ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: RyanJames5 on May 23, 2021, 10:36:24 AM
-
I?ve seen numerous posts across a few leagues this season and, while I know it?s not a short term change and would need to be discussed over the off-season at the least, but I think the change that occurred when covid hit and the rules changes that have followed have changed the way games and injuries are managed and I think we need to consider a bit of a shift in rules to keep up.
I currently have 13 players on the IR. That?s more than 1/3 of my roster. It makes it incredibly difficult to roster a team. Therefore, I think we potentially relax the 60 day trade limitations a bit and possibly a small IR that would allow players to be called up from MiLB rosters when injuries occur.
Thanks!
-
:iatp:
-
I?ve seen numerous posts across a few leagues this season and, while I know it?s not a short term change and would need to be discussed over the off-season at the least, but I think the change that occurred when covid hit and the rules changes that have followed have changed the way games and injuries are managed and I think we need to consider a bit of a shift in rules to keep up.
I currently have 13 players on the IR. That?s more than 1/3 of my roster. It makes it incredibly difficult to roster a team. Therefore, I think we potentially relax the 60 day trade limitations a bit and possibly a small IR that would allow players to be called up from MiLB rosters when injuries occur.
Thanks!
Agreed. Baseball is not the same as it was when FGM was created. The 10 Game IR is a game changer when it comes to teams putting people on the IR. Teams are more likely to place a player on the IR than previously. That's not even factoring in the affect that Covid has had.
-
I can support the IR flexibility. I have been ravaged by injuries as well as other teams. I would like IR.
I am 100% for the 60day trade rule. A player does not sign with a team in real life then get moved right after. GM prestige and team reputation is a real thing. This one is a hard no for me.
I would like to look to extend minors to 30 man and no cap hit except the bonuses paid. Some players take awhile to get to the league (ex: intl FA).
-
I want the 60 day rule to go for in season extensions. I need to be able to extend a player when it makes the most sense financially, but I?m tied up then roster wise for 2 months.
-
The injurys this yr are crazy im down also alot of players. I feel haveing ir spots would be great. Now the 60 day rule thats a tough one. My honest oppininion on it is i think we should go to 30 days for Free agents and drafted players.
-
My team has been hurt by injuries this year but I am opposed to ending the 60 day no trade rule. The 40 man MLB roster gives some flexibility for injuries. I'm not as opposed to IR spots but an increase in the minor league roster would basically accomplish the same thing.
-
I am in favor of a small IL. Baseball players get hurt more than players in other sports. It?s crazy. The 10 day DL changed it as well. I think 2-3 IL spots would be good. I?m also in favor of changing the 60 day rule. I have never supported that rule. Whether it?s removed, or just reduced, we can discuss it.
-
1) Injury List: I don't support this change for a 10 day DL, but I would for a 60 day DL. Our rosters already reflect what is allowed in MLB, except for a 60 day DL. We are allowed to move any player from our 40 man roster where MLB can only use a 25 man roster. When an MLB team puts a player on their 10 day IL, the replacement comes from the 40 man roster unless they make a change to that roster. We're already using our entire 40 man roster. Basically, our rule is more liberal than MLB. I would however, support having a 60 day DL, where the player on the DL doesn't actually count against the 40 man total, as that is something MLB has that we don't. Plus adding a 10 day DL would deplete from the available player pool, make things more confusing and increase the work Ernie has to put in for little extra gain.
My opinion is 10 day IL No, 60 day IL Yes.
2) 60 day rule: I really don't like the idea of someone signing a FA and then shipping them off. It seems like it would yield shady dealings. The exception to that is that if a FA is signed during the season, I could see wanting to be able to move them at the deadline. As for extensions, if you're team isn't interested in keeping the player, I don't want your team to artificially increase the player's value when you have no intention of keeping the player. I'd rather them hit the FA market.
My opinion is no change unless it is for in season FA signings.
-
1) Injury List: I don't support this change for a 10 day DL, but I would for a 60 day DL. Our rosters already reflect what is allowed in MLB, except for a 60 day DL. We are allowed to move any player from our 40 man roster where MLB can only use a 25 man roster. When an MLB team puts a player on their 10 day IL, the replacement comes from the 40 man roster unless they make a change to that roster. We're already using our entire 40 man roster. Basically, our rule is more liberal than MLB. I would however, support having a 60 day DL, where the player on the DL doesn't actually count against the 40 man total, as that is something MLB has that we don't. Plus adding a 10 day DL would deplete from the available player pool, make things more confusing and increase the work Ernie has to put in for little extra gain.
