Now that is a very reasoned and rational alternative, Arius.
I wrote this before your post appeared but hadn't been able to submit it before you submitted yours (this new forum tells you when a new post has come in and asks you if you want to edit your draft!! - Really cool feature!). As you will see, I particularly appreciate your post because it isn't based on personalities and emotion!
Anyways, since I put some effort into it, I will send it as is for discussion (was in partial reply to Mike's post) :
You're right that it is about "how the 9 game list works in comparison with the sms". You start with facts but end with personalities and emotion. But if I am running the league, I would want to make decisions based on sound policies rather than personalities and emotion. Take Tillman and Tate and the love or hate for them out of the equation and then ask: is the current system the best way, amongt all possible but imperfect ways, to achieve the desired objective? Just by acknowledging that the paper cut brigade continues to exist means that it is not achieving the objective. I am not sure if your point is only to say that Tillman is cheating so has no credibility or if you are also defending the existing system. If the latter, I would have difficulty understading how you would defend a system that, by your own admission, isn't working. It may be that, when weighing alternatives, it is the lesser amongst evils, but without an analysis of alternatives, we will never know.
Any analysis must be based on a common understanding of the objective. I suggest that, in an ideal world, I would want that the best players play when they are not legitimately injured. The corollary is that the players that are legitimately injured to the point that they cannot play should not have their salary count against the sms, whether it be one game or all season. That would be the fairest in the sense that it would eliminate the pure randomness of different teams having different person days lost due to injury over a season. That is, it would not matter if a team has many or few legitimate injuries or whether they are of long or short duration.
The problem is knowing or determining what injuries are legitimate. If I/the League had unlimited resources (or at least lot's of resources), it would or could have its own medical staff that independently reviews every injury. However, since that is not realistic due to sheer cost and logistics (at least I am assuming it is) and it is not an exact science anyways (how injured is sufficiently injured so which doctor is right when they don't agree?), I have to accept that I will not have the ideal world. So what can I do as the League to get as close to that ideal world without absorbing too much cost? My suggestion in my thread above, to me, strikes a better balance (but still not perfection) without incurring too much added cost than the current system. In fact, I think that just having the authority to conduct an independent medical review that is final and determinative would knock off most paper cut brigade candidates such that there would, in fact, be very few reviews necessary in a given year (the deterrent effect). For example, Tillman is alot less likely to go to bat for Tate (i.e. keep him on the payroll) when he knows that Tate really isn't injured if he has to turn over the Riders' medical reports and subject Tate to a league-appointed medical review.
Just my attempt to be objective about this matter.