I get your point, and it sucks to have so many guys injured at once.  I had that same issue last year, where I literally couldn't even field a full list of batters for a week.  It's no fun.  But a couple factors here.  Technically we have 3 IL slots, but a 30 man roster (as opposed to 25).  So we really have 8 extra slots at this point if you are comparing to an MLB roster.  The other and probably bigger factor is that we are 12 teams, but have 30 MLB teams worth of players to choose from.  So much easier for us to go grab someone that's available to replace an injured player without having to worry about a drop off in talent.  Now sure, could someone have 10 guys injured that are all superstars or potential superstars? Yes. But I think that would be unlikely.  I think we all tend to value the players on our team more than someone else would, but if I had to guess, there's probably a couple guys on your injured list that you could drop, and nobody would pick up.

Long story short, yes it sucks, but it's probably a very rare instance where someone can't even field a team, and has nobody that they could drop that truly has that much value.  Adding more IL slots would likely just result in more players being stashed on the IL even after they come back, and while you mentioned a rule that you have to return them from IL in a certain time frame, I'm not sure how that would even be administered without someone having to manually watch rosters daily and keep track of that.

Bird wrote:

I don't have a major issue with increasing the IL slots (to 5 maybe) but would like to hear if anyone has any major issues with the change.

I don't know that I'd have a major issue with it per say, but like Clint I worry about abuse of it. But, also like Clint I don't know how we would police it.

4? I mean that’s have helped me a bit personally