|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Dec 19, 2019 5:36:12 GMT -5
Over the first half of the season I have noticed quite a few teams that have had injured players eating up valuable roster spots on the bench because Yahoo and/or the real-life team has been slow to move a player to IR. In an effort to better manage injuries I think now is a good time to start discussing the possibility of converting one of our IR spots to an IR+ spot. The difference between an IR spot and an IR+ spot is that only a player designated IR may fill the IR spot, whereas a player designated DTD or O would be eligible to be moved to the IR+ slot. With that said, what does everyone think? Should we keeps things as-is with 2 IR spots or does it make sense to do a 50/50 split and convert one of our current IR spots to an IR+ spot?
|
|
|
|
Post by Robyn - Flames on Dec 19, 2019 12:07:10 GMT -5
Voted yes. Looking forward to your reply on this topic Nos, please keep it to 5 chapters or less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Dec 19, 2019 16:50:08 GMT -5
No. Keep it the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Dec 19, 2019 17:29:39 GMT -5
Why? You still have approximately 4.5 chapters left. Might as well use them. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Dec 19, 2019 17:51:14 GMT -5
Injuries are part of the game. Everything else has remained the same so why should this change? 14 years, 2 IR slots, long term injuries are protected. It's enough. Why are people always looking to make things easier? I've considered the possibility of protecting a season ending injury to a Keeper player, say Ovechkin, with the manager being able to pre-Keep him, use a slot but drop the player and replace him. Otherwise, no, this IR+ isn't necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Dec 19, 2019 17:53:11 GMT -5
We've even voted on this in the past and it was denied heavily, you were against changing it too, so what exactly has changed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel - Canucks on Dec 19, 2019 20:16:08 GMT -5
I'm voting no as it has been the Commissioner's modus operandi to approve league rule changes in the offseason. Keep it consistent.
As for the rule change itself if we want to discuss it further in the offseason, I still think it should be kept the same as day to day injuries will always be those battles teams have to deal with. Also with the addition of an IR+ spot, it will be much easier to manipulate "stashing" of certain players on those spots if they briefly get changed to "OUT" or "DTD".
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyle - Devils on Dec 20, 2019 2:32:58 GMT -5
I think the only exception to this should be when a player is considered out. A DTD injury is just something you have to live with and could be easily exploited by GMs.
If they are considered out then they should be allowed to be placed on regular IR, no need for an IR plus.
Ive been screwed by OUT for weeks at a time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Dec 20, 2019 5:17:37 GMT -5
I'm fine with keeping it as is. Sucks sometimes but again part of the game and dealing with it by monitoring is fine. The ability to stash a player while not actually listed as IR doesnt sit well for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Dec 20, 2019 7:06:15 GMT -5
I think the only exception to this should be when a player is considered out. A DTD injury is just something you have to live with and could be easily exploited by GMs. If they are considered out then they should be allowed to be placed on regular IR, no need for an IR plus. Ive been screwed by OUT for weeks at a time. This is the main reason for IR+ consideration. There have been multiple players this season who have been O for weeks but were never officially placed on IR. Having to burn a roster spot on a player that can not be dropped is detrimental and not in the spirit of competitiveness. A DTD player should never be allowed to be placed anywhere, but unfortunately I don’t think there is an option to separate the two designations (DTD/O) when implementing IR+. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Dec 20, 2019 7:16:15 GMT -5
Everybody has to deal with injuries, it's part of the game, nobody has had more man games lost to injury this season or all-time than my team. It is detrimental but you have to find ways to brave through it. Not in the spirit of competitiveness?  Give me a break. Deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Dec 20, 2019 7:28:37 GMT -5
I'm voting no as it has been the Commissioner's modus operandi to approve league rule changes in the offseason. Keep it consistent. Over the first half of the season I have noticed quite a few teams that have had injured players eating up valuable roster spots on the bench because Yahoo and/or the real-life team has been slow to move a player to IR. In an effort to better manage injuries I think now is a good time to start discussing the possibility of converting one of our IR spots to an IR+ spot. The difference between an IR spot and an IR+ spot is that only a player designated IR may fill the IR spot, whereas a player designated DTD or O would be eligible to be moved to the IR+ slot. With that said, what does everyone think? Should we keeps things as-is with 2 IR spots or does it make sense to do a 50/50 split and convert one of our current IR spots to an IR+ spot? Since you clearly didn’t catch it the first time around and/or are being willfully ignorant again, I highlighted the relevant parts of my previous post in effort to educate you so that you won’t continue to make assumptions, jump to conclusions, or throw around more baseless accusations. Never did I say the rule would be implemented immediately, or even at all. How about you just stick to answering the poll question instead of trying to incite conflict every chance you get? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Dec 20, 2019 7:31:15 GMT -5
I was curious to see exactly how many OUT players there were, there are just 2 in the Top 200 ranked players and just 5 in the Top 400. There is just 1 goalie period who is OUT. This is a rare designation. You'd be bringing in a ton of DTD players (Week to week as well?), something you don't even want to do, to 'fix' this OUT 'problem'. Makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Dec 20, 2019 7:34:17 GMT -5
