Pitchers Justin Berg and Brian Schlitter were designated for assignment by the Cubs on Thursday, and pitcher Carlos Zambrano was added to the 40-man roster. Zambrano was taken off the 40-man roster when the Cubs determined that he would not be returning to the team for the final month. On Sept. 2, the Cubs announced Zambrano would not return after his 30-day suspension ended but that they would resume paying his salary. The suspension ran through Sept. 11. Zambrano was taken off the 40-man roster at that time so the Cubs weren’t limited in the number of players they had available. — Muskat (and every other beat writer)
No, that’s not how it works. Zambrano was added to the active roster today. The active roster is also known as the 25-man roster. When Z was suspended he was obviously removed from the 25-man roster, but he remained on the 40-man roster. The Cubs placed Zambrano on the disqualified list, which did not remove him from the 40-man. It allowed the Cubs to replace him without going over the 40-man limit. A player who is on the 60-day DL doesn’t take up a roster spot, but he’s still on the 40-man. For example, if you have 40 guys on the roster and 2 are on the 60-day DL, you can add 2 more players. This is what happened with Zambrano. At no time was he removed from that roster. He was removed from the active roster when he was no longer able to participate.
I think it’s a bit of semantics. The precise rule is that, when a guy goes on the Disqualified List, he “doesn’t count against the Reserved List or Active List limits.” Does that mean he is “off” of the Reserved List? Maybe not precisely. But he can’t be a part of the Active List at that time, he is not counted as one of the 40-man roster, and he’s not being paid.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc…
Except there are specific rules regarding how you remove a player from the 40-man roster, Brett. I think the best comparison here is a guy on the 40-man who is on the 60-day DL. He too doesn’t count toward the maximum of 40 and can be replaced, but he is still on the roster. In order to remove him you have to make him available to all other teams (waivers) at which point you can outright him to the minors.
Plus, it’s very, very likely he will end up being paid for the time he missed. I think the Cubs have a strong case, but rarely are teams able to not pay a player. So in all likelihood the Cubs will pay him, but I don’t think that’s an issue.
To me, it’s not about semantics, but about the rules related to removing a player from the 40-man roster. Also, I think the roster and transactions in general are the mostly misunderstood. I think there’s real value in getting something like this accurate. It makes people understand a few different things and knowledge is good. You understand the difference between the 40-man and active and I don’t think most fans do. You also then understand the process of removing someone from the 40-man roster and you understand that while the limit is 40, there are situations in which you can go over and most teams at one point or another are over that limit. I think the Cubs were up to 42 at one point this year. A few years back they were at 44.
It’s about accuracy to me. It’s just not accurate to say he’s removed from the 40-man roster and inaccurate statements lead to additional inaccuracies. It’s not a big deal, but I do feel this is information the beat writers should understand. I don’t expect most fans to. I don’t even expect any fans to. It’s not their job, but if I understand the difference, there’s no reason these guys (and gal) shouldn’t. It’s not something that requires intelligence to understand. It just requires them to become familiar with the rules and they are going to be writing about transactions a lot as they follow any MLB team.
Take for example, Brian Schlitter was on the 60-day DL and the rules state that he’s activated as soon as the season ends. Same with Zambrano. Yet for Schlitter they say he was activated and then released and with Zambrano they say he was added to the 40-man roster. Schlitter can’t be activated and Zambrano added to the 40-man roster. It’s one or the other. They say Schlitter was added to the 40-man and then released, I’d probably less of a quibble with this, but they’re treating the same transaction differently. I don’t think that does anybody (them or the fans) any good.
I’d like to congratulate Bubba Biscuit on winning the inaugural season of Discredited Fantasy Baseball and taking home the prestigious Alvin:
Those were some tags I recently enjoyed.
Read Muskat’s article on cubs.com. She says he was taken off so he wouldn’t take up a spot. Bullshit. Being on the disqualified list doesn’t take up a spot. This is what irritates me and probably a little more than it should. (dying laughing)
Fair enough, mb. I’m all for precision, and you are correct – the way it’s being described is lazy (or, at least, is playing dumb to the readership). For my part, I’m going to go be more precise on this.
