Manny Ramirez

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:46 pm

Dan, no DL time would not be applied onto the beginning of next season. Suspensions for violating the DL are because they're suspensions.
You think the negatives outweigh the positives? How about losing a playoff series in which the MVP was a guy who hasn't picked up a bat or ball in a month? Or missing a playoff spot because of it?
I shouldn't have even asked for commentary. This is the rule, Manny and the others have to sit. Period.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:05 pm

RedSox wrote:Dan, no DL time would not be applied onto the beginning of next season. Suspensions for violating the DL are because they're suspensions.

This doesn't have anything to do with anything I was talking about at all. Good decision. Great rule.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:15 pm

Orioles wrote: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.

I meant to say post-season, as you indicated here. Though if a player does not return before the playoffs, then he is out for the playoffs.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:18 pm

So you addressed one small portion of my argument as to why this is not a good rule, then decided to ignore the rest of the discussion and promulgate the rule on your own.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:36 pm

Ooh, promulgate, there's a fun word.
This rule is existing, it is old and it's being applied consistent with prior year's application. Just because you have been too inactive in the past doesn't mean it's a new rule.
Any Gm or ExCo member could have, and in fact should have, posted such a notification.
Personally, I'm done discussing this with you because you clearly lack a decent grasp of the rules or how they have been applied in the past.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:45 pm

RedSox wrote:Ooh, promulgate, there's a fun word.
This rule is existing, it is old and it's being applied consistent with prior year's application. Just because you have been too inactive in the past doesn't mean it's a new rule.
Any Gm or ExCo member could have, and in fact should have, posted such a notification.
Personally, I'm done discussing this with you because you clearly lack a decent grasp of the rules or how they have been applied in the past.

Oh. You're done. Without even making a single argument other than that you tried to kick me out once (which was a mistake then, and still is). Tell me why it's a good rule, not just that "it's a rule."

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:24 pm

Because allowing players who are injured to play is retarded!
BTW, ask around, I wasn't the one trying to kick you out and resisted the first calls for a vote to do so, but when I started getting multiple GM's asking for a vote on you, along with some other inactive GM's I felt it was my responsibility to include you. You WERE inactive, you were hard to get in touch with, you were never on AIM and hardly ever submitted a roster. You were busy with law School and Bar exams and who knows what else. I personally stuck by you because I felt like you knew what you were doing with your team even if you didn't get to spend a lot of time doing it and because I personally thought you were a good guy.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:41 pm

Fair enough. I apologize if I misread the situation surrounding my nomination for booteration. I still think this is a stupid rule that should be reconsidered. For the postseason, it's gotta be done b/c you don't want situations where a guy who's clearly hurt is playing, but other than that I think we should really avoid making a decision as subject to personal judgment as this one and have people live with the occaisionally unfair but at least evenly applied MLB DL = IBC DL rule for the regular season.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:51 pm

These are how the rules have been so Bren is right about that.

I still think Manny should be able to play. Is he hurt? yes. if he HAD to play, I guarantee he would be in the lineup. It's a tough area and there's a lot of grey. The rules here could possibly use a little tweaking or discussion at some point but it is what it currently is. It's always been case by case I thought though, no?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm

Dan, I can understand your ire about the booting. Anybody would/should be upset by it. If they aren't, they probably shouldn't be members anyhow.
I can understand your perspective on the September DL, it would be SO much easier to stick to MLB DL = IBC DL, but the MLB doesn't really have a DL in September. And not to pick on Nick but his Angels made the playoffs by one game in 2002, tied with Oakland for the ALW and Wild card and just 1 game ahead of JB's Bluejays for the Wildcard... with Luis Gonzalez playing under what was then strictly a MLB DL = IBC DL rule. Nick won it according to the rules so that's no disparagement to him, but when you consider that, it's not hard to see why the rule had to be changed.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:41 pm

That seems like an isolated case and the rule as is has the potential to create more situations like the ones we're trying to avoid, particularly in a case like Manny's, where he very well might have played if the race were closer. We aren't nitpicky about guys missing a few days here or there, and the most a guy could miss where this kind of decision would need to be made is a couple of weeks. The only time I think we should stray from the MLB DL is when making decisions about availability for the IBC postseason.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:34 pm

I don't want to be drawn into yet another endless debate. The rule is as it is. If you want to change it, petition an ExCo member to get that done.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:14 pm

I compare it to the rule that scorers use for errors.

You can't assume an out on a tag play.

Should the fielder make the play, yes....should it be an error...not by the rules...

Would Manny be on the DL if rosters weren't expanded...You can't assume.

Would Manny play if he needed to...You can't assume.

If he's not on the MLB DL, he's eligible to play in SIM, unless there's common knowledge that he is out for the season, which is not the case.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:10 pm

RedSox wrote:I don't want to be drawn into yet another endless debate. The rule is as it is. If you want to change it, petition an ExCo member to get that done.

I'd say that's what he's doing.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:56 am

I should say, petition an ExCo member who agrees with you to get it done. I don't think the rule is perfect, but I think it's far better than MLB DL = IBC DL.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:06 pm

RedSox wrote:I should say, petition an ExCo member who agrees with you to get it done. I don't think the rule is perfect, but I think it's far better than MLB DL = IBC DL.

Whether or not you agree with me, I'd say enough concern has been expressed to have adequately "petitioned" the ExCo to discuss this in depth.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:10 pm

RedSox wrote:I should say, petition an ExCo member who agrees with you to get it done. I don't think the rule is perfect, but I think it's far better than MLB DL = IBC DL.

I consider myself so petitioned.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:49 pm

Mets wrote:
RedSox wrote:I should say, petition an ExCo member who agrees with you to get it done. I don't think the rule is perfect, but I think it's far better than MLB DL = IBC DL.
I consider myself so petitioned.

I second that petition and move for a motion for movement. (I don't know the rules really so I'm just gonna make stuff up)

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:57 pm

Orioles wrote:
Mets wrote:
RedSox wrote:I should say, petition an ExCo member who agrees with you to get it done. I don't think the rule is perfect, but I think it's far better than MLB DL = IBC DL.
I consider myself so petitioned.
I second that petition and move for a motion for movement. (I don't know the rules really so I'm just gonna make stuff up)

Pardon me, i have a movement in the bathroom to attend to...

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:09 pm

its good to know that no matter how in depth or advanced our league gets we can all still come together to make poop jokes.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:59 pm

Everyone loves a good poop joke.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:20 am

the bathroom is bren's new "office".. he frequently visits in order to document his thoughts & views on paper

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:54 pm

Damn right. If you're lucky, I'll send you a sample...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:30 pm

delicious.