Abuse of 60-day DL?

[Corsairs]

Guess it's time we start using this great new resource we've been given. It's like we've just been handed a delicious pie and now everyone's feeling guilty about being the first one to dig in. Hopefully it's apple (my favorite), 'cause here I go...

One of our owners has placed a player on the 60-day DL who is suffering from a relatively short-term injury (3-4 weeks in length). The person who brought this to my attention feels that this was done to keep the player from reaching free agency. We're at the end of our season, so this move will stop the player's service time clock 10 days short of qualifying for free agency. Personally, I not so sure he didn't just see the 3-4 week listing and decide that, since it was longer than 15 days, the 60-day DL was the right option.

Still, this is new territory for me so I figure this is the place to turn. Do any of you have rules about 60-day DL usage? Would a move like this qualify as abuse of the 60-day DL? If not, what (if anything) would? If so, what do you do to handle these kinds of situations in your league?

[mikev]

Probably a judgement call on your part.

I'd probably have more of an issue with the guy being put on the 15 day DL and then just being left there all season.

[jazzrack]

If this guy indeed put him on the 60 for service time reasons I'd shake his hand for a heads-up call. It's not like he went to the trainer and asked for the guy to get a case of turf toe, he simply took advantage of an opprotunity. It soesn't sound like you have a rule against it so it's a valid move.

Now wether you should add a rule regulating something like this for the future depnds on you and your leagues character. Personaly i set mine up with as little regulation as possible, kind of a cut--throat free for all where you are encouraged by the lack of rules to take advantage of every opprotunity that arises. But you will have to find a solution that fits the character & values of your league.

Have an offseason discussion & vote or whatever format you use to decide league issues.

[Raidergoo]

There's not much you can do. The issue is within the rules of the game.

I do know this much. This sort of move by a team would dissolve any good will between the player and the team, make it near impossible to obtain a contract extension, and lead to a probable union grievance to obtain free agency.

Any move to discipline the player in your league now would be unfair. if you do not like this behavior, amend the league rules to prevent it happening again, as it will happen again.

[Corsairs]

Oh, I'm definitely not planning on retroactively punishing this owner for his move. As jazzrack mentioned, there's nothing currently in our rules against what he did, so one way or another this owner is in the clear this time. I'm more wondering about next time.

My thinking was sort of along Raidergoo's lines in that, if a team did this in real life, they'd probably be burning bridges with the player and drawing the ire of the Players' Union. From that perspective it seems like it might be worth it to put some kind of limitation on 60-day DL usage (but exactly what kind of limitation, I'm not entirely sure). On the other hand, monitoring a rule like that would take a bit of doing... I suppose it's an open question as to whether it's worth the effort or not.

For the record, we do have one DL rule in place that addresses what mikev mentioned: You have to remove a player from the DL once he's eligible to return within two sims of him returning to full health or suffer a small (but steady) CP penalty.

[littlechris1977]

Originally Posted by jazzrack

If this guy indeed put him on the 60 for service time reasons I'd shake his hand for a heads-up call. It's not like he went to the trainer and asked for the guy to get a case of turf toe, he simply took advantage of an opprotunity. It soesn't sound like you have a rule against it so it's a valid move.

Now wether you should add a rule regulating something like this for the future depnds on you and your leagues character. Personaly i set mine up with as little regulation as possible, kind of a cut--throat free for all where you are encouraged by the lack of rules to take advantage of every opprotunity that arises. But you will have to find a solution that fits the character & values of your league.

Have an offseason discussion & vote or whatever format you use to decide league issues.

And I thank you for that Jazz..

[jazzrack]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

Oh, I'm definitely not planning on retroactively punishing this owner for his move. As jazzrack mentioned, there's nothing currently in our rules against what he did, so one way or another this owner is in the clear this time. I'm more wondering about next time.

My thinking was sort of along Raidergoo's lines in that, if a team did this in real life, they'd probably be burning bridges with the player and drawing the ire of the Players' Union. From that perspective it seems like it might be worth it to put some kind of limitation on 60-day DL usage (but exactly what kind of limitation, I'm not entirely sure). On the other hand, monitoring a rule like that would take a bit of doing... I suppose it's an open question as to whether it's worth the effort or not.

For the record, we do have one DL rule in place that addresses what mikev mentioned: You have to remove a player from the DL once he's eligible to return within two sims of him returning to full health or suffer a small (but steady) CP penalty.

sounds to me like it wouldn't be out of character to consider a rule. I would be carefull to make sure the cure isn't worse than the problem. One I can see is if a rule is in place a situation may arise where a player gets hurt for 4 or 5 weeks but the 40 man roster spot is needed to bring up or sign a suitable replacement.

make a list of pros & cons and see what you think.?.



you are welcome lc

[Corsairs]

That sounds like a fair plan. I may discuss it with the group and see what they think. Ultimately if most people don't find it bothersome then I may let well enough alone. I'm not interested in pushing a rule down people's throat that they don't want, but to some extent it would be nice to insure that the 60-day DL is being used somewhat realistically.

Overall it sounds like most of you don't find this issue to be too concerning, so I'll proceed from that perspective myself. Thanks for the suggestions guys!

[HerbD]

My opinion...for what it's worth...a four week injury is a long ways away from a 60 day injury. I think to put a player on the 60 day DL, especially in an online league environment, the injury should be listed as longer than 60 days by the game.

