Manny Ramirez

[Royals]

Not sure if manny is playing in the IBC. While he isn't on the DL (because it's Septmeber), tonight is the 16th straight game he has missed. He should be sitting in the IBC IMO.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[Padres]

I do not know which team currently owns him but I do not believe that we have any rule or reason in the IBC to deem him ineligible to play. He is not DL'd and not suspended ...

[Athletics]

3. Players who are shown to not be playing due to physical ailment are considered injured.

I think he should be de-activated. He hasnt played in two weeks. If the rosters didn't expand he would surely be on the DL.

[Padres]

3. Players who are shown to not be playing due to physical ailment are considered injured.

I think he should be de-activated. He hasnt played in two weeks. If the rosters didn't expand he would surely be on the DL.

You can not presuppose that he would not be playing if Jacoby wasn't tearing the cover off the ball.

[Royals]

I do not know which team currently owns him but I do not believe that we have any rule or reason in the IBC to deem him ineligible to play. He is not DL'd and not suspended ...

We do actually. The rule Dave quoted was created in part for this specific situation.
Dan Haren also should not be playing.

[Royals]

3. Players who are shown to not be playing due to physical ailment are considered injured.

I think he should be de-activated. He hasnt played in two weeks. If the rosters didn't expand he would surely be on the DL.

You can not presuppose that he would not be playing if Jacoby wasn't tearing the cover off the ball.

You can't presuppose anything, the fact is, he's not playing. I love Ellsbury, I think he's got an awesome future, but he's no Manny Ramirez.

[Padres]

I think he should be de-activated. He hasnt played in two weeks. If the rosters didn't expand he would surely be on the DL.

You can not presuppose that he would not be playing if Jacoby wasn't tearing the cover off the ball.

You can't presuppose anything, the fact is, he's not playing. I love Ellsbury, I think he's got an awesome future, but he's no Manny Ramirez.

But you are presupposing the he is not playing EXCLUSIVELY because he is not able to. I will agree that initially he did not play because he was hurt but the duration of how long he has not played has been a combination of his being initially injuried, Jacoby's play, the Red Sox position in the standings, the roster's being expanded (Moss is also up and Kielty is playing now) and Terry's desire (rightfully) to rest the Man Ram to ensure he is ready for the playoffs.

When Manny returns on Monday they will likely DH him to allow Ortiz time off to both "heal" and get rested for the playoffs. If so, will he will deemed injuried in the IBC?

[Royals]

The ting is Jim, we can't make those judgement calls in September. He's been out, it's been at least partially due to injury. We have no idea what Tito/Theo would have done if it wasn't September, all we know he's been out and he's been injured. he should not be playing in the IBC.

[Orioles]

It's one thing to make judgment calls based on the severity of an injury as to whether a guy who wasn't DL'd should be available in the IBC postseason. It's entirely another to speculate about front-office reasoning behind roster moves or non-moves after the rosters expand in September. There is way too much gray area here, and a situation like Manny's is so rare that I don't think we should stray from the bright line "MLB DL = IBC DL" rule that seems to have worked so far.

[DBacks]

I think he should be deactivated.

This rule has worked well in the past, and it has worked both ways. Things get iffy in Sept. If a guy in injured and cannot play, he should be deactivated despite not being on the DL.

It also works the other way too. Javy Lopez was released only because his team was out of contention, had they been in contention, he would still be playing, and so he was allowed to play in the IBC.

I think keeping these things open to judgement is important in september, otherwise things can get really messed up.

[Cardinals]

If it is decided he should not play, I dont think a penalty should be imposed in this case. It's too grey.

[Giants]

I do not know which team currently owns him but I do not believe that we have any rule or reason in the IBC to deem him ineligible to play. He is not DL'd and not suspended ...

We do actually. The rule Dave quoted was created in part for this specific situation.
Dan Haren also should not be playing.

Why shouldn't Dan Haren be playing? He just took his turn in the rotation on Wednesday and there's no news of an injury. He's not pitching well (I don't think he's capable of winning a 15th game, same thing happened last year and the year before that he hit a wall at 14), but he's still plugging away. Perhaps you meant Noah Lowry, who will be deactivated in my next MP.

[Padres]

Who is next? Corey Patterson? Delgado? What about Gagne the 10 days he didn't pitch? Where is the consistency? Who makes the determinations? Based on what clear criteria?

