60-Day DL

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:18 am

One thing I think we can discuss this offseason is implementing a 60-day DL.

I know there's resistance to increasing the 40 man roster, but in MLB, teams are allowed to place guys with season-ending injuries on the 60-day DL and replace their spot on the 40 man roster.

I'd like to see something like this in IBC.

With the Nick Johnsons, Moises Alou's, or any number of Tommy John's out there, having those guys clog up roster spots can really hurt a team.

I'd suggest that being able to replace a 60-day DL guy with a free agent who plays the same position only.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:52 am

It would not be possible for me to disagree with this idea more.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:08 pm

I like the idea.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:13 pm

Completely on board.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:13 am

It sounds like an OK idea, depending on what the restrictions were about who the roster spot could be used on. One thing I feel really strongly about is that you shouldn't be able to sign an injured player to your 60-day DL, if we implement it the guy should have to have been on your roster when he was injured.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:31 am

It needs work, but I agree.

A players on the 60-day DL cannot be released or traded. If they're placed there, they are frozen to that team's roster. The day that the season is over, all players come off the DL (for non-playoff teams), and rosters must be cut back to the appropriate number.

I'm sure there are other issues...like I said...offseason discussion topic.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:50 pm

opposed, but that'll probably guarantee it passes. Cuz, y'know, it's not like having 50 players is enough. The reserve roster is meant for DL players as well as filling it up with as many Dominican league prospects as you possibly can find.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:55 pm

I'm more on the opposed side right now than the for side. I sort of agree here with Bren. If we were to do something like this, it'd be better just to expand the rosters by five players, which is an entirely different can of worms.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:55 am

With the exception that the offseason roster is still 50 large.

The thought is that a few season ending injuries could really derail a teams playoff chances, assuming their 40 man simable roster is now 36 or less depending on carded prospects.

Like I said, it needs more more thought, but at least another discussion topic for the long boring offseason.