a different kind of DS proposal
 

All this talk about adding to the DS lit the fire under me on an issue I've been contemplating proposing for some time.

Instead of expanding the DS (which I am opposed to), I'd like to see consideration of changing the way we utilize the DS.

I'd like to propose making the DS more like a taxi squad. Whereas, an eligible player (using our current eligibility rules, i.e. an uncut draftee with under 3 years experience) can be activated or deactivated multiple times by the same club in any given season to the DS or Active rosters.

Teams could have say maybe 7 free moves in a season (each move up or down would count as 1 move) before a player would have to clear waivers.

The idea would be to make the DS a farm system that can be tapped in times of need but then restocked by eligible players once the need is fulfilled. It's a different way to look at the DS, it'd be more like a Practice Squad.

This would decrease the risk of activating a rook or 2nd year player who's not quite ready, and would provide more flexibility in team management, particularly in areas of depth. We could tap quickly developing rooks as needed, and if they slowed down could place them back on the DS. As long as a team still had free moves available the players rights would be protected, but after the free moves were used up the player and their contract would be subject to clearing waivers when being sent DOWN to the DS (promotions to the active roster would be protected year round, although after declaration day they would count against your initial free moves). Waivers could be a 24 hour period after a team announces moving a player down to the DS before the move down could occur. If a player was claimed during the 24 hour waiver period (based on reverse order of current record), his entire contract would have to be claimed and accomadated by the reciving team.

This system would be bit like hockey or MLB minor leagues translated to football, but I think it would add to the strategic element of the league.

Anyone have any commentary on such a proposal? Let's hear the good and the bad ;).

Re: a different kind of DS proposal
 

Well... I'm supposed to be working on my sermon today... so I can't comment too much right now.

But...

This is an intriguing proposal... worth examining more closely.

So the players would still have to be "DS elligible" based on our current definitions, right? 7 moves throughout the season (per team, not per player, right?) would have to be tracked somehow. I'm sure that's not a big deal.

The waiver system would sure be intriguing, to say the least.

I'll give it more thought over the weekend.

Re: a different kind of DS proposal
 

Hmmm.... my initial reaction is opposed to this idea. Because of the reasons you listed in the previous post. I just think we've made so many changes already to the rookie contract/ds rosters that people should have no problem activating rookies and having them sit on their active squad. Their salaries are so low now it's a joke to complain about having a rookie take an active squad space.

Activating a player from the DS should be a tough decision. IMO, knowing once activated they can't go back is a lot more strategic than activate for a game and send back down. Gives the owner a free pass.

So I guess you guys will have to convince me on the merits of this change. It'll be tough especially after we have RETROACTIVLEY lowered rookie contracts.

The DS ain't broke, so why are we trying to fix it.

Re: a different kind of DS proposal
 

Jim, you are correct, the DS eligibility rules would remain unchanged, and it would be 7 moves per TEAM per season, not per player. To be honest that number could be debated, I just picked a random number for discussion sake.

Frank, I am not necessarily proposing this idea for the 2004 season. At this point, I think any rule discussion should be for 2005 and beyond, and I'm pretty firmly in that corner (Brian got me to see the light there ;)).

But seeing as we should start discussing changes a year or so in advance, and that we were talking about the DS anyhow, I thought I'd bring this up.

Anyhow, we could limit the free moves from 7 to whatever we want, maybe 5, maybe 3, whatever number the league decides if they are interested in this proposal, heck maybe we'd go with NO free moves (although I'd argue at least a few make sense).

After the free moves were used up however, we'd have a waiver system which would be very interesting to see play out (as well as very strategic).
If the league hates this idea, so be it, no hard feelings. I just thought it'd be an interesting twist on the current situation.

As for rookie contracts, I finally thing they make sense. The new rookie compensation package is nearly perfect IMO, and the lowered salaries should and will result in more DS players making active rosters (I know my intentions are to trade or promote all 3 players on my current DS).

[HIJACK]
Speaking of waivers, IMO we should also discuss a waiver period for ANY player that is released, whereas his contract could be picked up in reverse order by any team within a 24 hour window. If the contract was picked up by another team the standard 20% cap penalty would NOT apply (although any remaining signing bonus would still be assessed against the releasing team). This is essentially what we do in the CDL. [END OF HIJACK]

Re: a different kind of DS proposal
 

Very intriguing... I say we talk more about this!

Re: a different kind of DS proposal
 

I think this sounds like fun, but I think a smaller number of free moves is better. In fact, the number I have in mind is 2, so you could move one player to the AS and back to the DS safely. Any more than that seems like we're pampering ourselves. Fun idea!

Re: a different kind of DS proposal
 

Mike, I think your DS move idea has merit, but I could really only support it if it is was much more restrictive, and usable in an emergency only type situation. The way I could support it working was that you could activate a player from the DS during the season, but they would have to remain active for the rest of the season. At season's end, you could move them back down to the DS free of charge. If you wanted to move them back down to the DS during the season, they would have to clear waivers. This way, if a team had a long term emergency at a certain position, they could activate a player, but they woud have to commit for the rest of the year. If they wanted to be able to move a player back down, they'd have to risk him to the waiver wire. I would say that to give the waiver a disincentive, we could require that a player claimed on waivers would have to be plaved on the active roster.

Edited to add, if we have a number of free moves, anywhere in the neighborhood of 7, and we are basically just expanding our active roster.

I also like the idea of another team being able to pick up a player's contract on waivers, and saving the waiving team the salary cap hit (at least a portion of it). This deserves some discusion.

Re: a different kind of DS proposal
 

Very interesting idea. However, I am not clear on this:
Are you saying that we could somehow add players to the DS in-season? Since only drafted players (that have never been cut) would be eligible how would this re-stocking take place?

I think that this would jive very nicely with the idea of adding a sixth slot next year for a late drafted rookie.

Re: a different kind of DS proposal
 

You could only restock it by trade, or moving one of your active roster previous draftees with less than 3 years experience back down to the DS at the expense of using one of your free moves or exposing said player to waivers.

BTW, to answer some of the other questions, in retrospect I think 2 is a perfect number for free moves, and I would argue that in-season is no different than post-season. Teams won't be able to do much more than emergency type DS juggling with only 2 free moves, and after that sending a player down would expose him to waivers which everyone will surely try to avoid (although I could see an element of strategy in exposing a player that way as well).