The Skinny
I can, and probably will, go into all sorts of detailed explanations about why things are set up the way they are, but I don't want the main message to get lost among the minutia, so here's the short version:

Our rules allow CFCL teams to make a roster move in the middle of the week (in other words, on a day other than the usual Friday transaction date) if one of their players is added to or removed from his MLB team's active roster (put on or activated from the DL, sent to or called from the minors, placed on the bereavement list, etc).  Before you can make a mid-week transaction with one of your players, a report of the Major League transaction must have been published by one of the thousands of major Internet news sources (ESPN.com, the MLB team's website, newspaper website, etc).  The ONLY event that qualifies for a mid-week transaction is the publication of the MLB transaction.

That's it in a nutshell.  Now for the gory detail...

When You CAN'T Make a Mid-Week Move
Having an injured player does not entitle you to make a mid-week roster move, regardless of the severity of the injury or the prognosis for the player.  Until his MLB team puts him on the disabled list AND THIS TRANSACTION IS REPORTED BY A MAJOR INTERNET NEWS SOURCE, you cannot reserve the player mid-week.

This means that if one of your guys breaks his leg or undergoes emergency brain surgery, you cannot reserve him until a report that his MLB team has placed him on the DL is published.  The fact that the player will clearly miss significant time and undoubtedly be placed on the DL at some point does not qualify for a mid-week transaction. 

Reports that a player will miss the remainder of the season are not enough to qualify for a mid-week move.  The same goes for players coming off the DL or getting called up from the minors.  Until THE TRANSACTION itself has actually been reported you cannot activate the player in a mid-week move, regardless of published reports of the team's plans or what it says in the newspaper's Scheduled Starters table.

For one thing, none of those types of reports specifically mention the transaction.  For another, they are all discussing future events.  Until the a clear report that the player HAS ALREADY been put on or activated from the DL is published, your transaction cannot go through.

Some of the Reasoning
For better or worse, we've decided that CFCL teams can make a mid-week move only in reaction to a move by the player's Major League team.  Since we don't have access to Bud Selig's office, most of us have no way of knowing exactly when an MLB team has officially reported a transaction, so we can't use that as our source for determining whether a move has been made or not.  The next best thing is to rely on published reports about Major League transactions.

The problem with published reports is that they are often speculative (I've been reading for two weeks that Wily Mo Pena will be activated from the DL within the next couple days.  And how many times recently has Ben Sheets been ready to make his return from the DL, only to have it pushed back a while?).

In order to ensure that mid-week transactions are only permitted when an MLB move is actually made, we chose to require that there be a published report that an MLB transaction has been completed in order for a mid-week move to be made.  Not an injury, not a report that an MLB move will be made, but a report that the move has actually been completed.

One Way To Tell
Here's a quick acid test for whether a particular report qualifies for a mid-week move:  If the report on which you want to base a mid-week move discusses a transaction in the past tense, it's probably valid.  If it discusses are transaction or any other event in the future tense, it likely is not valid. 

Wise Guy Disclaimer:  The above "acid test" may not apply in every single situation.  At some point in the season someone will send me a link to a story that contains a sentence like "After being activated from the disabled list, Bill Bonham will make the start for the Cubs the day after tomorrow," and claim that they should be able to activate Bonham now because the word "activated" is in the past tense.  This would not be permissible because it's not clear that the transaction has ALREADY occurred.

The Ultimate Aim
This ensures a few things:  1) that there's definitely an MLB transaction that the mid-week move is in response to, 2) there's no decision-making required on the part of the League Secretary, and 3) that there is therefore no risk that the League Secretary will allow some moves to go through and others not.  There's no room/need for speculation, interpretation, or judgment.  Either the MLB move has been reported or not.  It's very cut-and-dried, which means it's very fair in it's application across the board.

Some Seeming Drawbacks
This reliance on reports of MLB transactions has some problems, of course.  Often MLB moves aren't reported until after our Noon mid-week transaction deadline.  That means we sometimes miss out on a start by a pitcher coming off the DL or have to wait a day or two with a dead roster spot before we can replace an injured player.  But since we have a set standard that requires no judgment or interpretation in terms of whether a mid-week move can be permitted, we all have equal opportunity to lose out in this way.

Then there's the issue of serious injuries.  If I've got a player who is clearly going to be out for a long period, why shouldn't I be allowed to replace him immediately?  Why should I have to wait until his MLB team puts him on the DL?  Sure, there are cases where a DL stint is a foregone conclusion.  But there are also cases where a DL stint is likely ... or probable ... or possible ... or a remote consideration.  Once we open the gate to allowing mid-week moves in response to injuries (or anything other than an actual MLB transaction), it means someone is going to have to decide whether a mid-week move should be allowed or not.  Not only is that unfair to the person making the decision, but it could lead to unfair decisions being made or the accusation of unfairness.  Requiring a published report of the completion of a transaction removes the necessity for evaluation and decision-making, and therefore ensures the process is fair for everyone. 

Team

Points

% of 5th Place

Discount Budget

Kenndoza Line

75.5

100.00%

.06

David's Ruffins

75.0

99.34%

.05

Da Paul Meisters

69.5

92.05%

.05

DoorMatts

68.5

90.73%

.05

Steve's Stones

53.0

70.20%

.04

Graging Bulls

39.0

51.66%

.03

Eric's Lambchops

36.5

48.34%

.02

Dem Rebels

23.5

31.13%

.01