, but probably the best option for determining eligibility. In leagues I've been with IR, we've had a 3 or 5 consecutive games missed rule for eligibility. I would like to see something like that here. From experience, the main problems I've seen with IR is putting a player on IR before they were eligible, not picking up the player once the player is healthy, and mistakenly picking up a player on IR. These problems were mostly in large, deep leagues so I don't see a problem here but thought I'd mention it. Definitely should have a running list of IR players either here or on the Yahoo league page or both. Also, in leagues with IR, we've had a rule that if an IR player is no longer injured and remains on IR, the commissioner locks the manager from making any further roster moves until the player is picked up (done by the commissioner). Also to keep in mind, do IR add/drops count as part of our weekly add/drop limits?
Agree that it should be designed to help with players who are out for significant periods of time more than those who are missing a few games here and there.
I'm not sure if the 3 or 5 consecutive missed games rule is in reference to the number of games they're expected to miss or to the amount of games they have to miss before becoming eligible. If the former, there's a risk in that we'd have to rely on speculation and uncertainty with regards to whose speculation we would be relying on. If the latter, I'd be more inclined to make it 3 consecutive missed games max since it might be too restrictive and limit the usefulness of IR spots too much if we go any higher.
We can put in penalties for dropping a player before he becomes eligible. Maybe something like having to immediately drop the player they picked up (and having the commish reduce the waiver period) and having your roster locked for 14 days. If the player picked up was off of waivers, the offending person would not get their waiver priority restored.
With regards to picking up a player off the IR when they get healthy, I think that should be sufficiently dealth with by having the player become available for anyone to pick up after a number of days. I like the idea of locking the owner from any moves until they pick up the player coming off of IR, but don't know how that works logistically (wouldn't a lock prevent them from picking up the IR player?). As an alternative, we could force the owner to drop any players they add during the time they're supposed to be picking their IR player back up (a retroactive version of the lock) and put in a 14-day lock on them as well.
The same drop player, shorten waiver period, and 14-day lock can apply to people who pick up another person's IR player as well.
I see no reason to not have putting players on IR and removing them count against the add/drop limit. It's still a transaction and one more reason for people to be careful with their moves.