1st Rule Discussion

[Battle-Tested 0]

Our current rule reads:

 

7. Injured reserve (IR):

 

a. Two (2) IR spots are allowed (meaning your roster size can be 22).

 

b. Players must be listed as officially "Out" or on the “PUP” to be placed on IR.

 

c. You "cannot" reactivate your IR players (meaning they are done for the year for your team).

 

d. You can cut them from your squad but they remain dead to you (meaning you can never pick them up again for that year). Other teams are allowed to pick up dropped IR players.

 

e. You cannot trade players while they are on IR.

 

 

The question that came up in the regular season this year was "what was considered out?". It is too gray of an area that we must amend because I believe IR "is" needed in a dynasty league. So, I propose we vote on the following options:

 

Option #1

 

No IR

 

 

Option #2

 

a. Two (2) IR spots are allowed (meaning your roster size can be 22).

 

b. Players must be listed as officially "On Injured Reserve” to be placed on IR.

 

c. You "cannot" reactivate your IR players (meaning they are done for the year).

 

d. You can trade and/or drop IR'd players.

 

e. Once traded and/or dropped, the new team owner of said player must decide whether or not to IR his new player.......it isn't automatic.

 

 

Option #3

 

The rule stays the same but everyone must realize it is only OUT or PUP......not deactivated, not suspended, and not anything else you can think of.

[Battle-Tested 0]

Official tally:

 

Option #1

JetDoc's Schmeg (only if we increase roster limit to 22)

Big Tuna

Hammerheads (only if we increase roster limit to 22)

 

 

Option #2

S&S Express

Serbian Assassin

No Talent Ass Clowns

Horsemen

Ugly Stick

Patriot Missilies

Wahoos

The Mighty Pryple X-Force

 

Option #3

[Battle-Tested 0]

As an owner, my vote is for:

 

Option #2

 

I like rules that are plain and simple. And with option #2, there is no gray area. You can only IR players that are IR'd by the NFL team which they are on.

[Dragan187 7]

Option #2 is the best to choose from.

 

However, I don't like the "you cannot trade an IR player" option. Any particular reason why? If I have an injury proned player a la Joey Galloway that is pissing me off anally or annually, and am willing to shop him for someone who is a fan and has his poster on their bedroom wall...why can't I trade him?

[Miller_Time_21 0]

Option #2 is the best to choose from.

 

However, I don't like the "you cannot trade an IR player" option. Any particular reason why? If I have an injury proned player a la Joey Galloway that is pissing me off anally or annually, and am willing to shop him for someone who is a fan and has his poster on their bedroom wall...why can't I trade him?

I agree, out of the options available, #2 is the best but I would like to get rid of the can't trade clause in the rule.

 

Another option I wouldn't mind dicussing is keep it the way it is, only change it to when a player is no longer listed as OUT, they must be removed from your IR and placed back on your active roster. For example, last year I place Tyler Jacobs on IR at the begining of the year b/c he was OUT for a few games and I knew I wouldn't need him that year. I think that is abusing the rules. When they are no longer injured they should be moved back to active or released. This would take more policing, but with this group, I believe we are all responsible enough to do this.

[Battle-Tested 0]

Option #2 is the best to choose from.

 

However, I don't like the "you cannot trade an IR player" option. Any particular reason why? If I have an injury proned player a la Joey Galloway that is pissing me off anally or annually, and am willing to shop him for someone who is a fan and has his poster on their bedroom wall...why can't I trade him? 

Those options I wrote can be tweaked. Like I stating in an early post.....I knew I would miss something .

 

If we go with Option #2....I see no reason why we can't trade IR'd players . Reason is because you cannot abuse the system for the player being traded is actually IR'd in reality.

 

Option #2 has been adjusted to add trading...........

[Battle-Tested 0]

Another option I wouldn't mind dicussing is keep it the way it is, only change it to when a player is no longer listed as OUT, they must be removed from your IR and placed back on your active roster.  For example, last year I place Tyler Jacobs on IR at the begining of the year b/c he was OUT for a few games and I knew I wouldn't need him that year.  I think that is abusing the rules.  When they are no longer injured they should be moved back to active or released.  This would take more policing, but with this group, I believe we are all responsible enough to do this.

We surely can add another option to the choices if everyone wants to but I "completely" disagree with this one.

 

Injured Reserve is to help a franchise when one of their players gets injured for the year. They obviously don't want to drop a "PrimeTime" player so they get to put him on IR and get another roster spot to help fill in for him.

