Jack is petitioning the league to cut Daniel Hudson, who has a complete tear of his ulnar collateral ligament and will require Tommy John surgery.
Hudson is a three-year keeper. Our league rules can be read here so you can see the only circumstances we allow for a keeper to be cut. We have had two prior instances of petitioning to cut a keeper:
• Chris's 2010 petition for Grady Sizemore was denied by the league.
• Jack's 2010 petition for Jake Peavy was allowed by the league.
(Coincidentally enough, Peavy's original injury opened up a spot for Hudson in the White Sox's rotation in 2010!)
After the jump, read Jack's petition to the league, and then e-mail me, comment or tell me in some form what your vote is. Majority rules and votes will be made public.
I would request consideration to be able to cut Daniel Hudson. He is scheduled for Tommy John surgery and the estimated timetable for return (if at all) is 1 year at the earliest. This puts him at missing the rest of this season and a minimum of half of next season.
I believe that this type of injury is exactly one of the kinds of scenarios that the rules were made to address (a player missing a minimum of 7 months due to injury).
I appreciate your consideration of this request.
Thank you. - Jack.
Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were going to address this after the Chris debacle. I think when we originally made the rule, it was for guys on the last year of their deal and if a guy had multiple years left, then if they were to be cut, draft picks would be lost. Maybe we just forgot but I think this is definitely something we should address going forward. On the one hand, I think if a guy is out a year or more, he should be able to be cut so he doesn't eat up a roster spot, but I think it should come with a penalty if he is on a multi-year deal. Since there is no stipulation currently in place, to my knowledge, for him to lose draft picks, my vote would be to deny the request but revisit in the offseason.
ReplyDeleteWe can't set a rule for every possible injury situation out there - that's why it's open for discussion and goes to league vote based on each circumstance. Plus, I think the precedent has been set well enough.
ReplyDeleteI am taking my same stance as I did when I voted no for Grady Sizemore - no because he is back healthy before the end of his keeper contract. And in this case, a whole season before the end of the contract.
I feel for Jack and the brutal injury, and certainly would be doing the same in his shoes if it happened to me. But in my opinion, this is unfortunately part of the risk you take when you sign a guy to a long contract. It's part of what, in theory, makes you think twice about handing out 3 year deals.
(And I use you as a second-person term, not in direct reference to Jack)
-Andy
Going off Bob and Andy's responses, it is of my belief that when addressing an issue that is loosely mentioned in the league rules, we must operate based off past precedents. That said, given the fact that Hudson will be back and healthy before the end of the contract, it is my belief that he should not be permitted to be cut without penalty.
ReplyDeleteIt is an unfortunate circumstance, but we have set this precedent already and must abide by it for the sake of league integrity.
-Hal
I agree allowing Hudson to be cut with the penalty of cutting a keeper with years left on the contract. The difference to me is cutting mid-season vs. end of season, which I'm fine with.
ReplyDeleteIf that's not an option, I vote for cutting Hudson and we need to do a better job amending the rule for next year.
-Shea
Plain and simple: Jack can cut him but there needs be a penalty and a big one. I'm thinking a high draft pick. Maybe 2nd or 3rd round. We should develop a tiered system. Cut a keeper in the middle of his first yr of a 3 yr deal- lose 2nd pick. Middle of 2 yr deal lose 4th pick , expiring contract- lose 6th pick. This is the danger in offering multi yr deals. You take a risk and that's that. Unless we can agree on some sort of penalty then he should not be allowed to cut
ReplyDeleteGuys -
ReplyDeleteWe are not changing the way things are done right now. We are not making any special exceptions where we have to go through two weeks of Mid-summer Meetings. The rule is the rule so deal with it.
I am not so sure what is so confusing about this - vote yes if you think Jack gets to cut him. Vote no if you think Jack doesn't get to cut him.
Joe - We are not coming up with some kind of tiered system for something like this. It is completely unnecessary. It's a KEEPER LEAGUE. You have to KEEP THREE PLAYERS YOU CHOSE TO. You can not cut keepers in-season unless there is a major injury, and only then it gets sent to other managers for league votes. We have strict rules in place for offseason cutting.
Shea - he is a 3-year keeper. We have rules in place that allow Jack to cut him in the offseason and he'd be penalized a high draft pick. All that information is available in the League Rules page that I linked.
We went through this twice in 2010 and it ironed itself out. Everyone said we need to do a better job of the rule that time around - no one brought it up in the offseason.
I don't think anyone has a problem with Jack cutting Hudson but rather the lack of penalty that will incur. Since it is how the rule currently stands and this is the type of injury that the rule was written for I vote that Jack can cut Hudson. We'll amend the rule in the off-season.
ReplyDeleteAndy- then as I said in my message, he should not be allowed to cut him. It was a suggestion. It's a risk you take signing keepers to long term deals, I am a capitalist.
ReplyDelete