60 day IL rule additional thought

[Moorestown Big Dogs]

I would suggest that anytime a player has been on the 10 day IL for 60 days he becomes eligible for the 60 day IL. Brandon Nimmo and Giancarlo Stanton are two examples where they could have gone on the 60 day a couple months earlier than the team moved them to the 60 day allowing their managers roster space.

[Dynasty Empire]

I will take this even further.With the contract leagues we have tried to control the IL slotting of players to prevent teams from(as i understand it)expanding their roster space and gaining an advantage by being able to place "injured" players on the IL list.Baseball has gone through several changes over the past few years tweaking their IL from 15 day to 10 day with the 60 day designed to clear a roster spot for MLB teams. In my humble opinion we have to find a way to put players who will be out for an extended period of time on our "IL List" and drop the 60 day designation. The 60 day means something totally different than what we are trying to use it for. I know the problem becomes"what is extended and how do we fairly rule on what will be a judgement ruling. It comes down to common sense for the most part.Simple examples are :out for the season" This should not even be an issue. Why am i holding a guy on my roster who is out for the season if it is in May or September? Another example is when we know a player has been out for an extended period of time and they are still listed on the 10 day IL with no timetable for a return. And yes i am going to list my definition of "extended". When you can produce an article from Yahoo or MLB that says the player will be out in some verbiage beyond 4 weeks then that player should be eligible for the IL. Most long term injuries fall under a 4 to 6 week time frame or one of the other mentioned scenarios above. Any other statements that DO NOT directly state that a player is worthy of the extended IL will not be allowed regardless of the GM's opinion of the situation.The Commissioner will have the final word on interpreting the request as valid and beyond that the FSC Board will rule. My issue with this rule is that players who should be qualified for the IL are not because their roster spot is not needed by the MLB team. It seems that MLB works around their 10 day IL by putting players on it indefinitely so we should find a way to make our system work and still maintain the integrity of what the rule was created to accomplish. 

[Moorestown Big Dogs]

MLB certainly has changed the IL rules (no longer "DL", 10 day versus 15, etc) and it does change how we can play. I will add a thought I expressed somewhere previously. That a good way to get around the uncertainty of the "how long is he out for" issue, we require that if an owner places a player on our IL, that player must not be reinstated to the active roster for at least 60 days. (Or 45 or 30, or whatever is decided makes the most sense) That way the decision is on our owner. If he places a player on the IL thinking he is out for 3 months, and he comes back after 3 weeks, he still can not use him until the 60 days are up.

[Dynasty Empire]

I feel that is fair. I would tend to go with a 6 week minimum stay as opposed to 8 weeks but that can be discussed. Also it would prevent the IL from being used like a waiver wire.

[Stark Direwolves]

I like the ideas in this thread