Disabled guys straight to your roster

[Snatch Catch]

What are the feelings on this?

I can see both sides.

Because we have no bench, it isn't THAT much of an advantage, but it still does give that owner advance access to a player down the road.

Lets here the arguments.

Just keep in mind: I will always play Devil's Advocate in these kind of situations. Just because I'm presenting evidence for one side doesn't mean that I myself support those views.

[Soriambi]

You mean that if have a guy who was on the DL and comes off of it and we keep him off of our AR for 7 days, he would by default be put on our roster rather than released? I would definately support that. I'm going away for two and a half weeks during ths Summer and don't know how often I'm going to be able to check FBB. If I put a guy on the DL and he came off during those two and a half weeks, and I didn't have Vito as a co-owner I'd be screwed, even if it was a guy like Nomar or Clemens. They'd be released. I think that the way it is now could potentially throw off the competitive balance of the league in a situation like that.

What I would suggest is that the player who is signed to replace the DLed player be released automatically at that time (not neccesarily the player who is at the posistion of the DLed player, because I might move another of my good players, say, a MI, into that posistion, and sign a mediocre player to be a MI), and the original player be manually re-activated by you, Snatch.

And I think that this would effect the Reserve list as well. I just don't think guys like A-rod or Pujols or Vlad potentially getting released thanks to a business trip or vacation where they can't reach a computer or massive computer problem and signed by someone for $10 (and immediately signed to a 4 year deal for $26 per) is a good idea at all.

[Snatch Catch]

You mean that if have a guy who was on the DL and comes off of it and we keep him off of our AR for 7 days, he would by default be put on our roster rather than released? I would definately support that. I'm going away for two and a half weeks during ths Summer and don't know how often I'm going to be able to check FBB. If I put a guy on the DL and he came off during those two and a half weeks, and I didn't have Vito as a co-owner I'd be screwed, even if it was a guy like Nomar or Clemens. They'd be released. I think that the way it is now could potentially throw off the competitive balance of the league in a situation like that.

What I would suggest is that the player who is signed to replace the DLed player be released automatically at that time (not neccesarily the player who is at the posistion of the DLed player, because I might move another of my good players, say, a MI, into that posistion, and sign a mediocre player to be a MI), and the original player be manually re-activated by you, Snatch.

And I think that this would effect the Reserve list as well. I just don't think guys like A-rod or Pujols or Vlad potentially getting released thanks to a business trip or vacation where they can't reach a computer or massive computer problem and signed by someone for $10 (and immediately signed to a 4 year deal for $26 per) is a good idea at all.

Actually, I'm talking about picking up free agents who are on the DL and holding them in "injured" status.

[Soriambi]

Actually, I'm talking about picking up free agents who are on the DL and holding them in "injured" status.

Ahh. Well, what about what I said?

As for the DL guys, I can see both sides, too. There's the same problem with that. If Albert Pujols is injured and is out for the full year, and his owner releases him, that gives someone a chance to pick him up for $10. (unless original base salary carries over, I don't remember.) If that's the case, I'd be willing to have him on my roster as a dead spot all season to have him for $26 the next four. If the original salary carries over if they were drafted, then I don't see any problem with it.

[Snatch Catch]

Ahh. Well, what about what I said?

As for the DL guys, I can see both sides, too. There's the same problem with that. If Albert Pujols is injured and is out for the full year, and his owner releases him, that gives someone a chance to pick him up for $10. (unless original base salary carries over, I don't remember.) If that's the case, I'd be willing to have him on my roster as a dead spot all season to have him for $26 the next four. If the original salary carries over if they were drafted, then I don't see any problem with it.

His original base salary does carry over (Its $10 OR his auction price; whichever is HIGHER).

If you don't activate a guy from the DL in 7 days, you lose him, but I think that we could make exceptions on cases like guys with Pujols because the owner in that case obviously doesn't realize what the hell is going on.

[Soriambi]

His original base salary does carry over (Its $10 OR his auction price; whichever is HIGHER).

If you don't activate a guy from the DL in 7 days, you lose him, but I think that we could make exceptions on cases like guys with Pujols because the owner in that case obviously doesn't realize what the hell is going on.

But if we make exceptions with a guy like Pujols, I think we should just do it that way with everyone. Just because a guy is a better player doesn't mean he should be treated any differently in that regard, I don't think, and like I said, massive CPU problems or vacations with no computer access could make you lose a player, even a role player, that you don't want to lose. (And I obviously am not arguing for this because it will benefit me-it actually might be a bad thing for me, since my team has two owners and we both check the team reguarly, we could get a steal under this system. I just think that putting them back on the roster makes the most sense.)

And since that rule has been clarified (above), I don't see any problem with allowing DL signings. Not many people are going to pick up an Albert Pujols at $47 and sign him long term.

