[IBL] Constitution Change Proposal

[Paul Schneider]

I can see both sides and do not feel strongly about either side. How about
a "buy one get one free" approach?

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.

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?

There are currently 5 teams with multiple UC players for 2024, so the
impact on the FA pool would be five players.

Just a compromise in the middle if folks are so inclined.

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 11:12 AM Joel Roberts via Members <
members at lists.ibl.org> wrote:

> I'm against this, for a few  reasons:
>
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
>
> Joel
>
>
> On Monday, 10 June 2024 at 11:29:49 pm GMT-4, aselder--- via Members <
> members at lists.ibl.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I’d like to propose a change to the constitution, the next time we
> consider things.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> To avoid abuse, I’d say that XX should probably be either two or three,
> but I’d love to hear people’s thoughts.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20240611/6ae76e55/attachment.htm>