Initially posted at old site in December:

Before I forget, some thoughts on the league.

1) FAAB system. One year trial is complete and we will default to the old system unless a new amendment is passed.

2) IR. I wouldn't mind seeing one IR position. It gives you a place to put an injured keeper without burning an active spot.

Any other big (or small) issues out there?

1) I am for the for the FAAB system because it is different. I think it hurts more keen managers, which is me, but whatever. Still fun.
2) We already have 14 teams (which is great) and 16 roster spots which leaves not a lot of players. I think it is hard enough to improve your team if you start out poorly so I think I would vote no on that one.

I liked FAAB. Wouldn't mind seeing it in the RBL, though I also think the system there works well enough.

I think the benches are deep enough to support injured players as is.

Bump.

Time to start seriously thinking about changes you would like to see in the league.

Something we did in the RBL that's worth consideration here (if we go back to the old waiver system):

-Players acquired via waiver maintain their base values.
-FA's always reset to zero (including original owners).
-Limited & keeper restricted acquisitions during playoffs.

I still say keep FAAB. I know Barry's against it and Greg's for it, but beyond that I don't know where league sentiment is.

Looking for an owner to replace Pete. Redscape member preferred - I've advertised in the general forums - but can go outside if needed. As soon as we have a full ownership, I'll send out the amendments for voting.

Note - Tony's not confirmed but 99% positive he's in. I'll see him this weekend.

I'll put in my official vote for FAAB here. I think it's both significantly more fair and far more strategically interesting than waivers.

I think we should vote on the IR amendment as well. I think it should be a true IR slot though. Once a guy goes in, he stays until next season or you cut him.

z06man wrote:I think we should vote on the IR amendment as well. I think it should be a true IR slot though. Once a guy goes in, he stays until next season or you cut him.

I'd be more favorably inclined toward this then a baseball DL-style IR spot.

I like the idea of limiting the IR slot to a single use (no changing your mind once you've used it). Should the amendment only allow for one such slot?

I think if you are willing to drop the player in IR, you should be able to reuse it.

Maybe I'm confused on what you mean. Could you write down what the rule would look like - that might clarify it in my mind.

The idea is that you cannot move a player who is on IR back onto your active roster, he must either remain on the IR or be released.

Got it.