IBC

The Following players have missed significant time due to injury and/or are expected to miss more significant time and must be deactivated. No penalties are currently recommended however if they are not deactivated for next week's games, penalties may be applied.
Appeals of individual players are permitted.
Gary Matthews Jr.
Chris Resop
Dallas McPherson
Chris Sampson
Kiko Calero
Chris Duncan
Orlando Hudson
Noah Lowry
Armando Benitez
Carlos Delgado
Micah Bowie
manny Ramirez
Josh Hamilton
Willy Taveras
Neal Musser
Jeremy Bonderman*
Mike Redmond

Isn't this the type of thing the "Executive Committee" votes on? What does that committee actually do? Didn't we have a "major IBC reorganization," or is this still a Bren-ocracy?

This is an existing rule being applied in the same way that it has been for several years. Anyone could have posted this information, such as Brennan posting when DLed players play.

If it was a Bren-ocracy there'd be no draft pick trading.

I don't recall us retroactively applying DL time for missed time at any point. Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems like a new rule.

Dan, no offense, but you haven't been too active in the past. So much so that, as you know, you were nominated last offseason to be replaced because of your activity level. No surprise then that you don't know anything about the September DL procedures.

I see, so because I had a period of inactivity during the offseason in which you nominated me to be booted, I shouldn't be active now. If that is the DL rule, sorry for not knowing it. Now that I know it, it sucks. No way guys should be retro-DLed in the pennant race based on someone's judgment call. That's a necessary evil for the playoffs, but for the regular season it can't be applied fairly and everyone should be in the same boat for September. Easier to administer and easily applied fairly.

Bren, no offense, but what exactly do you do now besides spurn logic and league sentiment to make unilateral decisions and threaten to kick people out? I appreciate all your contributions in the past, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the way you handle league issues.

Bowie has been inactive on my roster since late June when he went on the DL with a bad hip. I suppose I could have activated him for this Monday, but I knew he was out for the season so I didn't.

What I'd really like is to get Jeff Natale off my roster in the DB.

Orioles wrote:I see, so because I had a period of inactivity during the offseason in which you nominated me to be booted, I shouldn't be active now. If that is the DL rule, sorry for not knowing it. Now that I know it, it sucks. No way guys should be retro-DLed in the pennant race based on someone's judgment call. That's a necessary evil for the playoffs, but for the regular season it can't be applied fairly and everyone should be in the same boat for September. Easier to administer and easily applied fairly.

Bren, no offense, but what exactly do you do now besides spurn logic and league sentiment to make unilateral decisions and threaten to kick people out? I appreciate all your contributions in the past, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the way you handle league issues.

Dan,
You're being completely illogical and somewhat ridiculous. Who have I threatened to kick out? What unilateral decision did I make? You seem to think this September injury issue is something I conjured up. Go read the Manny Ramirez thread.

Cardinals wrote: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

This rule dates back to just after our 2002 season. it's not new, it's implementation is not new.
It's new to you because you were not a terribly active GM in the past, as demonstrated by the fact that members of the league asked for you to be removed for inactivity reasons. I personally opposed that decision but as Commish I felt a responsibility to put the issue up for vote, which I did. I don't give a damn if you like that decision or not, I made it and I stand by it. You've become a much more active GM since then and I wouldn't have even mentioned it except you clearly lack a full grasp of the league rules.

DevilRays wrote:Bowie has been inactive on my roster since late June when he went on the DL with a bad hip. I suppose I could have activated him for this Monday, but I knew he was out for the season so I didn't.

What I'd really like is to get Jeff Natale off my roster in the DB.

Patrick, send Jake Levine (Brewers) an email about that.

ummm... Orlando Hudson has been DL'd for awhile...look at any recent box and you'll see Kurt Suzuki at 2B.

Ditto for Manny.

Just look at the Boxes.

How was the injury list generated?

Just ask Jake...I send in an MP regularly and in the email I always note who I've disabled.

The list was generated solely by checking rotoworld. These are guys who SHOULD be disabled. Whether they have been yet or not I don't know.
Glad to see you're on top of it though Martin.

Duncan pinch hit today so IMO Z should keep playing him. If we weren't totally shitting the bed down the stretch, Dunc would be pinch hitting or playing every day

Willy Taveras was playing a week ago. If Ryan Spilborghs wasn't playing so well, Taveras might be playing. How can we judge that? We cannot. There are too many factors to consider for us to decide whether a player not on the DL is capable of playing or not.

Cardinals wrote:Duncan pinch hit today so IMO Z should keep playing him. If we weren't totally shitting the bed down the stretch, Dunc would be pinch hitting or playing every day

That's fine. As soon as aplyer returns in MLB, obviously the situation changes.

Orioles wrote:Willy Taveras was playing a week ago. If Ryan Spilborghs wasn't playing so well, Taveras might be playing. How can we judge that? We cannot. There are too many factors to consider for us to decide whether a player not on the DL is capable of playing or not.

yes, we can. Taveras is out with a quad injur and probably won't be back this season. He's an NL player so even on the bench he would have value as a pinch runner/hitter. That's he's been out a week and isn't expected back says to me he's done.

Dr. Dillon ladies and gents.

Astros wrote:Dr. Dillon ladies and gents.

JP, are you really going to start being this childish because you didn't get your way on the Sept/Oct trading?

What? I can't make a joke? Blow me.

Okay, it was my understanding that if players were likely to play if there teams were in contention, then they would still be eligible to play in the IBC. That's still the rule right? I'm just a little confused. Say, for instance, that Duncan had not Pinch Hit today, it could stlll be argued that if his team was more in the race he'd still be playing, so he'd still be eligible to play in the IBC right?

From what I read on Rotoworld, it didn't sound like he'd be back.
Chris Duncan will be sidelined for at least 10 days with a hernia that likely will require surgery.
If Duncan is feeling better and the Cardinals remain in contention, it's possible he'll return for the final week and a half of the season. However, it's more likely that he's done.
Obviously, Rotoworld isn't omniscient and we have to take whatever information we can get.

Clearly we need to discuss the standards for this, because I don't believe we've established them. I think that if there is any gray area about whether a guy would be available if the team was in a pennant race then we err on the side of allowing him to play.

Athletics wrote:I think that if there is any gray area about whether a guy would be available if the team was in a pennant race then we err on the side of allowing him to play.

I agree. We shouldn't be benching more players than we absolutely have to. If there's doubt, it should benefit the GM and not hurt them.

McPherson has been de-activated for the whole season now.

Athletics wrote:Clearly we need to discuss the standards for this, because I don't believe we've established them. I think that if there is any gray area about whether a guy would be available if the team was in a pennant race then we err on the side of allowing him to play.

That's how it has always been in the past, but things appear to be different this September.

We've always addressed the issue on a case by case basis. We've never set a two week basis that if a guy hadn't played in two weeks that we automatically decide that he's not physically capable of playing. There is always just too much gray area with teams this time of year. In the past if it was an obvious case we'd have them sit out, if it was a gray area, we'd error on the conservative side and let the player play because there is so much mis-information out there in regards to actual injuries and how teams treat them this time of year.

Cubs wrote:

Athletics wrote:I think that if there is any gray area about whether a guy would be available if the team was in a pennant race then we err on the side of allowing him to play.

I agree. We shouldn't be benching more players than we absolutely have to. If there's doubt, it should benefit the GM and not hurt them.

Totally agree with you guys on that.