Jose Reyes

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon May 16, 2016 8:57 am

Tigers wrote: If a player is put on leave, meaning they don't play, they don't play ... If a player is suspended, they are suspended. If a player is put on an alternate list but can play, he plays in IBC. Picking and choosing which players we think should be playing based on our interpretation of MLB's suspension/leave/etc. is the same gray area I think we're trying to avoid as Exco.

Isn't this exactly picking and choosing based on our interpretation of MLB's policies?

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon May 16, 2016 9:26 am

Pirates wrote:
Tigers wrote: If a player is put on leave, meaning they don't play, they don't play ... If a player is suspended, they are suspended. If a player is put on an alternate list but can play, he plays in IBC. Picking and choosing which players we think should be playing based on our interpretation of MLB's suspension/leave/etc. is the same gray area I think we're trying to avoid as Exco.
Isn't this exactly picking and choosing based on our interpretation of MLB's policies?

I vote(d) to follow the MLB lead and have a IBC player on admin leave for the same period of time that he is on MLB admin leave in part because we, as a league, have always tried to mirror the MLB as much as possible and also in part because we usually know even less about DV investigations then we do about fall injuries and I simply do not believe we should get into a guessing game relative to these DV allegations that we do with fall injuries.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Mon May 16, 2016 9:30 am

I don't see how. I'm saying we follow MLB exactly. So, if MLB puts a guy on leave to not play and even if they don't later suspend him, that player doesn't play in IBC for as long as he's not playing in MLB. It's the opposite of Exco picking and choosing who we "think" should be playing.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon May 16, 2016 9:24 pm

Pirates wrote:In the case of Reyes, we ended up getting it right because the suspension was levied by MLB.

But let's say we let him play all along, and then we learned of a 51-game suspension. Then we just suspend him from 5/14 on for 51 games.

That's much better than the alternative of Reyes on administrative leave, us keeping him farmed in the MLB, and then having the MLB NOT suspend him. There would be no real way to come back from that for us.

I don't understand this. He wasn't playing because MLB put him on paid administrative leave, not because the Rockies chose not to play him. He wasn't getting those games back in real life either if they chose not to suspend him afterwards.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon May 16, 2016 9:29 pm

Dodgers wrote:
Pirates wrote:In the case of Reyes, we ended up getting it right because the suspension was levied by MLB.

But let's say we let him play all along, and then we learned of a 51-game suspension. Then we just suspend him from 5/14 on for 51 games.

That's much better than the alternative of Reyes on administrative leave, us keeping him farmed in the MLB, and then having the MLB NOT suspend him. There would be no real way to come back from that for us.
I don't understand this. He wasn't playing because MLB put him on paid administrative leave, not because the Rockies chose not to play him. He wasn't getting those games back in real life either if they chose not to suspend him afterwards.

Neither do guys who whose team rest them because there's no reason to play him at the end of the season but we say he's eligible because we apparently somehow know better than the team whether he's fit to play. To draw a logical line between that and a situation that is purely PR-based - the league doesn't want to see a player play when they don't know the facts behind alleged domestic violence, regardless of whether he's innocent or guilty - is lazy and inconsistent.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon May 23, 2016 9:36 am

I don't understand why you keep bringing up September injuries in this discussion. That is a separate issue we also need to deal with but it shouldn't have any bearing on our rules regarding paid administrative leave.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue May 24, 2016 7:12 pm

Dodgers wrote:I don't understand why you keep bringing up September injuries in this discussion. That is a separate issue we also need to deal with but it shouldn't have any bearing on our rules regarding paid administrative leave.

I explained that in a straightforward way earlier - I don't think that the way that we have applied rationale in recent years is consistent (or, frankly, fair) enough.

But that said, I'm not meaning to beat everyone over the head about it, I just wish a little more thought would be given to that.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon May 30, 2016 2:31 pm

Sorry for delayed response. It seems like you're saying that if we change the injury rules, you would be more willing to consider matching MLB with regards to this. If so, that concerns me but Pat has kicked off the injury discussion so maybe we should revisit this afterwards?