It is beyond me why DD wasn't placed on the 9 game injury list last year, but that was their choice.
But with the proposed fixed dollar amount, the only thing that really changes is it makes the system more flexible and more transparent.
It won't eliminate problems--no system every will be perfect--but it is better than the way they do it now.
As I said, once you use up all the "injury cap space" any overages revert to the rest of the regular cap, and becomes very much like it is now.
But if an appropriate amount of injury space is provided each year, that won't be an issue often.
I am sure it can be a reasonable igure predetermined based on historical injury levels.
This year the league average was 225,000.
So in 2008, maybe the amount could be set at approximately 300,000 or such.
Combined with a more flexible 3-6-9 game list, or the return of the 15 day/30 day lists, most years that amount would be plenty.
And really, you can't set the number too high as, if late in the year you found yourself with extra space on the "injury list" but it was tight on the "regular cap", teams could legally move any practice roster plaers to the "injured list" (which might be an inappropriate name for it) thereby using up that excess and protecting a player asset at the same time.
So it isn't like it would force salaries down to compensate for injury costs.
And if you have a clause allowing a "development player" to be treated similar to an injured player, ie., 70% salary, but not available to play, etc., as I suggested several posts ago, that provides another twist, which again increases transparency and flexibility.
And that is what it is all about.
With that idea, you creat a new catagory of player.
Roster, roster reserve, practice roster, injured reserve, 3-6-9 game injured reserve and "developmental" reserve.
All these ideas are merely tweaking what is there, which really, for the most part works fairly well, and of course can be refined into a more comprehensive concept as opposed to the myriad of "possible" ideas we are tossing around.
As I said, the league will almost certainly revisit the 9 game injury list this year, so it will be interesting to see what they come up with.
Regarding Sambo's point, yes--independant verification might help, but how practical is it?
Extra costs, extra time and then if the league doctor says it isn't, but the team doctor says it is, things can get murky in a hurry.
The thing is, if a player can't play, teams don't tend to sit a guy just because if he is the starter, so the system self-regulates fairly well.
It is just at the edges where we have some issues.
Expanding the system by allowing the "developmental player" and changing the 9 game to some kind of 3-6-9 game and tightening down the system from the other end by forcing teams to "budget" X dollars for injuries should alleviate most of the same issues independant doctors can, but with less hassle and expense.
But Sambo, I assume right now that the league has access to medical records regarding injuries in determining SMS aplications anyway.
Though there are some privacy issues involved.