This is the greyest area I have ever seen in the IBC and one I don't recall this debate from last September. Granted some players are banged up at the end of the season but many have played through similar injuries earlier in the season. They don't have to now because of a combination of factors including MLB roster expansion, respective team position in the standings, a desire to look at other players or play the hot hand ...

I don't own any of these players (mine are mostly healthy underachievers or healthy but they suck) and I don't know who does without looking. I just see a terribly contentious area when you start guessing why a player is not playing. Surgery - clear cut; broken bones - clear example; busted eye ball - clear; dead - sad but clear. On the other hand: bad back - iffy (Thome is still playing so he can reach 500 HRs this season ... otherwise he would probably be shut down), sprained ankle - iffy, etc.

[Padres]

More players who might fall into this grey area:

Matt Treanor played in his first game last night since September 2 due to a knee injury. An MRI showed no structural damage to the knee, so Treanor was cleared to play after a few more days of rest.

Roger Clemens hasn't pitched since September 3 and said Tuesday that the MRI test revealed ligament damage and internal bleeding in his forearm, adding that the muscle was "pretty nasty."

Gary Matthews Jr. hurt his ankle September 11. He likely will miss another two weeks to prepare for the playoffs. Will he be deemed ineligible?

Jeremy Guthrie's strained rib cage muscles on September 9 but has shown improvement from Sunday. The Orioles remain uncertain about his status for the rest of the season. Victor Zambrano will start in his place on Saturday which means he will have been out for at least a week due to "injury". What is his status in the IBC next week? During the pre-September portion of the regular season he would clearly remain eligible as he was not placed on the DL by the O's ... under Rule #3, who knows?

Kaz Matsui hurt his hamstring on September 8th and hasn't played since. He has not been DL'd but we all know hamstring injuries can linger. What will be his status in the IBC next week?

I could go on and on ... but what's the point? This Rule #3 is a rule which through its implementation cries out "inconsistency at it's worst!" I do not mean to be argumentative but the use of this rule is irreverent of the IBC's foundational basis of attempting to follow the MLB rules except in cases where it is better for the league. I do not see how such a inconsistent area can be considered better for the IBC!

[Padres]

Just glancing at Rotoworld quickly this morning:

Xavier Nady (concussion) was cleared to play Friday and will return to the starting lineup on Saturday.
Nady, who has missed nine games since being hit in the head by a pitch, was able to return on Friday, but the manager Jim Tracy decided facing Roy Oswalt in his first game back wasn't a great idea. "With what happened to him against St. Louis, I would much rather have (Nady) start against a lefty," Tracy said. "I don't know that Roy Oswalt is the best choice after you've been down a long time." Sep. 15 - 7:43 a.m. ET
Should he have been DL'd in the IBC?

Carlos Delgado took ground balls and played catch Friday for the first time since injuring his hip last week.
Delgado, who is expected to remain out of the lineup this weekend, says he felt "ok" during the session. Sep. 15 - 7:31 a.m. ET
Can he play? Will he - probably not for a while ...

Armando Benitez, who hasn't pitched since Sept. 1 due to a sore back, will be out at least another week.
Benitez didn't travel with the Marlins on their current roadtrip opting to stay at home and work with his personal trainer. Sep. 15 - 7:09 a.m. ET
If the Manny rule (Rule #3) is applied I guess he is out ...

Troy Patton, who was diagnosed with a biceps tendon injury, threw off flat ground on Wednesday.
"I was very concerned at first," Patton said. "When it first happened, I was really worried, but after meeting with the doc he said everything structurally is still real good. He said it's nothing to be worried about. He said it's normal wear and tear from eating up innings." The Astros will be cautious with Patton and could shut him down for the remainder of the season. Sep. 13, 2007 - 8:55 a.m. ET
He last pitched September 7 - to DL in the IBC or not ... that is the question ...if so, when?

[Athletics]

I think the only way to do this is to establish certain criteria for injured players based on how many days they have been out. (example 1) missed 10 of MLB time = IBC DL for at least 1 week. 2) missed 14 days of MLB time = IBC DL for at least 2 weeks.)

The other way is to throw up a poll for players who have met a certain day limit of inactivty and have the league vote whether or not they should be playing.

With the rosters expanded, players can sit the bench while theyre hurt and not have to go on the DL (Ellsbury and Kielty playing while Manny is out).

