BALCO All-Stars wrote:Unless it's changed (and I was referring to Yahoo), it's not so much that a player is injured, it's more of a fact that you have an active player on your DL and you're not allowed to add any players while having an active player on your DL.
I understand what you're saying. My point is that the trade processing code doesn't appear to do any checks that would reveal that a guy in your DL slot is not injured i.e. he's active. The closest thing is it tries to make sure that your roster would not be beyond the max roster size. In doing so, it tries to figure out how many people you'd have on the DL, but I see no indication that it figures out if they belong there or not.
I'd also add that if it does work in the way you guys are describing, and the cause is just not obvious, I'd file a bug to try to fix that. Hardly fair since a guy could come off the DL just before your trade is processed, which would hose the trade through no fault of either owner.
There are related cases that could cause a trade to fail, however. For example:
- My team has player A on the DL, player B not on the DL, and an empty roster slot.
- I trade you B for C and D. It lets me propose this (because I can put C in B's slot, and D in the empty slot). It clearly lets you accept it (because you are giving up two guys and getting one back).
- While the trade is in review, I remove A from the DL and place them into the empty roster slot.
- When it comes time to process the trade, we can't let me have C and D, because then my roster would have more than the allowable number of players.
I hate this code, by the way
There are just tons of edge cases and strange scenarios.
Let me ask you this: if you believe you've observed this happen (i.e. the trade refusing to process because of an active player in the DL slot), would that league have had a trade review period, or not? Those cases are also handled differently, just to keep me on my toes.