Good talk.
Yanks fan getting tagged in the douchebag makers by Dan Johnson’s Game-tying HR? Yanks fan getting tagged in the douchebag makers by Dan Johnson’s game-tying HR:
I still can’t tell from that shot whether the fan was texting or trying to catch the ball and failing miserably.
Also, RC, the only things dumber than Gregg Easterbrook’s political opinions are his football opinions. I don’t even know how you read that dreck.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Also, RC, the only things dumber than Gregg Easterbrook’s political opinions are his football opinions. I don’t even know how you read that dreck.[/quote]He’s a bit different, that’s for sure. I usually glaze over all his cosmic and political stuff just to read about the football opinions. They amuse me (dying laughing)
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Also, RC, the only things dumber than Gregg Easterbrook’s political opinions are his football opinions. I don’t even know how you read that dreck.[/quote]
non sequitur, or did I miss something here?
Also seconded on Easterbrook being pants, however it came up
I swear I’m the only person I know that doesn’t mind reading Easterbrook.
[quote name=Berselius]non sequitur, or did I miss something here?[/quote]He wrote something about the Bears having stupid ego-driven coaches that I quoted somewhere in the past few threads.
[quote name=GBTS]I swear I’m the only person I know that doesn’t mind reading Easterbrook.[/quote]The thing I like most about Easterbrook is the gung-ho no-punt attitude, but other than that it’s just something to fill up the time while lunching.
The Bears problem isn’t ego. They don’t have NFL-caliber talent at any WR position, and maybe only at one OL position, plus they have no depth at DE, S, or LB. Aside from gems like Urlacher, they’ve drafted like utter shit since 2003 and it shows.
[quote name=Rice Cube] it’s just something to fill up the time while lunching.[/quote]Exactly. I never read the whole thing but I don’t mind glancing when I have time to kill.
[quote name=Rice Cube]The thing I like most about Easterbrook is the gung-ho no-punt attitude, but other than that it’s just something to fill up the time while lunching.[/quote]I’d rather be kicked in the groin while I lunch.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]The Bears problem isn’t ego. They don’t have NFL-caliber talent at any WR position, and maybe only at one OL position, plus they have no depth at DE, S, or LB. Aside from gems like Urlacher, they’ve drafted like utter shit since 2003 and it shows.[/quote]
And that one is injured, no less
[quote name=Berselius]And that one is injured, no less[/quote]Garza is okay, too. I wasn’t counting Carimi because he was hurt.
FWIW they did draft Jay Cutler, after a fashion
[quote name=Jerry Angelo]We’re not trying to outsmart anyone here.[/quote].
[quote name=Berselius]FWIW they did draft Jay Cutler, after a fashion[/quote]Well, they made the trade. But they’ve drafted awfully. They have one entire draft class, I think 06 or 07, of which almost none are even in the league anymore. of the players they drafted who currently feature, only Briggs, Urlacher, Tillman and Hester have made Pro Bowls. Only Urlacher has been voted in as a starter. There other “stars” are FA or trades. I look at GB and I envy what they’ve been able to do with draft. That team drafts so fucking well.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Well, they made the trade. But they’ve drafted awfully. They have one entire draft class, I think 06 or 07, of which almost none are even in the league anymore. of the players they drafted who currently feature, only Briggs, Urlacher, Tillman and Hester have made Pro Bowls. Only Urlacher has been voted in as a starter. There other “stars” are FA or trades. I look at GB and I envy what they’ve been able to do with draft. That team drafts so fucking well.[/quote]
It’s still kind of strange to me to hear that, even though the SB win last year was all about their depth given the roughly 4192 guys on the IR last season. Whenever I think of the Packers drafting I remember them whiffing on a zillion CB prospects like Ahmad Carroll.
I just looked back on their recent drafts and holy shit, they’ve been even better than I thought. http://www.databasefootball.com/draft/draftteam.htm?lg=nfl&tm=gnb
[quote name=Berselius]It’s still kind of strange to me to hear that, even though the SB win last year was all about their depth given the roughly 4192 guys on the IR last season. Whenever I think of the Packers drafting I remember them whiffing on a zillion CB prospects like Ahmad Carroll.
