Cesar Puello

[Cardinals]

So here's an interesting (and annoying) case. Cesar Peullo had the game-winning hit against Zalaski in Game 4 of a 1-0 game. His MiLB page is here:
http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?pl ... g/2018/ALL

It says active.

Z sent an email to the River Cats asking about Puello, because he stopped playing in mid-August. They said:

Puello was placed on the disabled list on August 18 with a minor injury, and our season ended on September 3. We do not disclose specifics of injuries I'm afraid. I hope that was at least a little helpful.

Looking through things, it does appear he was placed on the DL: http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.js ... 2&sid=t105

I'm a little conflicted since his player page says active. I'm not sure what Bren is/was supposed to do in this instance, to be honest. How was Bren supposed to know to bench him?

The fact that this information wasn't produced with an internet search, but rather emailing a team then going through a transactions list makes me believe he was ok to play. That's a pretty crazy level of research to go to, and a pretty unfair threshold.

[Astros]

The fact he hadn't played for the last 3 weeks of the season should've at least made Bren look into it, but then again look at all the DL violations he had this season with his star players. Do we give him a free pass on this one cause it was a minor league guy on the DL or do we admit that even if it was listed prominently, Bren probably doesn't farm him anyway? We had multiple series replayed last season because of injuries and those guys didn't get the winning hit in a 1-0 game. A precedent has been set. I vote for a replay of Game 4 and go from there because that's what we would've done/did do last season

[Guardians]

Minor league injuries are extremely well hidden. The fact that his page shows active is what our standard historically has been. They could have benched him because the MLB team might have wanted him available for a call up. If our standard is going to be emailing a minor league team (which only Z has the connections to get a response from), we're setting a very bad precedent.
The available public information showed him active, so he's active. I vote to leave as is.

[Rangers]

I'm trying not to let the way that Brett handled this - which to me was to try to appeal a series based on a weak technicality - affect my opinion but the reply by the club only told us one thing that his player page didn't already (at the bottom where transactions are listed) and that was a confirmation that it was a minor injury two months ago.

If you know something about a player being injured, say something at the beginning of the series - Puello went 0-1 in Game One and Brett didn't say anything at that point - not wait and see how it turns out. If you didn't know anything and started looking for reasons to appeal the series afterward and the best you can come up with is this, you're just looking for an excuse for a mulligan.

I think he should be active.

[Dodgers]

The River Cats last game was on the 3rd. Puello was activated on the 4th. I believe he therefore was activated because their season was over. This isn’t something we’ve ever noticed/considered before.

That being said, I think that Puello should be active because that’s been our standard to date. Also, I’m struggling to find the conversation we had in the wake of last year’s debacle, but I believe even if we had roster submission for evaluation of eligibility, I don’t think any of us would have deemed him out.

As for Aaron’s arguments, Puello wouldn’t have played the last 3 weeks because his team didn’t have any games. I also don’t think Bren’s past DL violation history is in any way applicable to the case at hand.

However, I think we probably need to revisit the rules specifically for this scenario. It’s going to be a nightmare to manually track, so I’ll probably have to build something to help.

[Astros]

The River Cats last game was on the 3rd. Puello was activated on the 4th. I believe he therefore was activated because their season was over. This isn’t something we’ve ever noticed/considered before.

That being said, I think that Puello should be active because that’s been our standard to date. Also, I’m struggling to find the conversation we had in the wake of last year’s debacle, but I believe even if we had roster submission for evaluation of eligibility, I don’t think any of us would have deemed him out.

As for Aaron’s arguments, Puello wouldn’t have played the last 3 weeks because his team didn’t have any games. I also don’t think Bren’s past DL violation history is in any way applicable to the case at hand.

However, I think we probably need to revisit the rules specifically for this scenario. It’s going to be a nightmare to manually track, so I’ll probably have to build something to help.

I meant that he didn't play from the middle of August on, not that he didn't play in September

[Dodgers]

The River Cats last game was on the 3rd. Puello was activated on the 4th. I believe he therefore was activated because their season was over. This isn’t something we’ve ever noticed/considered before.

That being said, I think that Puello should be active because that’s been our standard to date. Also, I’m struggling to find the conversation we had in the wake of last year’s debacle, but I believe even if we had roster submission for evaluation of eligibility, I don’t think any of us would have deemed him out.

As for Aaron’s arguments, Puello wouldn’t have played the last 3 weeks because his team didn’t have any games. I also don’t think Bren’s past DL violation history is in any way applicable to the case at hand.

However, I think we probably need to revisit the rules specifically for this scenario. It’s going to be a nightmare to manually track, so I’ll probably have to build something to help.

I meant that he didn't play from the middle of August on, not that he didn't play in September

Right, but he was on the DL during that time. Basically, Bren would have had to realize that being activated from the DL didn’t actually mean he was healthy, rather that their season was over.