bigmck wrote:I am in a league this year on ESPN and the LM has instituted a rule where you have to take you player off the DL withing two days or a stat penalty is given on the second offense. I asked him if he was aware that no Drop / Adds could be done by a team if there was an active player on the DL. The LM was aware of this but thinks it is still a good rule he has. I am not going to be one to break the rule, but I just can't understand why he thinks something like this is necessary. I just can't see how keeping an active player on the DL is of any advantage. == Can anyone tell me what I am missing with this?
My league is probably a bit different, as we're a more traditional Roto (minus the auction/salaries), but we do have a similar
rule. In short, once your player is activated from the DL, you have a week to activate him. Failure to do so or choosing a different player to send down results in a $ penalty with the thinking that if you're going to "benefit" from an injury, you should pay for it. More easily explained:
Pujols goes on the DL, Loney gets activated for Pujols (free); Pujols comes off the DL, you don't activate him in a week OR you leave Loney in the lineup and reserve another player = $ penalty
Does that make sense? But in your particular case, I don't see how you're gaining an advantage unless I'm missing something. My only thought is maybe in his mind it's a way to ensure owners remain active and participatory? i.e. stay on top of your team or hurt your stats?
What is his explanation? You have to have reason for rules otherwise the Commissioner just comes off like a. . .ya know.