Just spent the best part of an hour reading through this thread. It's an interesting debate and I see both sides to the argument.
Moving forward here is my suggestion as to how to counterbalance.
A 7 or 10 player practice squad, made up of players on minimum one year contracts with no bonus.
A PUP designated list (physically unable to play) - players put on this this designation would be deactivated for a minimum/maximum set amount of game weeks (three minimum, five weeks maximum?) and for a maximum of two stints per season.
If placed on the PUP list, you sub in a player off your 'Practice Squad'
Practice squad players should be 'Undrafted rookies' only. This way, they get a chance to 'prove themselves' and improve their ratings giving them a viable shot at getting a spot on a roster.
By having, low(ish) rated rookies on the Practice squad this prevents dominant teams with long standing owners from gaining a significant advantage by keeping quality players who could start elsewhere in the league.
It also means that you have a decision to make re: placing a player on PUP, or allowing him to play injured or be buried on the depth chart or be deactivated.
IF a player is placed on PUP twice in a season it should increase his likelihood to retire, plus if he is on PUP list for three seasons in a row. This would simulate perennial injuries cutting short a players career.
ie the PUP list should be for 'emergency use' only
Thoughts?