60-day DL question

by FavoriteSpring on Dec 14, 2006 8:38 PM PST Comment 11 comments

Does anyone know what is the earliest date that teams can place players on the 60-day DL?

Right now the Giants' roster is at 39, and Bonds will make it 40 - meaning that (barring a trade) we can't sign anyone else to a major league contract without DFA'ing and possibly losing a young player (as in: Burres, Coutlangus and Chavez last offseason). Metheny and Merkin will definitely be placed on the 60-day list to free up a couple of spots on the 40-man roster - but how soon can that happen?

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: 60-day DL question

~ mar 27, methinks

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Dec 14, 2006 9:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 60-day DL question

I know nothing about baseball rules and politics. If Matheny isn't coming back, why would he still be on the roster? Wouldn't he most likely retire? How does that work out?

-D

by dw4848 on Dec 15, 2006 12:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 60-day DL question

As long as he doesn't retire as a player, the Giants still have him under contract as a major league player for a year, which is why he takes a spot on the 40-man. If he does retire, is released, is traded, or is placed on the DL, that spot will be relinquished for as long as the move is in effect (for all but the DL, permanently).

The Giants won't release or trade him. By signing Molina they are obviously saying that they don't expect Matheny will play again or don't want him on the field much. If he retires he might come in as a coach, but it doesn't look like he's retiring any time soon (and really, give up free money?).

Coming to you by proxy

by howtheyscored on Dec 15, 2006 1:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 60-day DL question

It looks like Matheney will get put on the 60 Day DL and be paid in full. No retirement. So says the Chronicle.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix

by GiantJim on Dec 15, 2006 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 60-day DL question

I asked this very question a couple months ago to someone who knows the MLB Rulebook better than anyone else I know, and he didn't know the answer. I think we did find a transaction in the last couple years of a player being placed on the 60-day DL in early March.

by steve S on Dec 15, 2006 8:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks. Looks like we're screwed.

Thanks for the answers. If the earliest the Giants can put Metheny and Merkin on the 60-day DL is in March - and if Irwin and Steve think so, then I'm sure that's right - we're once again in bad roster-management shape, as we were last winter. Any additional signing - a starter (Zito, Suppan, Wells, Chen, Weaver?), reliever (Brocail, Riske?), first baseman (Klesko, Huff?), whatever - will entail DFA'ing and very likely losing a young player. That is, unless we trade away more roster players than we get back in return.

by FavoriteSpring on Dec 15, 2006 1:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 60-day DL question

Also, Mando and Sweeney (if Klesko is signed) may be traded for minor leaguers.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix

by GiantJim on Dec 15, 2006 5:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 60-day DL question

The rules regarding the DL and the 40-man are basically secret. It supposedly isn't to hide anything, but just because they don't think we will care.

I do know that a player has to be taken off the DL. I am pretty sure that you can just leave a guy on the 60-day DL for more than 60 days if you just don't remove him.

"Players may be placed on either disabled list retroactively for a minimum of 10 inactive days and may remain on either list for as long as required to recover."

So basically, a player cannot return to the roster before the 60 days are up, but he can stay on there longer.

Matheny is probably still on the 60-day DL, even though he has been on there for greater than 60 days. He probably doesn't count against the 40-man roster right now.

by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Dec 16, 2006 8:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 60-day DL question

Oh - and this, from the BR Bullpen:

In addition, a team must return all players on the 60-day disabled list to the Major League roster, or risk losing them.

In this case, there is no risk of losing Matheny, so he didn't have to be returned to the Major League Roster. I bet that he is still on the 60-day because there is no fear of losing him. Therefore, he wouldn't take up a 40-man spot.

by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Dec 16, 2006 8:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not the case

I don't know about that, North Side. Every winter around early November (that is, when rosters have to be set for the rule 5 draft) teams activate whoever was on their 60-day DL. In many, many years of following the Giants closely, I don't recall them ever keeping someone on the 60-day DL over the offseason.

In any case, the Giants's website lists the following transaction for Nov. 1, 2006:

"Activated RHPs Armando Benitez, Kelyn Acosta and Tim Worrell and C Mike Matheny from the 60-day disabled list."

So Matheny has been activated and does now count against the 40-man roster. And Merkin was never placed on the DL to begin with. The Giants roster is at 39, and Bonds will be 40.

by FavoriteSpring on Dec 16, 2006 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs