NFBC Message Boards

In hopes a ruling will take place quickly, I need an answer to this question. A player is able to be replaced by someone on the bench if he is DLed in the spirit of people not losing games because a player is unavailable. I feel if someone is sent down to the minor leagues a team should be allowed to sub for that player as well. It is the same as being DLed.

Originally posted by ESPN6J:

In hopes a ruling will take place quickly, I need an answer to this question. A player is able to be replaced by someone on the bench if he is DLed in the spirit of people not losing games because a player is unavailable. I feel if someone is sent down to the minor leagues a team should be allowed to sub for that player as well. It is the same as being DLed. I don't think this is going to fly since the season already started. The DL rule was in effect before the season started. Changing rules during the season creates problems.



[ April 14, 2006, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Red Sox Nation ]

Originally posted by ESPN6J:

In hopes a ruling will take place quickly, I need an answer to this question. A player is able to be replaced by someone on the bench if he is DLed in the spirit of people not losing games because a player is unavailable. I feel if someone is sent down to the minor leagues a team should be allowed to sub for that player as well. It is the same as being DLed. Now THAT is comedy!

It was just a question. I am not looking for a rule change. Just something to think about for next year. Idon't like the DL rule anyway but in this instance I felt it could help me so I put it out there.

Originally posted by ESPN6J:

It was just a question. I am not looking for a rule change. Just something to think about for next year. Idon't like the DL rule anyway but in this instance I felt it could help me so I put it out there. I assume you had Watson. In most cases guys who get sent down are probably not going to be in starting lineups. Most will be on the free agent list and some may be on our benches.

There is a good reason for this rule. If a guy goes on the DL, its simply bad luck. If he goes to the moniors, its simply bad player. This rule is not intended to be a helper to bad judgement. If we are talking about watson, then tough luck, pick better next time. We all have this type of problem during the 26 weeks.

Originally posted by rgordon:

There is a good reason for this rule. If a guy goes on the DL, its simply bad luck. If he goes to the moniors, its simply bad player. This rule is not intended to be a helper to bad judgement. If we are talking about watson, then tough luck, pick better next time. We all have this type of problem during the 26 weeks. Perfectly put!

Originally posted by :

Corey Patterson got sent down last year. I believe many considered him a top player on draft day 2005. Although he started slow last year, and many owners might not have had him in the starting lineup, it is similar to the DL. Just my thoughts. The current DL Rule compensates back luck. Doing the same for a player sent down to the minors would be compensating incompetence. Absolutely the most ridiculous proposal I have seen in some time.



And I am someone whom has Kubel and I have no qualms about the fact he will be dead weight any day now. But I am not going to be stupid enough to start him knowing that fact.



[ April 15, 2006, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

exactly

This rule is contoversial - the exact reason it should NOT be a rule for a fantasy league!!!