Reiss: A longer season could mean the end of the IR list to a Disabled list

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Reiss thinks this potential change to be discussed in the summer meetings could possibly mean the end of the current dreaded IR list which permanently ends a players season and instead go to a baseball disabled list which could possibly only keep an injured player out for a month and allowed back later on.

Sounds like a great idea and if it took 2 more games added into a season to get this to happen then I am all for it.

Potential IR change could have helped Crable - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

 

[Sicilian]

Interesting idea. What are the implications of the IR exactly? Does it save a roster spot? Clear cap space for that year? Both? I've always been confused by it.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Interesting idea. What are the implications of the IR exactly? Does it save a roster spot? Clear cap space for that year? Both? I've always been confused by it.

Roster spot, yes, cap space, no, unless the player has a clause providing for a split salary in case of injury (e.g., we'll pay you a salary of $100,000 per week if you're healthy, but if we have to put you on IR, that drops to $50,000 per week).

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Years ago wasn't the IR rule different
and more like this proposed disabled list before the ratification of the CBA but was changed to the current IR policy due to the possibility of teams stashing players away for important end of the season games??

To have it limited to 2 or 3 players to go on this list would definately deter 'stashing' as Reiss suggests, its a great idea.

 

[Rob0729]

I never got the IR process anyway. If a player gets injured at the beginning of the year and is going to miss 6 weeks and he is a valuable, not critical part of your team; he is more likely than not going to be IRed unless the team can afford the roster spot. Even though he could be back by November and help out during the playoff push.

I think it is stupid that teams have the choice of either reserving a roster spot for a player who may miss a month or two or lose them for the year even if they can come back before the end of the year. I don't know how that helps the game if you lose a star player to IR when there is a chance that he could be back and help ratings for the playoffs or December games.

Even if they don't expand the season, the league should look into a disable list type of system rather than an IR system.

 

[BradyManny]

They should do this regardless of whether they go to the longer season. For a league that is considered the best managed in professional sports, they have a couple of notable dumb rules and practices, and the IR regulations are one of them (for the reasons Rob mentions above ^^^)

 

[Pats726]

I think that is a good idea...many years ago that was the case...and in other years there even was a limit on the number of players on IR... but this would eliminate players injured early in theseason. being injured and teams having to either IR them or hold them out while on the53...I think it makes sense...that there is maybe a 4 week minimum or something like that and ONLY maybe 2 or 3 at a time...I do think this would help teams...GLAD it finally is being addresssed...

 

[patchick]

They should do this regardless of whether they go to the longer season. For a league that is considered the best managed in professional sports, they have a couple of notable dumb rules and practices, and the IR regulations are one of them (for the reasons Rob mentions above ^^^)

Totally agree. It's not hard to design rules that make teams take a DL seriously, e.g. requiring them to keep the player on the roster for X games after they return.

 

[Pats726]

Totally agree. It's not hard to design rules that make teams take a DL seriously, e.g. requiring them to keep the player on the roster for X games after they return.

So...if a player returns after the amount of games and re-injures himself he HAS to stay on the 53?? (not IR??) Actually there are many situations and rules are quite hard..the reason why they have NOT had a disabled list...

 

[DarrylS]

Not a bad idea, maybe they could also adress the so called injury list.. oh wait a minute Las Vegas would object.. will never happen..

 

[mcgraw_wv]

Doesn't the salary cap end the need to have only X players on a roster?

Why force teams to cut people at all becuase of a roster cap.

If Team A wants to fill out a 80 man squad of average players, let them... Every team has the exact same amount of money to spend on players, let them have 150 man rosters if they want too.

And with that, you don't need any kind of injury list other than "He won't start this weekend"

 

[fnordcircle]

So...if a player returns after the amount of games and re-injures himself he HAS to stay on the 53?? (not IR??) Actually there are many situations and rules are quite hard..the reason why they have NOT had a disabled list...

It's almost like a multi-billion dollar sports league might not be as stupid as posters on an internet discussion board think. Or maybe the posters are not as smart as they think.

Something as simple as a disabled list can become very complex when you weigh in all of the factors not the least of which is the ways that teams will try to abuse such a system to get an unfair advantage over their competitors. This isn't an 80 game NBA season or a 239472 game MLB season, this is a 16 or 18 game season and every roster spot is precious. If you can essentially carry an extra player by rotating 4 people through the DL list timing it so that the player you want is off of the DL when you need him you've gained a competitive edge over your opponents.

 

[mgteich]

A 4-6 week time for an IR list is what we used to have. It just expands the roster, and there was lots and lots of questionable injuries. After all, why cut down to 53, when you can stash four on the revolving IR door for 4-6 weeks? Certainly there would be at least a couple of players who you would like to give a chance to get healthy, or give their roster competition some time to show whether they are worth keeping.

 

[Taxed in Maine]

I have always thought the current IR sysytem is crap. I had been thinking about this recently and was thinking this is exactly what the practice squad should be for.

If a player gets injured, he can be replaced by a practice squad player. At the end of the 4 weeks the player goes back to your practice squad without clearing waivers. Maybe allow a couple more spots for the practice squad, and make it beneficial to the team somehow to do it this way as opposed to signing street free agents as injury replacements.

 

[patchick]

It's almost like a multi-billion dollar sports league might not be as stupid as posters on an internet discussion board think. Or maybe the posters are not as smart as they think.

Something as simple as a disabled list can become very complex when you weigh in all of the factors

Of course it's complex, but does that mean it's not worth trying? This multi-billion dollar sports league is a work in progress, they make changes every year. I'm not sold on the "we're all too dumb to have any chance on improving on it" notion.

Right now, the IR system is broken. It's broken because a 4-6-week injury to a rookie at the end of training camp wipes out that player's entire rookie year--including practice--thus putting the whole course of his career in jeopardy. It's broken because a team that suffers multiple late-season injuries at a position has to scramble for street FAs while a fully recovered player, whose salary they're paying in full, sits helplessly on the sidelines. And most of all, it's broken because the product that the league puts on the field for its post-season showcase is diluted by this drain on the talent pool.

A week-1 injury is fundamentally different from a week-12 injury -- or at least it should be. Let's say the IR doesn't start until week two, preventing teams from using it to stash players coming out of camp. It runs through week 8. You IR a player for a flat 6 weeks, and afterwards you're required to carry him on the 53 for at least 2 weeks.

Under that scenario, who would be worse off than they are now?