Yahoo Changes

[Nos - Sharks]

Dec 20, 2019 7:48:20 GMT -5 Derrick - Senators said:

Dec 20, 2019 7:31:15 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

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.

You aren't taking into account the balls you're supposed to have.

[Derrick - Senators]

Dec 20, 2019 7:53:34 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

Dec 20, 2019 7:48:20 GMT -5 Derrick - Senators said:

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.

You aren't taking into account the balls you're supposed to have.

I’ll get right on that.

...

...just as soon as your mom is done with them.

[Nos - Sharks]

Niiice one!

[Derrick - Senators]

Dec 20, 2019 7:16:15 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

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.

Also, one last thing to note in addition to your mom. Yes, everybody has to deal with injuries. However, injuries don’t affect everybody the same. It is easy for you to say “brave through it” when you have 10 top 50 players. It’s not as easy for somebody that only has 1 or 2.

As for “bringing in loads of DTD players in addition to the O players ” and the issue that solves, I guess it depends on your school of thought. Implementing IT+ allows the aforementioned teams that only have 1-2 top 50 players the opportunity to compete without keeping them at a severe disadvantage. The question is:

Do we try to make it “fair” for all or allow some to suffer in effort to mitigate the additional problems that could possibility be created by implementing a new policy that would make “fair” for all?

[Nos - Sharks]

My team has that many great players for a reason. My team also has 5 Top 50 players, not 10. It is 'fair' regardless, we play by the same rules. If my team is better prepared than others then that is a well deserved, and earned, advantage. It's all strategy. This type of change helps to make things easier, more relaxed and less strategic. If these 'lesser' teams have so many weak players doesn't that make it easier for them to just drop those players and replace them with free agents that could bring in similar, or greater, production? There are plenty of serviceable free agents. If you mean the 'disadvantage' is in one of their Top 50 players getting injured, well, isn't that just a byproduct of having a weaker team that is ill prepared for the grind? It is their job to build that team up, it takes time, a team like that isn't going to compete against someone like me regardless.

[Tyler - Jets]

I’ve dealt with a lot of injuries this season and I still believe we should leave the IR slots alone. 2 is a good number and you just deal with injuries as they arise. Build better depth so that other rostered players can partially keep up production while you have OUT or DTD players.

[Derrick - Senators]

Dec 20, 2019 22:18:44 GMT -5 Tyler - Jets said:

I’ve dealt with a lot of injuries this season and I still believe we should leave the IR slots alone. 2 is a good number and you just deal with injuries as they arise. Build better depth so that other rostered players can partially keep up production while you have OUT or DTD players.

We aren’t discussing adding another IR spot. We are discussing changing an existing IR spot to an IR+ spot. Just for clarification.

[Derrick - Senators]

Darcy Kuemper is listed as "O" even though he is projected to be out for weeks. Jason Zucker listed as "O" even though he will miss 4-6 weeks. Cam Atkinson listed as "O" out for weeks, no timetable for return. Alexander Radulov listed as "O" no timetable for return.

And this is just in the last day or so.

Two of these players are on the same team, a team battling for a playoff spot, where a difference of 7 points one way or another is the difference between 10th place and 6th place.

All I am saying is that it happens more frequently than is being alluded to, and it matters a lot more than it is being given credit for.

[Chris - Capitals]

I don't discredit the impact or that it matters at all. I'm just not for changing it at least not as of right now with the arguments seen from both sides. I think we're good where we're at and it forces GMs to make tough decisions.

[Nos - Sharks]

Out is a designation used when things just occur, or there isn't much immediate info, there are players who have the flu and are designated Out. Radulov is now listed as Day-to-Day. Out is closer to Day-to-Day than to IR. If the injury is serious and requires more time for recovery the team will place that player on IR. Otherwise you just gotta suck it up. It is a critical part of the game but that doesn't mean you can't do anything about it.