[IBL] Constitution Change Proposal

[Russell Peltz]

I will plan on putting together a mid-season ballot for the IBL All Star
break between weeks 13 and 14.  If you have any other proposals, let Sean
and me know.

-Rusty


On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:47 AM Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I would propose something like:
> 1) only players with a significant amount of MLB usage can be placed on
> IR, e.g. 150+ PA/BF
> 2) the injury must be of significant length, e.g. affecting 5+ IBL weeks
> 3) once placed on IR a player cannot be re-activated, he’s effectively out
> for the season
> 4) players placed on IR cannot be released in the off-season
> 5) players placed on IR the previous season must be retained on the active
> roster through week 8 (like UC)
>
> 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.
>
> If you like this proposal respond to me privately, if it seems popular
> I’ll write it up as a proper rule amendment.
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2024, at 12:28 PM, Paul Schneider via Members <
> members at lists.ibl.org> wrote:
>
> 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/20240611/0fe64398/attachment.htm>