 

If we allow franchises to deactivate and reactivate.....it pretty much defeats the purpose because everyone can IR anyone as long as they are listed OUT, which is why we are adjusting this rule in the first place. I truly feel it takes away from the desired effect of how IR was meant to be used. Of course.....JMHO

[Jetdoc 20]

I definitely vote for Option #1 (no IR), but with the stipulation that our roster sizes be expanded to 22.

 

As I've stated before, any owner that is paying attention will do whatever he can to stash away two players on IR whenever possible. So, our roster sizes are effectively 22 already (how many owners didn't have 2 players on IR when the season ended - I count two).

 

It really doesn't matter to me, however, but it DOES clean up the complexity/controversy of the league a lot.

[Jetdoc 20]

If we allow franchises to deactivate and reactivate.....it pretty much defeats the purpose because everyone can IR anyone as long as they are listed OUT, which is why we are adjusting this rule in the first place.

I agree - I don't think that is a viable option. We might as well have my proposal on Option #1 if that is desired.

[Fubars 0]

Option #2 sounds good to me.

[Battle-Tested 0]

I definitely vote for Option #1 (no IR), but with the stipulation that our roster sizes be expanded to 22.

 

As I've stated before, any owner that is paying attention will do whatever he can to stash away two players on IR whenever possible. So, our roster sizes are effectively 22 already (how many owners didn't have 2 players on IR when the season ended - I count two).

 

It really doesn't matter to me, however, but it DOES clean up the complexity/controversy of the league a lot.

I think only two teams didn't use IR. I understand your point....everyone used the current IR rule to increase their roster to "22" because of that "OUT" or "PUP" stipulation. Option #2 will put a stop to that........

 

I really think 20 is plenty high enough for a roster limit. I would hate to increase it to 22, even though I would if the majority wants it. But like I said before, IR is to help a team out, which we haven't truly been doing. Option #2 will put an end to the abusing part and will not allow owners to stash guys away. It will bring us to the true essence of the NFL IR .

[DrJ 0]

I agree with Miller that allowing out players to be put on IR and then force them to be reactivated when they are back in isn't terrible, but it creates unnecessary administrative hassle for the commish. If there is an easier way to do something that causes less hassle for the commish, we should always go that route and I think option 2 gets rid of the problems without causing any extra administrative work or policing.

 

Don't like Jetdoc's idea of getting rid of IR. I think the point of the IR is to help people a little with their bad luck. Mostly if a stud goes down, you can keep him without him chewing up a roster spot. If we make it 22 uninjured, then people that have this bad luck will have to eat up an active player roster spot, and I would prefer to help them a little. I'm sure if you really want to, you can find some scrub on the waiver wire that is on IR and put him there even if we change to NFL IR only, but that doesn't really defeat the purpose of the IR. If that scrub was worth anything, he would have probably been on a roster prior to going on IR. The person that used IR for its true purpose still gets his benefit and the other guys get some schmuck that they wouldn't have even wanted on their roster if he wasn't a "freebie".

 

So, all that being said, I'm going with option 2. I think it's pretty darned perfect.

[krispykleen 0]

Option #2 sounds the best to me.

 

Just to clarify, if you trade an IR'ed player to another owner, or if an IR'ed player is picked up off waivers, the new owner CANNOT reactivate the player at any point during the season - correct?

 

I think the "no activation" rule should apply no matter which team ends up with the player.

[bigtuna 0]

option 1

[Hoos First 0]

#2

[Battle-Tested 0]

Option #2 sounds the best to me.

 

Just to clarify, if you trade an IR'ed player to another owner, or if an IR'ed player is picked up off waivers, the new owner CANNOT reactivate the player at any point during the season - correct?

 

I think the "no activation" rule should apply no matter which team ends up with the player.

If an IR player is dropped or traded he isn't an IR player anymore. It would be up to the team who picks him up to decide whether or not they want to IR him again.

 

See with option #2.......that picked-up player would be on the NFL IR anyway. So, if some owner wants to trade for or pick-up an IR player and keep him on his active roster.....that's his perogative to waste that spot.

[Miller_Time_21 0]

I think #2 is plenty fair now with the ability to trade them in there.

 

Since there is now 7, I think that should clear the matter up, and allow us to more on to the next topic.

[krispykleen 0]

See with option #2.......that picked-up player would be on the NFL IR anyway. So, if some owner wants to trade for or pick-up an IR player and keep him on his active roster.....that's his perogative to waste that spot.

OK, gotcha.

[Miro Z 0]

#2.

[hellothere 1]

i think that the IR is good only because it streches rosters, and it should be dumped in substitution of just increasing roster sizes to 22 to allow more flexibility.

[Battle-Tested 0]

Thanks guys...............we have enough votes to make it law. The rules have been changed to read Option #2.

 

I will lock this thread for now just so I know we are done here. On to the next one.............