I just looked back on their recent drafts and holy shit, they’ve been even better than I thought. http://www.databasefootball.com/draft/draftteam.htm?lg=nfl&tm=gnb/quoteYeah, they draft better than anyone, to my mind. Pats, Ravens, Eagles, and Steelers do well, too.
It’s easy for the Pats to draft well when they stockpile a zillion picks (dying laughing)
[quote name=BrettBN]Fair enough, mb. I’m all for precision, and you are correct – the way it’s being described is lazy (or, at least, is playing dumb to the readership). For my part, I’m going to go be more precise on this.
Good talk.[/quote]You made me think more about it so I’m glad you came by. For what it’s worth, I don’t particularly care if fans or bloggers get this stuff right. It’s not easy. As I mentioned in the last thread, I spent hours and hours reading about transaction rules many years ago and what I didn’t get I kept searching. I wasn’t getting the information from the beat writers that I wanted so it was necessary for me to figure it all out. it’s complex and as fans or bloggers, it’s not necessarily our job to completely understand the rules. I just expect the beat writers to understand the basics and this is one of them. I’d never criticize a fan or blogger for not understanding the ins and outs of MLB transactions. I’d be lying if I said I understood them 100%. I don’t.
The Packers never did hit on a CB, all their top performers were FAs (Woodson, Harris, and less expensively Williams)
Listened to the Catching Hell podcast, and I echo b’s eye-rolling on the buckner-focus of the entire conversation. Even the author seemed to be more or less clueless regarding cubs fans and prevailing opinion on Bartman. Also, regardless of the stated noble intentions of the film, it’s hard to argue that bringing the incident back into the spotlight is not going to make things worse for the guy.
Also, Alex Gonzalez: the thinking man’s Steve Bartman.
Did anyone here get the season ticket renewal letter from the Cubs, and if so, would they mind sharing it with me?
ESPNChicago’s version:
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7036998/chicago-cubs-move-carlos-zambrano-back-40-man-roster
Normally I’d find it odd that every journalist was making the same basic mistake re: transactional procedure, and thus think that I was the one making the mistake, but based on what I know and what was posted here, it makes me wonder if they just saw it on Cubs.com and made their own conclusions.
Had I known this would be an issue I would’ve taken a screencap of the 40-man roster online list as soon as Z was taken off the disqualified list.
next cubs manager?
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/30/report-terry-francona-red-sox-to-part-ways/
[quote name=GW]next cubs manager?
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/30/report-terry-francona-red-sox-to-part-ways//quoteMaybe, maybe not.
[quote name=Suburban kid 22]Maybe, maybe not.[/quote]
It could go either way. It’s a 50-50 chance – prove me wrong.
Talking next year when the postseason isn’t even over yet? No thanks, I’ll wait a while.
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/30/team-chemistry-was-to-blame-for-the-sox-collapse-really/
*applause*
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]The Bears problem isn’t ego. They don’t have NFL-caliber talent at any WR position, and maybe only at one OL position, plus they have no depth at DE, S, or LB. Aside from gems like Urlacher, they’ve drafted like utter shit since 2003 and it shows.[/quote]Bingo. Angelo is the biggest issue with this team. And even given the “ego” issue with the coaches… if you’re going to hire those guys on, you had better tailor your talent to fit their schemes. Angelo doesn’t do that. He knows one way to win in football (tampa-2 defense, “managing the game” on offense). When he has inherited (Jauron) or hired (Martz) coaches that don’t fit that scheme, disaster ensues.
Almost time for the AlDS!
[quote name=GW]next cubs manager?
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/30/report-terry-francona-red-sox-to-part-ways//quoteI'd be happy.
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Almost time for the AlDS![/quote]I’d not be happy.
Francona to the Cubs?
new shit: http://www.obstructedview.net/articles/major-league-baseball/terry-francona-to-leave-boston.html