<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div>If you have multiple UC players on your roster that’s a decision you made before the draft, so there’s plenty of opportunity to construct a roster that can get you through 162 games.</div><div><br></div><div>I think the core issue that Andrew’s bringing up (multiple simultaneous long-term injuries) could be better addressed by creating an “injured reserve” roster status that did not count against the overall roster limit. This IR status would have to come with requirements/trade-offs in order to prevent injuries from being used as a tool to temporarily stash extra players during the season.</div><div><br></div><div>I would propose something like:</div><div>1) only players with a significant amount of MLB usage can be placed on IR, e.g. 150+ PA/BF</div><div>2) the injury must be of significant length, e.g. affecting 5+ IBL weeks</div><div>3) once placed on IR a player cannot be re-activated, he’s effectively out for the season</div><div>4) players placed on IR cannot be released in the off-season</div><div>5) players placed on IR the previous season must be retained on the active roster through week 8 (like UC)</div><div><br></div><div>So basically if you’ve got a player that you know for sure you’ll be keeping who suffers a long-term injury you can place him on IR and get that roster spot back to help get through the remainder of the season.</div><div><br></div><div>If you like this proposal respond to me privately, if it seems popular I’ll write it up as a proper rule amendment.</div><div><br></div><div>Sean</div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jun 11, 2024, at 12:28 PM, Paul Schneider via Members <members@lists.ibl.org> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">I can see both sides and do not feel strongly about either side. How about a "buy one get one free" approach?<div><br></div><div>If you have one UC player, we play on with no adjustment. If you are unfortunate enough to have multiple players hit by major injury, you get one additional slot. If you have 3 or 4 players UC...sorry...just the one free spot. With no automatic UC spots, it does not invite people to keep a UC player "because you can" but is intended only to give a small amount of help to a team facing significant injury issues. </div><div><br></div><div>It is a gut punch already when you lose a Strider or Diaz or Hoskins and that indeed is part of the game. When you lose multiple players, maybe a max of one free position is a small bone to throw?</div><div><br></div><div>There are currently 5 teams with multiple UC players for 2024, so the impact on the FA pool would be five players.</div><div><br></div><div>Just a compromise in the middle if folks are so inclined. </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 11:12 AM Joel Roberts via Members <<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org">members@lists.ibl.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr">I'm against this, for a few reasons:</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">1. This is largely a solution in search of a problem. Currently there are a few teams with 2 UC24 players and one with 3. The majority have 0 or 1.</div><div dir="ltr">2. If injuries are bad enough that the average UC goes to 2 then this proposal would take 50 players out of an already stretched FA pool.</div><div dir="ltr">3. We already, IMO, don't have to make enough hard decisions about who to keep. Motivated owners right now can stash pretty much anyone they want. Even less roster fluidity would be bad.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Joel</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="m_5719304355850055539ydp72356cebyahoo_quoted_9007999952">
<div style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(38,40,42)">
<div>
On Monday, 10 June 2024 at 11:29:49 pm GMT-4, aselder--- via Members <<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank">members@lists.ibl.org</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="m_5719304355850055539ydp72356cebyiv7947249415">
<div>
<div><p>Hi all,</p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p>I’d like to propose a change to the constitution, the next time we consider things.</p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p>Proposal: Teams shall be able to have XX players who are not carded for the current season on their roster without them counting against the roster limit</p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p>Rationale: As injuries, especially for pitchers, seem to becoming more prevalent, teams can get stuck in an awkward situation of having injured players they want to keep but being crunched for roster spots. A team unfortunate to have 4
UC injuries, will be limited to a “minor league” roster of just 6 players, which make having sufficient depth to cover for in-season injuries and usage exceedingly difficult. In MLB, teams have the 60 day IL available which removes them from the teams 40-man
roster temporarily, as well as having much more extensive minor league system.</p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p>To avoid abuse, I’d say that XX should probably be either two or three, but I’d love to hear people’s thoughts.</p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p>Thanks</p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p>Andrew</p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>