What to do

[Otto von Ballpark]

Full disclose, I don't read over the MLB rules often, this is just something I have heard repeated about a million times (tv/radio-not just Twins, but other broadcasts). It could still be wrong. I don't think I've ever seen any team 60 day someone without immediately making a move to add someone, so what they have said has always seemed legit.

 

Then again, things get reported wrong and it happens repeatedly until someone says different so I don't know 100% for sure, but it's what I've heard my entire life.

 

If it's not a rule, it's the only common sense way to do it. It's not optimal to always carry 40 healthy guys on your roster. You add guys when you have to, or when you want/need them, not simply anytime you have an opening or potential opening.

 

Even the rule stating your 40-man has to be full to put a player on the 60-day DL seems unnecessary -- there is no benefit to stockpiling open 40-man roster spots during the season (and the DL does not exist in the offseason).

 

In this case, I think the Twins simply decided they don't want/need Romero, at least not as much as Florimon. Which is still debatable, just not any kind of obvious roster mismanagement.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Didn't Puckett ride the 60 day DL long after he was forced to retire?

[Twins33]

Didn't Puckett ride the 60 day DL long after he was forced to retire?

I think the rule is, now, that you have to be removed from it in the offseason. So you can't have a guy on the 60 day in November. I'm not sure if there were any rules like that back then or what the situation was.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Didn't Puckett ride the 60 day DL long after he was forced to retire?

 

Quite possibly. Retired players are sometimes kept on 40-man rosters (and 60-day DLs) for awhile for insurance purposes. Albert Belle is a common example -- I think he was rostered for two whole seasons after retirement.

 

Still, they are essentially active all winter, then placed on the 60-day DL as soon as the season starts. Would be interesting to look back and see if those teams immediately replaced Belle or Puckett, or if they just went down to 39 guys on the 40-man. I suspect they immediately replaced them since it was the beginning of the season and most teams keep full 40 man rosters at that point anyway.

[DuluthFan]

There is no point in moving someone to the 60 day DL unless you needed the roster spot immediately. Until the Twins decide they want to add someone to the roster, the 15 day DL works just as well.

 

Remember the issues that came up earlier this season with Bartlett's roster spot? Had they had an eligible player to shift to the 60 day DL at that time, they could have avoided losing a player then.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Remember the issues that came up earlier this season with Bartlett's roster spot? Had they had an eligible player to shift to the 60 day DL at that time, they could have avoided losing a player then.

 

So, they could have shifted Bartlett to the 60-day DL to claim Fuld and kept Mastroianni, then let Bartlett retire, right? THAT was roster mismanagement. Would love to ask Antony or TR details about that. (I know they said the retirement paperwork couldn't be processed until Monday -- don't know if that means it was already irreversibly submitted, but then the lesson there should be that you should never submit retirement paperwork until it can be processed immediately. Especially when Fuld was already DFA'd and could become available on waivers at anytime.)

 

Now, thankfully, we seem to be back to debating player evaluations and not our front office's clerical competence!