How far are we from the Disaster Draft?

There's a little known codicil in the Faber College constitution...I mean, the Major League Baseball Rule Book, called the MLB Restocking Draft.

Less formally known as the Disaster Draft, it says that if a team loses five or more players to "death, dismemberment or permanent disability" during the season every other team has to offer up a pool of five active players from their 40-man roster (one infielder, one outfielder, one pitcher, one catcher, and one of any position) for the team suffering the disaster to select from.

Players on the injured list (kind of defeats the purpose) and players with no-trade clauses are exempt from being chosen by their team for the draft. A player can waive his no-trade and be eligible.

As far as we know, none of the SEVENTEEN Cubs currently on their injured list are officially "dead, dismembered or permanently disabled" but Jameson Taillon is pretty close to two of the three.

How many injured players equal five dead ones? I mean, it has to be less than 17, right?

Shouldn't Jed Hoyer demand Rob Manfred order a Disaster Draft so the Cubs can restock the roster?

I mean, is the commissioner going to tell Jed that this active pitching staff doesn't qualify as a disaster?

It's fun that when you search for "Disaster Draft" on Google one of the top results is a Rockies' fan Reddit thread where they discuss if the team should kill five of their own players to initiate one.

I can't honestly come up with a good argument against it.

On Monday's broadcast, Taylor McGregor did a report from the dugout where she did a breaking news report that the Cubs have acquired one of these:

If you're afraid to ask what it is, I don't blame you. It turns out it's a "palm cooler." Nobody loves their junk science quite like the Cubs. According to the manufacturer, Apex Cool Labs (sure, whatever), it's "a powerful, patented palm cooling device for heat stress mitigation, in-game recovery, and accelerated strength and conditioning results."

It's called, "The Narwhal" because...sure. It costs $199 for one, or "just" $398 for two. I really do love it when companies offer two for the price of two.

Apex says The Narwhal's are 11 inches long, which makes Taylor's hands intimidatingly large.

You know what's going to happen. Somebody on that team is going on the injured list tomorrow with frostbite on their hands. I think we know who the best is. We've seen Kevin Alcantheriot's judgement on the bases, he's pretty well doomed here.

Speaking of The Jagoffuar, he's back with the team because among the current players on the injured list is the rare position player. Matt Shaw's playing time was curiously curtailed over the weekend in Milwaukee, and now we know why. He went on the IL Monday with a sprained left wrist. Left? Somebody's a big fan of The Stranger.

Anyway, back to the Disaster Draft. The Cubs would get to select as many players as they lost to death, dismemberment or permanent disability. So if, Manfred decides that 17 injured Cubs is equivalent to five dead ones, Jed gets to pick five new guys.

Teams can only lose one player, so no double dipping.

I think it's worth a shot. Just don't let Carter fill out the paperwork, it's so hard to read crayon on those things.

Speaking of MLB rules, it turns out my very confident column last week on why Petecrow and Ronny Cedeno were victims of shoddy, overzealous umpiring might have been...wrong?

Huh?

First off, let's hear from intrepid reader Paul C. who posted this in the comments on that column last week.

Yikes, this has created quite the texting debate within my family. The common assumption is, with the exception of running through first, if you're off the base you can be tagged out. Now, looking at the rules there definitely is language about a runner not "being in jeopardy" if forced to another base via a walk to the batter. Then there is other language about a runner, after establishing a "position" at a base, is then "in jeopardy" of being tagged out. Does touching the base after a walk establish the runners position at that base? If so, he can be tagged out, whether he walked to the base and touched it or slid through it and touched it, it seems regardless whether or not he made a move towards the next unforced base. I can't find a clear rule about this particular type of play, nor what constitutes establishing a runners position at a base.

I agree, it's confusing, and it shouldn't be, but baseball is letting it be a gray area when they could easily make it black and white. Neither Petecrow or Ronny did anything other than slide into the base they were already free to assume. They didn't try to go to third. And neither second base umpire called them out. In Ronny's case, Tony LaRussa and David Eckstein narc'd on him, in Petecrow's case Dead Mets' Manager Walking Carlos Mendoza challenged the no-call.

I can't believe that in all these years these are the only two Cubs this has happened to. Think of all the terrible baserunners they've had. How can it just be one good one (Pete) and one noted idiot (Ronny)? That's it? Just them?

Guess who did this same fucking thing in 2023? How could we possibly forget? It's just the guy you'd expect, too.

Yes. It was Nick Madrigal.

The narrator on this video brings in another part of the ruling. Past v. prior. No, not Mark Prior.

It's the method umpires use to determine if a player has gone past a base and needs to retag on his way back to his previous base if a ball is caught in the air.

In this case, the narrator makes a case that it doesn't matter that Madrigal came off the bag with his tiny baby shoes because he never was "past" the bag. Using that methodology, Petecrow was safe last week, but Ronny, who was sliding into left field, was out.

I'll take it.

It's so great it happened to little Nicky. I must have literally slept right through it at the time.

OK, so I feel vindicated.

But then I found out I'm not.

The actual rule in the rulebook is still confusing. Here's the one that applies. Rule 5.09 (b)(6), it states:

He or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner. However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out. The force is removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be tagged to be put out. However, if the forced runner, after touching the next base, retreats for any reason towards the base he had last occupied, the force play is reinstated, and he can again be put out if the defense tags the base to which he is forced;

Huh? How does that give us any guidance? This? The force is removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be tagged to be put out.

That doesn't say anything about briefly losing contact with a bag, or past prior, or trying to advance to the next base. So it proves nothing.

Well, then the rule book has a "comment." And those stupid fuckers should just spell this out in a rule instead of putting in the shaded part of the rule book that nobody reads.

Rule 5.09(b)(6) Comment:

PLAY—Runner on first and three balls on batter: Runner steals on the next pitch, which is fourth ball, but after having touched second he overslides or overruns that base. Catcher’s throw catches him before he can return. Ruling is that runner is out. (Force out is removed.)

Oh, bullshit.

So now I'm not mad at the umpires for calling this (although the only time in these three Cubs' plays that the umpire called the runner out was Madrigal), I'm mad at the stupid rule.