[NCBeachBum]

Originally Posted by HerbD

My opinion...for what it's worth...a four week injury is a long ways away from a 60 day injury. I think to put a player on the 60 day DL, especially in an online league environment, the injury should be listed as longer than 60 days by the game.

Not a commish, but my two cents would be that it should be at least seven weeks. Since the game does not give it to you in days unless you are a commish, and because those long injuries so often get extended, and because the game does not currently give you the option of placing a player already on the 15-day onto the 60-day without starting the count over (something teams do quite often IRL), those extra 11 days or fewer can just be considered his minor league rehab time.

[johnnybourbon]

thanks for the "tip" guys. I snuck around a service time issue with my third baseman who is eligible for arbitration after this season (in my solo fictional league). He has a 7 week injury and I threw him on the 60 day just so I could avoid arbitration.
Who says cheating doesn't pay?!
but...i think you should put a rule against such maneuvers in your online league. two cents

[Kelric]

As a player, I like the workaround for an injury that's at least 7 weeks (before that just seems too much as exploiting the game). As a Commish, I hate crap like that.

I would probably talk to the player first and ask him not to do it again. If it happens a second time with that player, I'd probably come up with some sort of punishment and a new league rule.

I really dislike having rules outside of the game, but some people play the system rather than play the game.

[snnort]

I don't see an issue here. IMO... it's not enough of a unbalanced issue that will throw the league into total chaos if one or two GMs a season (at most) get the opportunity to pull a move like this on a player that is at least "average" in the majors, much less all-start level.

Having a team or two do this each season is not going to come even close to throwing things all out of balance in the league.

Making a rule and then having to police that rule is just extra work on a commissioner whether the commish catches it OR it's brought to the commissioners attention.

So the player in question misses out on bigger coin for one more season, that's simply the way the ball bounced.

I would simply go with the "move along, there's nothing more to see here" approach. Creating a specific rule for every kind of minor, blip on the radar will create more work and strife than it's worth.

Just my two cents.

[SC_Dawg]

Originally Posted by Kelric

some people play the system rather than play the game.

And that in a nutshell says it all. The question for me would be is the owner playing the game or playing the system. It is a judgement call by the commish.

If the player is playing the game. "I need the 40 man roster spot to bring up his replacement." Then I don't have that big of a problem with it.

If the player is playing the system. "I don't want this player going to arbitration or Free Agency this coming off season". Then I would have to say as the commish you have to use your "Best Interest of the League" powers and work out a solution that does indeed work for the best interest of the league. Which unfortunately is a matter of personal decision by the commish.

[EKomrska15]

Teams do this all the time by putting him in the minors (In real life) so he doesn't accrue time and then bring him up to get an extra year out of him. It was done with Kerry Wood and most recently Evan Longoria.

[Corsairs]

I would argue that there's a difference between optioning a player to the minors and placing him on the 60-day DL with no good cause. They may both achieve the same effect - halting the player's accumulation of service time - but there's a built-in limit to how many time a team can option a player. There is no such limit to 60-day DL use, so left unchecked a team could throw players on there whenever they wanted to avoid service time accumulation.

Real life players already get upset about being optioned to the minors - imagine how they'd react to being placed on the 60-day DL with a day-to-day injury! Of course no team would ever do that. They'd burn their bridges with the player and invite a grievance from the Players' Union.

Now whether OOTP leagues should allow it, that's up to the individual commissioners. I guess for me it's important enough that I'm willing to police 60-day DL usage. I want my owners to play the game but not necessarily "game the system", if you take my meaning. Others may take a more laissez faire attitude to the issue, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

[NCBeachBum]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

Real life players already get upset about being optioned to the minors - imagine how they'd react to being placed on the 60-day DL with a day-to-day injury! Of course no team would ever do that. They'd burn their bridges with the player and invite a grievance from the Players' Union.

Actually, the Union has in the past brought grievances against teams before Shyam Das for doing exactly that.

[Another Mike D]

Originally Posted by NCBeachBum

Actually, the Union has in the past brought grievances against teams before Shyam Das for doing exactly that.

+1

The Marlins are currently battling Anibal Sanchez (or somebody) for demoting him when he was hurt and putting him on the minor league DL. I try and discourage this in my league, but technically speaking there is nothing IRL stopping this except the union. I've frequently had GMs start the season with a stud in the minors for 1-2 sims to keep another year of arby. I technically allow it since the UBL has no union

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by HerbD

My opinion...for what it's worth...a four week injury is a long ways away from a 60 day injury. I think to put a player on the 60 day DL, especially in an online league environment, the injury should be listed as longer than 60 days by the game.

The problem I'd have with that is that a player's free agency status depends on the gravity of the injury. I don't think that's the way to go.

I wouldn't do anything about it, personally. I'm one of the guys who never lets a rookie start out a season, and I think any smart owner would use that strategy rather than "hope" for a long-term or late-season injury. So, basically, there is another way to get the same result, and that one is foolproof and hard to regulate against, unless you set up a rule that players cannot be called up until, say, May 15th, or else they get the same number of active days as if they'd been around since the start of the season. But, I wouldn't want to monitor that system .

As an owner, I had a guy getting a 3-4 week injury with 3 weeks to play. I out him on the 60-day DL immediately, and his contract doesn't run out. I just thought it would be one extra 40-man roster spot if anything should happen in the offseason, be it in the Rule 5 draft or acquisition via trade or free agency.

[kq76]

You guys might be interested in this thread.