I'm voting no as it has been the Commissioner's modus operandi to approve league rule changes in the offseason. Keep it consistent. Over the first half of the season I have noticed quite a few teams that have had injured players eating up valuable roster spots on the bench because Yahoo and/or the real-life team has been slow to move a player to IR. In an effort to better manage injuries I think now is a good time to start discussing the possibility of converting one of our IR spots to an IR+ spot. The difference between an IR spot and an IR+ spot is that only a player designated IR may fill the IR spot, whereas a player designated DTD or O would be eligible to be moved to the IR+ slot. With that said, what does everyone think? Should we keeps things as-is with 2 IR spots or does it make sense to do a 50/50 split and convert one of our current IR spots to an IR+ spot? Since you clearly didn’t catch it the first time around and/or are being willfully ignorant again, I highlighted the relevant parts of my previous post in effort to educate you so that you won’t continue to make assumptions, jump to conclusions, or throw around more baseless accusations. Never did I say the rule would be implemented immediately, or even at all. How about you just stick to answering the poll question instead of trying to incite conflict every chance you get? Thanks. Isn't this a 'distraction' to the season Derrick?  Why the fuck are you bringing this up now? Weren't you saying last season to keep all rule changes to the off-season ya goof? Holy shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Dec 20, 2019 7:41:30 GMT -5
Everybody has to deal with injuries, it's part of the game, nobody has had more man games lost to injury this season or all-time than my team. It is detrimental but you have to find ways to brave through it. Not in the spirit of competitiveness? Give me a break. Deal. Yes. That’s right. Not in the spirit of competitiveness. If a team has 2 injured players that are both keepers who are out for multiple weeks but are never officially placed on IR, that team or teams are operating not just two players down, but two of their best players down without the ability to compensate for that loss. Players being placed on IR is directly related to when and if the real life team of a player decides to put that player on IR. We are at their mercy through no fault of our own and no proper recourse from Yahoo. In our game it is all the same. There is no difference. Missing 6 weeks while being O is the same as missing 6 weeks while being on IR. Except one team gets to replace their player/s and one team doesn’t. In turn, this can make teams less competitive and as a result the league less competitive as well by creating disparity for a good chunk of the season. With how close the standings are, every point matters. Why should a manager be forced to choose between operating 1-2 players down or having to drop keeper players in order to remain competitive in the league without dropping down the standings all because a real life team may or may not decide to officially place a player on IR? |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Dec 20, 2019 7:46:26 GMT -5
Isnt this a 'distraction' to the season Derrick? Why the fuck are you bringing this up now? Weren't you saying last season to keep all rule changes to the off-season ya goof? Holy shit. No. I don’t believe this to be a distraction to the season. Everything is not always black and white. One subject might be more or less distracting than another in season as was the case with the multiple proposed rule changes last year. However, if the league wishes to address EVERY issue during the off-season that is fine as well. But until that opinion is voiced I will continue to use my discretion when discussing rules and such during the season. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Dec 20, 2019 7:46:46 GMT -5
It's part of the game, every single manager has to deal with it. It is part of your strategy to make very tough decisions on players either by dropping them or making a trade. Or find ways to replace their production in other ways and for different categories. It's all part of the dance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Dec 20, 2019 7:47:39 GMT -5
Isnt this a 'distraction' to the season Derrick? Why the fuck are you bringing this up now? Weren't you saying last season to keep all rule changes to the off-season ya goof? Holy shit. No. I don’t believe this to be a distraction to the season. Everything is not always black and white. One subject might be more or less distracting than another in season as was the case with the multiple proposed rule changes last year. However, if the league wishes to address EVERY issue during the off-season that is fine as well. But until that opinion is voiced I will continue to use my discretion when discussing rules and such during the season. Got it dude, hypocrite! |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Dec 20, 2019 7:48:20 GMT -5
I was curious to see exactly how many OUT players there were, there are just 2 in the Top 200 ranked players and just 5 in the Top 400. There is just 1 goalie period who is OUT. This is a rare designation. You'd be bringing in a ton of DTD players (Week to week as well?), something you don't even want to do, to 'fix' this OUT 'problem'. Makes no sense. You aren’t taking into account all the players who have been injured prior in the season who have been ‘listed as O’ who have had their designation switched to ‘DTD’ or something else more recently. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Dec 20, 2019 7:53:19 GMT -5
It's part of the game, every single manager has to deal with it. It is part of your strategy to make very tough decisions on players either by dropping them or making a trade. Or find ways to replace their production in other ways and for different categories. It's all part of the dance. That’s fine. I’m not passionate about making the change. I don’t even like either option really. Ideally there would be a middle option with more flexibility that didn’t include DTD. But that isn’t currently available. I just figured I would bring it up because I know a lot of teams have had to deal with it so far this season. |
|
Give me a break. Deal.
Why the fuck are you bringing this up now? Weren't you saying last season to keep all rule changes to the off-season ya goof? Holy shit.