|
|
Post by Stark Direwolves on Sept 11, 2019 16:21:04 GMT -5
I propose that we, as a network independent from Yahoo, look into the possibility of allowing GMs to move a player to IL/IR with documentation from a reputable source, stating that the player is out for at least 4 weeks, regardless of the player's status in Yahoo.
Rationale includes the fact that we are an independent network and we have much more league activity during the off-season than a standard public Yahoo league. One of the things that attracts members to our network is that we have our own governing rules and we aren't necessarily dependent on Yahoo's somewhat limited capacities. I feel this is an area where we can continue our growth as a network.
I would be interested to hear from my fellow GMs on this.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Team Canada on Sept 11, 2019 18:57:35 GMT -5
This happened to me last season so I know 100% where your coming from. Couldn't agree more because our draft and FA start before Yahoo wakes up and does flaw some plans whereas it can be avoided. Tje more gm can plan the stronger the league imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frost Giant on Sept 12, 2019 7:30:02 GMT -5
This is just my two cents. I really don't see a problem putting a player on IR as long as he is designated IR by Yahoo. The length of time for injury shouldn't matter. If a player is injured for two weeks, that's two weeks of fantasy production that will be missed. It may not matter all that much during the regular season (although it might), but during the playoffs, that could mean the difference to advance. If that player is taking up a roster spot that could be filled with a waiver player, that would be a tough way to lose. I don't see the difference between being out for four days or four weeks. If the player is listed as IR, he should be allowed to be placed on IR on the sheet.
The only way we could make the "out" situation work is if we implemented the IR+ feature on Yahoo. I can see it becoming confusing if we allowed a player to be IR on the sheet, but not IR on Yahoo right now because the only way to get the "out" player off of the Yahoo roster would be to drop him, putting him as a FA on Yahoo. If we utilized the IR+ feature, then the "out" player could be left on the teams roster on Yahoo on IR+. I really don't see why, if a player is hurt, they can't be temporarily replaced by another player if the manager has the resources, regardless of how long they are injured.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stark Direwolves on Sept 12, 2019 11:23:08 GMT -5
Thanks for continuing the conversation Frost (and TC).
If a player is on our Google Sheet IR we can simply drop them in Yahoo. Nobody else can pick them up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lannister Lions on Sept 12, 2019 13:50:07 GMT -5
Here is my opinion. I don't know how much I like the 4 week rule. How are we supposed to know if he will be out for 4 weeks? What if a player is given a time frame of 3 to 6 weeks. Would he be IR eligible? What if they say he is out for 4 to 6 weeks, but comes back in week 3. Would he not be eligible to be activated until he has been on IR for 4 weeks? I foresee a lot of problems occurring if we stick to this. Plus, this is another thing the processors are going to have to monitor. I'm not crazy about adding more work to those of us who do processing. I think sticking with Yahoo's designation makes it nice and easy. If the player is listed as IR, he is IR eligible. If the player isn't listed as IR, he is not eligible. Cut and dry. No questions.
Again, that is just my opinion. I think this has been working well up to this point, and I really don't see a need to change to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CFL Rejects on Dec 6, 2019 20:34:42 GMT -5
I would just like to see people use the IR as it is no less than finding something different. I see players in lineups that have been on the IR for weeks but yet they are never moved to IR even if the manager has lots of free cap to sign more players to temporarily fill the gaps.
|
|
