Global Draft

[Blue In BC]

But, like Stats Junkie pointed out, these 2 players would be eligible to be a last minute replacement on game day.

We already had that ability previously but off the PR as late additions.

[gobombersgo]

We already had that ability previously but off the PR as late additions.

Yup, but it could be argued that these 2 spots would be filled by more game ready, veteran players than what you would find on the PR.

[Blue In BC]

Yup, but it could be argued that these 2 spots would be filled by more game ready, veteran players than what you would find on the PR.

That's an even worse resolution. Parking 2 vets that are earning a higher than ELC to NOT DRESS but get paid.

[gobombersgo]

That's an even worse resolution. Parking 2 vets that are earning a higher than ELC to NOT DRESS but get paid.

Worse option than what?

Currently they would be on the 1 game injured list and wouldnt be eligible to be a last minute game replacement.

IMO this is just adding transparency to the rosters and is a favorable option for players and the teams.

Reserve lists isn't a new concept. The CFL for the longest time had a 4 man reserve list.

[Blue In BC]

Worse option than what?

Currently they would be on the 1 game injured list and wouldnt be eligible to be a last minute game replacement.

IMO this is just adding transparency to the rosters and is a favorable option for players and the teams.

Reserve lists isn't a new concept. The CFL for the longest time had a 4 man reserve list.

Worse than 2 rookies on ELC deals. It's not a resolution, it's a band aid evasion and bad business solution IMO.

Normally ( except last year ) teams don't park veterans on 1 game IR for extended periods unless they are really injured. . Veterans play and when injured are replaced by mostly rookies off the PR.  This plan parks healthy players and that makes zero sense.

Again, the issue is paying players to not play ( vets in particular ). Increase the roster by 2 would be better. Add 1 Canadian and 1 more DI. If adding another DI is an issue than add 2 Canadians.

[Tecno]

Normally ( except last year ) teams don't park veterans on 1 game IR for extended periods unless they are really injured. . Veterans play and when injured are replaced by mostly rookies off the PR.  This plan parks healthy players and that makes zero sense.

You guys sussed it out pretty well.  BinBC, the others are right that this is just a way to legitimize the 1GIR "stashing" everyone does.  The stashing seems to be growing in frequency and acceptability.  No one batted an eye when even our "always above board" team did it in '25.

I love it.  Stashing was just as shady and dumb as the league not enforcing tandem blocking which is clearly forbidden in the rule book.  Just come out and legitimize what everyone is doing anyhow!  Why the lies and games.

Not many years ago we had the "healthy scratch" (HS), which was basically the exact same thing, but for only 1 player.  This "reserve" is better than the HS because I'm assuming you declare it 24-hours before the game (or even mid-week) and NOT 30 mins before the game like the HS was.  Gambling cannot maximize when players are stashed less than 24-hours out!

And the talk and worry the last 1-2 seasons of "PR sniping" has been ramping up.  We never used to talk about PR sniping 8 years ago.  For some reason everyone is now freaked out about it (even though it never happens).  This also lets us protect 2 guys from PR sniping -- without "lying" about the 1GIR.  This is a definite win.

[Tecno]

Currently they would be on the 1 game injured list and wouldnt be eligible to be a last minute game replacement.

That's a great point.  I'm not sure we've ever seen as many GTD notes on depth charts as we did in '25.  Every game most teams had a GTD (or 2!).  It was starting to get silly.

But surely teams will still be able to pull from the PR if a GTD isn't playing?  Or will they say all GTDs "no goes" must be replaced from the 2-man reserve?  Since you'll never GTD more than 2 players, you can rig your reserve to include those positions... BUT then you lose the "stash" aspect of the reserve should the ones you want to protect play other positions.

[Tecno]

That's an even worse resolution. Parking 2 vets that are earning a higher than ELC to NOT DRESS but get paid.

No different from the 1 healthy scratch of yore.  BUT, you make a great point that this could have SMS repercussions.  In the end the stash aspect won't cost any more SMS than the '25 1GIR stash-fest, right?  But that was already elevated vs "normal" '23/'24, right?  So it depends if you want to be in the '25 model or back to the stingier '24 model.  Meh.

You are right that it's the 2 extra PR spots that will be the real SMS eater.  That will be ABOVE any reserve stash SMS hits.

AND, unless the league clamps down on the 1GIR-used-as-stash trick, teams will STILL stash on 1GIR!!  Yikes.

We (especially you) were wondering this time last year how we'd best use or even out the $400k windfall.  This may be the final answer.  The stash plus reserve could easily eat up most of it.  $160k will go to ELC PR guys (generally considered a "good thing").  The rest will likely go to middling vets getting a bigger payday (AR vs PR $SMS$).  The main thing is it wasn't as some feared that it'll all go to the superstars.

For example, the reserve could be a great place to stash JSK if Kyrie/Jones show really good in TC and are healthy that week.  (Or vice-versa if it's JSK who wins out.)  Or a place to stash Shay if we want to keep him for D dev but he's not as good as, say Ball, at ST.

[Jesse]

That's a great point.  I'm not sure we've ever seen as many GTD notes on depth charts as we did in '25.  Every game most teams had a GTD (or 2!).  It was starting to get silly.

But surely teams will still be able to pull from the PR if a GTD isn't playing?  Or will they say all GTDs "no goes" must be replaced from the 2-man reserve?  Since you'll never GTD more than 2 players, you can rig your reserve to include those positions... BUT then you lose the "stash" aspect of the reserve should the ones you want to protect play other positions.

I imagine your reserve will change game to game depending on what you might likely need in each game.

Teams will obviously still be able to use the 1GIR and to pay PR players whatever they like.

[Blue In BC]

No different from the 1 healthy scratch of yore.  BUT, you make a great point that this could have SMS repercussions.  In the end the stash aspect won't cost any more SMS than the '25 1GIR stash-fest, right?  But that was already elevated vs "normal" '23/'24, right?  So it depends if you want to be in the '25 model or back to the stingier '24 model.  Meh.

You are right that it's the 2 extra PR spots that will be the real SMS eater.  That will be ABOVE any reserve stash SMS hits.

AND, unless the league clamps down on the 1GIR-used-as-stash trick, teams will STILL stash on 1GIR!!  Yikes.

We (especially you) were wondering this time last year how we'd best use or even out the $400k windfall.  This may be the final answer.  The stash plus reserve could easily eat up most of it.  $160k will go to ELC PR guys (generally considered a "good thing").  The rest will likely go to middling vets getting a bigger payday (AR vs PR $SMS$).  The main thing is it wasn't as some feared that it'll all go to the superstars.

For example, the reserve could be a great place to stash JSK if Kyrie/Jones show really good in TC and are healthy that week.  (Or vice-versa if it's JSK who wins out.)  Or a place to stash Shay if we want to keep him for D dev but he's not as good as, say Ball, at ST.

All the extra money won't go to the expensive vets, but it's still not a good business decision.

If you have your own company, go hire 2 new employees and tell them to sit in the coffee room and do nothing.

The same result could have been accomplished by increasing the roster size. What is the counter argument in doing that? There is a ratio consideration but there are many solutions to that.

Bigger roster creates less need to stash players. Larger PR does that as well to a degree for rookies.

Example: the 2 reserve players are a LB and a WR. You have a player on the AR that is nicked and moved to the 1 game IR but he's an OL. That means you have to move a player from the PR to the AR. Or do you adjust the reserve list by adding an OL in case you need to activate him. So what do you do with the reserve player that is bumped?

The game situation will change week to week depending on who is nicked. A 2 man reserve can't resolve all potential outcomes.

It's great another 2 players are getting paid, but I don't see it as a fixed player situation trying to replace the current need due to injury.

Ultimately we're going to see roster moves every week from each part of the roster. That's not new.

I don't have a problem with that per se but this is an odd attempt to resolve it.

There are 24 starters and several role players on a roster. The odds that 1 of the reserve players is the right player to replace that player is low. If that does happen, then I suppose the nicked player gets moved to the reserve and the reserve player moves to AR.

I think the reality is that an injured player is replaced by a player moving up from the PR. That's where the bulk of depth has always been. Next man up.