Starting a new thread so we can separate this discussion from the suspended player discussion.
Stating up front I don't know what the solution is, but let's talk it out (I'm sure this isn't the first time this discussion has happened, but doesn't hurt to start it over now).
Couple things to consider:
Should Exco be voting on which players play and which don't based on our feelings/opinion, especially when they affect our players or our rivals' players?
Should all players play, regardless of them having broken bones, pulled muscles, etc. since the DL is rarely used in September?
Should any injured player be automatically DLed in the IBC, regardless of injury type?
Should Exco develop a list of injuries based on some research of typical injury durations that should require IBC DL stints?
Other suggestions?
September injury discussion
Moderator: Executive Committee
-
Guardians
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:00 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Name: Pat Gillespie
September injury discussion
Last edited by Guardians on Mon May 30, 2016 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Dodgers
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5783
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fort Lauderdale
- Name: Shawn Walsh
I can't find the general league discussion we had on this (feel free to link it if anyone knows where it is).
I think we can all agree there is no perfect solution, someone is always going to slip through the rules no matter what is decided. I think the main question is what is our intention with this rule? My understanding has always been that we were trying to mimic real life (as in, if a player isn't able to play in real life, they aren't able to play in IBC).
I think we have always abstained when it's related to a player who would affect us.
I like the idea of just relying on MLB DL only because it's so clear cut but when a guy breaks a leg September 15th, in my opinion, he shouldn't be able to finish out the IBC season and play in the playoffs because there's no incentive for his MLB team to put him on the DL (whereas the rest of the year they need to call someone up to replace him).
I think we can all agree there is no perfect solution, someone is always going to slip through the rules no matter what is decided. I think the main question is what is our intention with this rule? My understanding has always been that we were trying to mimic real life (as in, if a player isn't able to play in real life, they aren't able to play in IBC).
I think we have always abstained when it's related to a player who would affect us.
I like the idea of just relying on MLB DL only because it's so clear cut but when a guy breaks a leg September 15th, in my opinion, he shouldn't be able to finish out the IBC season and play in the playoffs because there's no incentive for his MLB team to put him on the DL (whereas the rest of the year they need to call someone up to replace him).
-
Guardians
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:00 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Name: Pat Gillespie
I like the idea of relying on the MLB DL as well, but even if a guy breaks something, there no guarantee he would end up on the MLB DL. So, then a guy with a broken finger is playing in the IBC even though he's not playing in the MLB but just isn't DLed. The flip side is exco trying to play doctor and choosing when a guy will play, when often a player isn't playing in MLB simply because his team sucks and there's no reason to risk it. That's why we need a stronger policy.