[Snatch Catch]

But if we make exceptions with a guy like Pujols, I think we should just do it that way with everyone. Just because a guy is a better player doesn't mean he should be treated any differently in that regard, I don't think, and like I said, massive CPU problems or vacations with no computer access could make you lose a player, even a role player, that you don't want to lose. (And I obviously am not arguing for this because it will benefit me-it actually might be a bad thing for me, since my team has two owners and we both check the team reguarly, we could get a steal under this system. I just think that putting them back on the roster makes the most sense.)

And since that rule has been clarified (above), I don't see any problem with allowing DL signings. Not many people are going to pick up an Albert Pujols at $47 and sign him long term.

True. I was just saying that if Pujols is coming back off the DL and his owner doesn't do anything about it, it would create an imbalance for the rest of the season if we were to release him into the FA pool and someone were to pick him up.

I agree, though: You have to activate guys in 7 days or they are released.

BUT back to the original question:

No problem with signing Baldelli or Thomas straight to the DL without having to drop someone first? Or being able to sign DL'd guys out of FA period?

[yanksphan]

No problem with signing Baldelli or Thomas straight to the DL without having to drop someone first? Or being able to sign DL'd guys out of FA period?

Not sure if I'm the right guy to answer since I picked up Baldelli - BUT - like someone previously mentioned, in MLB, GMs are free to pick up DL guys (Lieber for example) and wait it out. I still only have 7 days to decide if I want to keep Baldelli or not, and that's a tough sample size to determine if he will be a productive member of the Brew or not.

The ONLY advantage I see is being able to trade him to someone who might be needing an OF around mid-June (or whenever he's due back).

[Soriambi]

True. I was just saying that if Pujols is coming back off the DL and his owner doesn't do anything about it, it would create an imbalance for the rest of the season if we were to release him into the FA pool and someone were to pick him up.

I agree, though: You have to activate guys in 7 days or they are released.

BUT back to the original question:

No problem with signing Baldelli or Thomas straight to the DL without having to drop someone first? Or being able to sign DL'd guys out of FA period?

I was actually saying the opposite-that we should automatically put a guy back on the roster after 7 days rather than releasing him, but either way is fine with me. It's not going to effect my team's players.

And I don't really have a problem with it. They're going to have to cut someone eventually.

[Big_E]

You mean that if have a guy who was on the DL and comes off of it and we keep him off of our AR for 7 days, he would by default be put on our roster rather than released? I would definately support that. I'm going away for two and a half weeks during ths Summer and don't know how often I'm going to be able to check FBB. If I put a guy on the DL and he came off during those two and a half weeks, and I didn't have Vito as a co-owner I'd be screwed, even if it was a guy like Nomar or Clemens. They'd be released. I think that the way it is now could potentially throw off the competitive balance of the league in a situation like that.

What I would suggest is that the player who is signed to replace the DLed player be released automatically at that time (not neccesarily the player who is at the posistion of the DLed player, because I might move another of my good players, say, a MI, into that posistion, and sign a mediocre player to be a MI), and the original player be manually re-activated by you, Snatch.

And I think that this would effect the Reserve list as well. I just don't think guys like A-rod or Pujols or Vlad potentially getting released thanks to a business trip or vacation where they can't reach a computer or massive computer problem and signed by someone for $10 (and immediately signed to a 4 year deal for $26 per) is a good idea at all.

However, you already have the guy on the DL...so you know he could come off when you're away. You simply PM the commish and say, when he comes off, please make the following roster move for me: Pujols from DL to Active, Pokey Reese to FA.

As you know, the commissioner can edit any player's roster at any time.

As far as hoarding players on the 15-day DL...I don't have a problem with it. Sportsline allows the move, and eventually you have to make a roster move to counter it.

HOWEVER...In my non-NYYFans.com keeper league we have a rule -- only players on your ACTIVE ROSTER as of the last day of the season, can be kept the following season. So no signing players on the DL and using it as a bench through the off-season. So by the last Saturday of the year, if Bonds is still on the DL, you better make a roster move and activate him for that Sunday, or you can't sign him again.

If we're going to allow people to sign DL'd players, I would recommend a rule like that one.

That's it for me until tonight...back to the hospital. (For those not active on the original league board, my wife had surgery yesterday and will be hospitalized until Monday)

[Hitman23]

I don't see it as any huge benefit over any other team. those guys are free to pick up by anyone like any FA is. And like yanksphan said, true GMs are allowed to sign guys on the DL and take a chance.

Bottom line is they aren't affecting scoring in any way, and you have to drop one of your starters when they return and hope they can go right into producing for their team, which is a huge risk.

[boo_427]

I am okay with that considering we have no bench. As long as the 7 day, active by the 8th rule is in effect.

I am sure at some point in the existence of the league I will use this feature.

[Big_E]

I still think we should utilize the rule from my other league, that only people on your active roster can be kept the following season, to prevent people from using the DL as a bench in the off-season. During the season it's not a problem, since eventually you have to make a roster move. But in the off-season, that's not the case.