My opinion is 10 day IL No, 60 day IL Yes.
2) 60 day rule: I really don't like the idea of someone signing a FA and then shipping them off. It seems like it would yield shady dealings. The exception to that is that if a FA is signed during the season, I could see wanting to be able to move them at the deadline. As for extensions, if you're team isn't interested in keeping the player, I don't want your team to artificially increase the player's value when you have no intention of keeping the player. I'd rather them hit the FA market.
My opinion is no change unless it is for in season FA signings.
:iatp:
-
2) 60 day rule: I really don't like the idea of someone signing a FA and then shipping them off. It seems like it would yield shady dealings. The exception to that is that if a FA is signed during the season, I could see wanting to be able to move them at the deadline. As for extensions, if you're team isn't interested in keeping the player, I don't want your team to artificially increase the player's value when you have no intention of keeping the player. I'd rather them hit the FA market.
The issue I have with a statement like this is the following?
I resigned Tyler O?Neill, Jordan Hicks, Colin Moran and Willy Adames when it financially made sense for me to do so. I extended them because I want all 4 of them to be part of my roster going forward. However, within the next 2 weeks, O?Neill, Hicks and Moran got hurt, Robert, Trout and Arroyo got hurt and Luis Urias potentially lost his starting spot. None of those things are within my control, but now I?m left without enough starting OF or MI and no ability to deal players that I?ve resigned to team friendly deals.
So while I didn?t end up stuck for long, I could have ended up stuck for 30 or more days with no flexibility simply because I resigned players when it was financially best to do that and I don?t think that makes sense
-
New guy here. I would be for IR list flexibility.
As far as the 60 day no trade rule, would it be possible to keep rule for new signings and allow extended players to be traded? MLB players aren't really traded much in April or May. There is no MLB rule, but in practice new players to a team aren't really traded quickly.
Extended players were already on the team, and while a player who gets an extension isn't traded quickly in real life I can see how the scenario that Ryan James puts forth about extending a player only to have your roster needs change due to injuries would cause a team to want/need to trade.
Being the newest member though, I will be happy with whatever is decided.
-
The issue I have with a statement like this is the following?
I resigned Tyler O?Neill, Jordan Hicks, Colin Moran and Willy Adames when it financially made sense for me to do so. I extended them because I want all 4 of them to be part of my roster going forward. However, within the next 2 weeks, O?Neill, Hicks and Moran got hurt, Robert, Trout and Arroyo got hurt and Luis Urias potentially lost his starting spot. None of those things are within my control, but now I?m left without enough starting OF or MI and no ability to deal players that I?ve resigned to team friendly deals.
So while I didn?t end up stuck for long, I could have ended up stuck for 30 or more days with no flexibility simply because I resigned players when it was financially best to do that and I don?t think that makes sense
Exactly. And we haven't even touched the subject of load management which MLB teams are doing with the 10-Day IL.
-
Even though we?ve only had 1/3 of the league chime in on the issues at hand, here?s what I see:
1) There are at least 8 GMs who support having IL spots added on Fantrax. That is enough to support a vote on a league wide referendum. I would envision a 2 player Injured List with strict monitoring to injure player are not kept on the IL once they have been returned to regular status by their MLB team. I believe Fantrax has a monitoring mechanism for this. I will research further before posting the referendum for a vote, but from a practical perspective, I think an FGM IL should be limited to players on the 60 day IL, because it would seem to be unmanageable if we included those players on a 10 day IL. Our rules aren?t as liberal as MLB?s as to who can be placed on our MiLB rosters, so as such, a 10 day IL doesn?t seem as debilitating as a 60 day IL because we have 20 active spots and a 40 player MLB roster. In the meantime, it would help if GMs posted what they would envision as the ideal amount of IL spots and whether it should be limited to players on the 60 day IL.
2) There isn?t enough support for a referendum on the 60 day no trade moratorium, so we cannot go any further on that issue at this time.
I will send out a league wide PM alerting everyone to this announcement. However, feel free to continue the discussion for further clarification.
-
I think two on a 60 day IL is about right!