Why would a team delay placing a player on the 60 day IL?

Luis Robert is going to be out for several months, the team has already acknowledged as much.

I’m trying to suspend my obvious bias and understand what an MLB team has to gain by placing him on the 10 day IL instead of the 60 day IL.

Yea, I understand the wanting to increase service time or pay a player more than you have to, but you also aren’t required to fill said opened spot. Just leave the roster at 39 players…

It just seems like placing an injured player on the 10 IL who you know will go to the 60 IL may as well just be place on the 60 IL from the start… perhaps there is a slight benefit to the injured player? Does he get more $ by staying on 40 man roster?

No, players are paid the same regardless if they’re on the MLB 10 or 60 day ILs. They also accrue MLB service time. There are some wonky implications from being on the IL for Rule 5 guys in terms of whether they’re on the roster long enough to satisfy the requirement of being on an MLB roster for a full year.

What players don’t want is to be demoted and then placed on the 7 day MiLB IL, because then they’re not accruing service time or earning the MLB minimum. That’s happened in the past and is usually resolved via a grievance, although I can’t think of a recent example.

1 Like

No reason to take Robert off the 40 man roster unless you need to fill the roster spot. Not sure Rick Hahn is particularly looking out for Ottoneu managers.

I found a more satisfying answer:

If a club doesn’t need a 40-man roster spot to replace an injured player, the player may be kept on the 10-day injured list longer than 60 days rather than being transferred to the 60-day injured list. That way, the club won’t need to risk losing another player by going through the process to clear a spot on the 40-man roster when the injured player is ready to return.

1 Like