IBC

While not injured, unsigned and inactive. Played for IBC Cubs.

Still playing.

I thought the rule was a guy had to be retired.

As far as I know he is still seeking a job and hasn't signed with an overseas team, I think he's eligible to play.

No, that's not correct.

You have to be signed with a Major League organization.

If a player is released and doesn't latch on within two weeks during a year (Matt Harvey), he has to sit.

VI. Free Agents and Eligibility

1. Any player who is eligible to play in the MLB is eligible to be
signed by an IBC franchise. A player may be ineligible for any number
of reasons including the following. Retirement (official or
unofficial), expulsion from baseball, player's rights being owned by a
Japanese team, player not having submitted for the draft yet, etc.
2. Any player who is cut by a major league team may continue to play
for a period of 2 weeks in the IBC without being signed by a major
league team.
3. A player is eligible to play for their team if he is eligible to be
signed and is not prevented from doing so due to an injury or
suspension.
4. To sign a free agent, a GM must sign the player in the OOPSS System
on the league website. The OOPSS System is the official system and
will be used for resolving disputes.
5. A player may only be signed if the signing will not put the total
(25 active + 15 inactive) roster over 40, or the draft roster over 10
total rookie draftees.
6. If player A is released to sign player B and player B is already on
another roster, then the GM attempting the transaction keeps
possession of player A.
7. GM's found to be signing players haphazardly without checking the
player list may face individual sanctions
8. When a player is released by a team, the release should be done in
the OOPSS system. The player goes on Waivers for 24 hours before he
can be signed.

This section of the rules needs to get updated to reflect that, I'll deactivate him.

Shouldnt he be eligible then for the first two weeks of the season?

Marlins wrote:Shouldnt he be eligible then for the first two weeks of the season?

I think that goes against the spirit and probably the letter of the rule. The idea was that if someone gets DFA'ed, they might not sign immediately (or since the rule is so old, we weren't likely to hear about it immediately) but they were likely to catch on somewhere. An unsigned FA shouldn't get a pass for the first two weeks of the season, especially since he didn't play somewhere in spring training.

I may be wrong but that just addresses his eligibility or lack thereof to be signed in the IBC. His eligibility to play is a different matter, one that may or may not be addressed elsewhere.

Good points all.. There are a bunch of players out there that are in the same situation as Smith. Not retired, but not offered contracts. They may sign somewhere eventually like Melky Cabrera did, but until then it has been by understanding that they are ineligible to play in the IBC.

I guess players like that could be put in a different bucket, but the difference between these guys and someone who was just DFA'd is the offseason. Maybe as long as they had a contract the previous year they can play the first two weeks of the season then have to wait til they sign? I could see this either fitting under the existing rule or needing a new rule to clarify.