Antonelli Claimed By Yankees

[El Gordo]

1. I'm sure they are very aware of the rule, i think they (or Angelos) has made the decision that Roberts needs to be in the dugout during games. (I disagree).

2. Doesn't matter if you think Roberts will contribute more than Antonelli, moving B-Rob to the 60 day you could have both, and not lose any time with Roberts since he won't be back before the 60 days is up anyway.

How do you know this? And what does being on the 60 day have to do with his being in the dugout?

[osfan83]

How do you know this? And what does being on the 60 day have to do with his being in the dugout?

1 B-Rob can be put on the 60 day restroactive to the beginning ofthe season. 60 day would make him eligable to come off in early June. I don't think Brian will be on the O's active roster in the next 2-3 weeks.

2. I don't think he can be in the dugout during the games if he is not on the 40 man. So as far as I can tell, the only reason for him to remain on the 40 man and off the 60 day is so he can be in the dugout during games.

[NCRaven]

I think that the belief that it doesn't matter whether Roberts is "better" than Antonelli is relevant in this process may be correct. But, it doesn't change my basic premise that Duquette fully understands how to use the 60-day disabled list to manage his roster and he's made a decision not to use it on Roberts. And, he's decided that it was worth losing Antonelli to keep Roberts off the 60-day. I don't know the reason, but I'm fairly confident that Duquette has one. I don't think Angelos has anything to do with it and I'm pretty sure it makes no difference about Roberts traveling and being with the team.

[El Gordo]

1 B-Rob can be put on the 60 day restroactive to the beginning ofthe season. 60 day would make him eligable to come off in early June. I don't think Brian will be on the O's active roster in the next 2-3 weeks.

2. I don't think he can be in the dugout during the games if he is not on the 40 man. So as far as I can tell, the only reason for him to remain on the 40 man and off the 60 day is so he can be in the dugout during games.

Can you point out the rule that says he can't be in the dug out if he is not on the 40 man. Brady is in the dugout and he isn't on the 40 man. Also does the 60 day include his MiL rehab time?

[osfan83]

I think that the belief that it doesn't matter whether Roberts is "better" than Antonelli is relevant in this process may be correct. But, it doesn't change my basic premise that Duquette fully understands how to use the 60-day disabled list to manage his roster and he's made a decision not to use it on Roberts. And, he's decided that it was worth losing Antonelli to keep Roberts off the 60-day. I don't know the reason, but I'm fairly confident that Duquette has one. I don't think Angelos has anything to do with it and I'm pretty sure it makes no difference about Roberts traveling and being with the team.

Speculate. What could the reason be if (1) Roberts will not be on the active roster within 60 days of the start of the season (2) Him being in the dugout has nothing to do with his 40 man status? What possible reason could they have to take up that roster spot other than allowing him to be in the dugout.

[Frobby]

1. I'm sure they are very aware of the rule, i think they (or Angelos) has made the decision that Roberts needs to be in the dugout during games. (I disagree).

I strongly suspect there is some nuanced reason why BRob is not on the 60-day list that we are not aware of. One thing that isn't clear to me is whether an assignment to the 60-day list can be retroactive, so that the 60 days begins from Opening Day and could end early in June, or whether it has to be prospective, in which case putting BRob on the list now would have required him to stay out until mid-July. I don't see any rule that says a player on the 60-day DL can't be in the dugout. Rule 3.17 says disabled players may be in the dugout, and it does not specify only the 15-day DL.

[El Gordo]

Speculate. What could the reason be if (1) Roberts will not be on the active roster within 60 days of the start of the season (2) Him being in the dugout has nothing to do with his 40 man status? What possible reason could they have to take up that roster spot other than allowing him to be in the dugout.

I think it has to do with not being locked into any specific time table with Brian. If he is on the 15 day DL he is eligible to tome off whenever he is ready. They don't have to speculate specifically when that is, and he can take it day to day. I really don't know of any rule about whether he can be in the dugout or not if he is on the 60 day, and apparently neither do you, or you would source it.

[Can_of_corn]

I think it has to do with not being locked into any specific time table with Brian. If he is on the 15 day DL he is eligible to tome off whenever he is ready. They don't have to speculate specifically when that is, and he can take it day to day. I really don't know of any rule about whether he can be in the dugout or not if he is on the 60 day, and apparently neither do you, or you would source it.

If he is on the 60 day he can come off whenever he is ready, assuming he isn't ready in the next 16 days which no one is speculating he might be.

It matters to me not one nit if he can sit in the dugout and watch games instead of watching from a seat or booth.

[El Gordo]

If he is on the 60 day he can come off whenever he is ready, assuming he isn't ready in the next 16 days which no one is speculating he might be.

It matters to me not one nit if he can sit in the dugout and watch games instead of watching from a seat or booth.

Do you know if the 60 day can be retroactive, as Frobby asked?

[Can_of_corn]

Do you know if the 60 day can be retroactive, as Frobby asked?

It was for Teagarden.

[hoosiers]

I strongly suspect there is some nuanced reason why BRob is not on the 60-day list that we are not aware of.

Perhaps. It would be nice if the FO could convey their thinking to a reporter (or a reporter could ask) so we could understand why we are not protecting all our assets (even ones that might not appear productive) when avenues appear to exist to do so.

[sangar]

Say we would have put Roberts on the 60 day and kept both. Next, say Roberts is ready to come off in a couple weeks and give playing a serious try. What do we do then? DFA Antonelli? I understand what you guys are saying and you wish we would have squeezed every last moment out of a mediocre player for Norfolk, but who cares?

[Can_of_corn]

Say we would have put Roberts on the 60 day and kept both. Next, say Roberts is ready to come off in a couple weeks and give playing a serious try. What do we do then? DFA Antonelli? I understand what you guys are saying and you wish we would have squeezed every last moment out of a mediocre player for Norfolk, but who cares?

Then again maybe in the next three weeks Andino or Hardy goes down, or Reimold doesn't improve and gets moved to the 60 day.

Lots of things could happen. You don't make moves like that until you have exhausted all other options.