Request for a small rule change

[Former Spurs GM (Adam)]

Would it make sense to change the IR/IL rules to match ESPN?

Current rule: "Once a player is no longer IR eligible a team has one week to reactivate him and make proper roster adjustments." Read more: dynastyleaguebball.proboards.com/thread/3501/roster#ixzz3DbQBKGLx

ESPN's way of handling the same situation: Once a player is off the IR (no longer IR eligible), the player must be placed back on the team roster before the team owner can complete another player related transaction (add, drop, etc.).

It makes a lot of sense to me in terms of being able to arbitrate these situations fairly, and avoiding putting a deadline on teams for a situation over which they have no control.

Full disclosure: This change has a good chance of being applied in my personal case if/when Ramon Sessions signs. However, it could easily affect anyone with players on IR/IL slots unexpectedly.

[Former Spurs GM (Adam)]

Just to add one other thing - the current rule doesn't stipulate any penalty for failure to comply. The ESPN rule doesn't require any penalty.

[Lakers GM (Renato)]

I actually like the rule the way it is now but I agree that we should have a penalty for failure to comply. One can always waive a player if one week passes by and no trade partner is found, so it's not like you can't avoid the penalty.

[Thunder GM (Tiago)]

I think this is a solution for a real problem we have, because the rule we have at this moment is the "better" one, but it's almost impossible to control and enforce.

The issue I have with that solution is one can sign a "Bynum" and then fill their roster. And if no adds/drops/trades are necessary during the season, they can keep him in their IL to find out if he will be play decent this season. IF he doesn't that team can keep him for the entire season on the IL and that is something totally against the premises of that rule in the first place.

But, since what we have now is clearly not a solution since it's impracticable, maybe we have to go with that.

IF we go that way, we have to again prohibit any move by the owner on ESPN and the LM's would have to be the only ones adding and dropping players, and I would also suggest that:

- Team can't add any players until they remove the player from the IL/IR
- Team can't make any trade until they remove the player from the IL/IR
- A player no longer eligible for IR/IL has to be placed on the active roster in order to being waived

This last point, is a way of trying to discourage teams from having players on the IR/IL when they are available for the active roster, because if they later decide to cut them, they should clear a roster space for it (in most cases they would also have to waive another active player).

what do you think?

[Deleted]

If a player is no longer elligable why don't we just make it a rule that the player is treated as an active player if the team wants to waive him, instead of making them waive 2 players

[Nuggets GM (Joe)]

I think we can set a reasonable time, let's say 3 days after the status changed in ESPN page, the owner need to waive a player from active roster and put the IR/IL player back or the owner need to waive that IR/IL within 3 days or that owner will suffer a penalty. And yes, no one will give that owner notice, he has to do it on his own and this is what a responsible owner need to do (check the status of his player frequently).

[Thunder GM (Tiago)]

But that is what we have (with a 7 day interval) and it's not working, like Adam said.

It's impossible to control, no one will look at 30 teams everyday to check if a player is still eligible to be on IR/IL.

What I said is, if a team wants to drop a player that is on IR/IL and is still eligible to be there, he can do it directly, but if waits and keeps an active player on the IL/IR, then when/if he wants to drop him, he needs to clear an empty active spot.

That's just me trying to create something to discourage people to keep players on the IL/IR after they are active, just to see what happens to them...

[Former Spurs GM (Adam)]

It's kind of funny that it now is highly unlikely to apply in my case. (It would have been really hard to face a deadline of a week to 1: make a trade or 2: drop either CJ McCollum or Randy Foye.) My personal opinion is still the same though.

Thanks Tiago for giving this idea serious consideration.

If its viewed as undesirable for a team to stash an active/healthy player in a reserve slot, then the present rule is "better". So, I agree that if that's something we don't want to allow, then the best thing is to leave the rule as it is. (Personally, I think the loss of ability to make transactions outweighs any advantages from blindly stashing useful players. For that reason, and the fact that it's common practice in standard leagues, I probably don't view it as such a negative.)

Teams that sign an Andrew Bynum, Ray Allen, Michael Beasley... are using the IL/IR slots for their intended use. There are no guarantees that any of these players become active options, so filling the roster after after signing such players isn't gaming the system or anything that should be penalized. When a team goes over the salary cap, and has one week to correct the issue they effectively lose all leverage in trades. The same will happen if a team has a one week deadline to drop a player or make a trade. The difference is that this situation is created by something out of our control.

Regarding the ideas listed above:
"- Team can't add any players until they remove the player from the IL/IR" - perfect, agree
"- Team can't make any trade until they remove the player from the IL/IR" - agree (with the exception of a trade that fixes the illegal slot issue)
"- A player no longer eligible for IR/IL has to be placed on the active roster in order to be[ing] waived" - ESPN allows players to be dropped straight out of IR slots. Not sure this is really necessary, since it creates a bigger risk that would discourage the use of IR/IL slots in general - even for their intended purpose.

[Lakers GM (Renato)]

"- Team can't add any players until they remove the player from the IL/IR" - I also agree
"- Team can't make any trade until they remove the player from the IL/IR" - I disagree. If I moved a rookie to IL because he was in D-League and signed a player to fill the active roster spot, I shouldn't be penalized for trying to fix that situation since it's not under my control. Trades should be allowed IF, and ONLY IF, they create an active roster slot for the player who's currently in IL. One week is more than enough to find a trade partner or waive someone.
"- A player no longer eligible for IR/IL has to be placed on the active roster in order to be[ing] waived" - I strongly disagree. One should have the option to cut the player in IL without having the active roster slot available.

However, why not something like this to add to the third paragraph:

"- If a player is waived directly from IL, the team will pay his full salary that season and only then normal penalties apply" (50% of salary in year 2 and so on)

[Heat GM (Pedro)]

Just logged in ESPN in a different league that I am in to help clarify my ideias and give my opinion on this subject concluding:
1) ESPN allows to make trades with players not in IR/IL whlie having players in IR/IL not eligible;
2) ESPN doesn't allow to deal players that are in IR/IL and aren't eligible to be anymore;
3) ESPN allows to drop a player in IR/IL.

Either way LMs have to do all trades and new signings manually so this it's no different than the overcap situations regarding supervision, so in my opinion the period to solve this kind of situation should be the same 1 week like in overcap, during that week the owner can solve it with no penalty, either via trade (allowing to trade the player in IR/IL no longer eligible and as long it adresses the problem of having more than the allowed players in the roster) or droping a player of his choice (droping penalties should be the same as any others).

Regarding penalties after the 1 week period I agree with the no signing and no trading rules with the condition Renato pointed out on trades, just if the trade creates an active roster slot for the player who's currently in IL or resolves this in any other way. To make it easier we should have a list of IR/IL players, maybe included in rosters file, that would be updated once a week (I guess it should be enough).

[Former Spurs GM (Adam)]

I'd rather see the rules stay the way they are rather than get more complicated.

I'm in the minority as far as 1)viewing the deadline as a loss of leverage for the team in that situation, as well as 2) not having a problem with teams stashing healthy/active players in IR/IL slots. (Even though in practice I agree that its usually not a worthwhile endeavor.)

Thank you for looking at this option. It was intended as an idea to simplify the rules. If anything, please don't make them more complicated. It's really a very minor issue, and I can certainly comply with the opinions of the majority.

Thanks.