Honestly, if Roger Clemens were pitching for a team not trying to get into the players, with internal bleeding in his forearm, then he would have been shutdown and been under the knife already.

[Astros]

The main reason we have this rule is to keep guys from playing in the playoffs that are hurt but not DLed in September. I believe its the Luis Gonzalez Rule. In September 2002 against the Cards, Gonzo seperated his shoulder at Busch the next to last week of the year and he was out for the playoffs. Since he wasn't on the DL, Nick was allowed to continue playing him even though he wasn't on the DBacks playoff roster. Nick won the WS and we closed that loophole. It hit me a couple years ago when Foulke was shut down in September, because he had an ERA at or under 2 for me that year and totally messed up my pen for the playoffs cause I had no closer. Gabe couldn't use Lopez last year because he got cut. There's a bunch of other examples but the way I've always interpreted the rule was if he's able to play, he can play

[Cardinals]

If the playoffs were today , Manny would be in the lineup. This should end all controversy here.

[Orioles]

If the playoffs were today , Manny would be in the lineup. This should end all controversy here.

Exactly.

[Tigers]

And you guys haven't even brought up yet, players who have been shut down early and chose to have surgery on teams that aren't in contention. The league usually has to address that every September, as well.

[Orioles]

And you guys haven't even brought up yet, players who have been shut down early and chose to have surgery on teams that aren't in contention. The league usually has to address that every September, as well.

Unfortunately I think that has to be a judgment call every September b/c you want to have the right guys playing/sitting in the postseason.

[Royals]

Harden was a goof up on my part, I was thinking of bedard, who actually went on the 60 day DL so the Orioles could make room on their 40 man roster.
Manny missed more than the 15 day minimum for the DL, that's why Manny came to mind (and because they mentioned it on the Red Sox broadcast).
It's not a perfect system, but just pretending nobody ever gets injured in September just because MLB's rosters make the DL impotent is NOT how the rules are set up.
I agree, no penalty should be applied to whomever has Manny (I believe it's SD) but he DOES need to be DLed, that's how the rule is intended and how it's been applied in the past.

[Padres]

Harden was a goof up on my part, I was thinking of bedard, who actually went on the 60 day DL so the Orioles could make room on their 40 man roster.
Manny missed more than the 15 day minimum for the DL, that's why Manny came to mind (and because they mentioned it on the Red Sox broadcast).
It's not a perfect system, but just pretending nobody ever gets injured in September just because MLB's rosters make the DL impotent is NOT how the rules are set up.
I agree, no penalty should be applied to whomever has Manny (I believe it's SD) but he DOES need to be DLed, that's how the rule is intended and how it's been applied in the past.

If Manny has to be DL'd next week every other player similarly situated should have to be DL'd.

Who is going to make that determination?

Edit: I now see the criteria is missing "more then 15 day minimum" - and I would presume, the 15 day minimum itself.

[Royals]

irreverent of the IBC's foundational basis of attempting to follow the MLB rules except in cases where it is better for the league. I do not see how such a inconsistent area can be considered better for the IBC!

I disagree, the "MLB rules except in cases except where it's better for the league" is perfectly suited for this rule. In MLB, effectively NO ONE ever gets injured from the perspective of the IBC in September, which simply is not accurate. The rule is there, everyone must follow it. If you're not sure if it applies to your case, ask.

If Manny has to be DL'd next week every other player similarly situated should have to be DL'd.

Who is going to make that determination?

As Commish, I always made it with GM's having the right to appeal to the league if they feel like the rule isn't being evenly distributed.
I have no problem going through Rotoworld, team by team, and putting together a list.

[Orioles]

1. It will be impossible to evenly apply this DL rule b/c there's far too much room for disagreement, and it's not a situation where I'm confident anyone (even an omniscient commissioner) can make a reasonably informed call as to who should or shouldn't have been on the DL.

2. It also generally would suck to retroactively impose a slew of questionable DL injuries for the last two weeks of the season during pennant races (assuming there are any). This would happen every season. I'm assuming under this rule guys wouldn't continue to serve retroactive DL time into the first round of the postseason, b/c that would make it a doubly stupid rule.

3. The potential negatives in the application of this rule far outweigh the positives of making sure everyone serves the "right" amount of time on the DL, imo