Out Out, Brief Panda: Pablo To Have Shoulder Surgery

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I have to imagine surgery means he is done for the season and I also expect they have the contract insured, which means more money to spend at the deadline. If surgery is not required, then at least I would expect a 60 day DL which frees up a roster spot. Will be on the hook for his salary though if he comes back this year off the DL. Next year, a slimmed down Pablo with a healthy shoulder might be in a position to improve his trade value . If not, they can consider a release
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
11,624
The Coney Island of my mind
I have to imagine surgery means he is done for the season and I also expect they have the contract insured, which means more money to spend at the deadline. If surgery is not required, then at least I would expect a 60 day DL which frees up a roster spot. Will be on the hook for his salary though if he comes back this year off the DL. Next year, a slimmed down Pablo with a healthy shoulder might be in a position to improve his trade value . If not, they can consider a release
Given the likely premium, there's no real reason to assume this, and in any case, it doesn't reduce the cost against the cap.

I don't know why anyone would expect a post-surgical, seemingly food-addicted Panda will show up in camp looking like anything resembling "slimmed down."
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,421
Not here
Given the likely premium, there's no real reason to assume this, and in any case, it doesn't reduce the cost against the cap.

I don't know why anyone would expect a post-surgical, seemingly food-addicted Panda will show up in camp looking like anything resembling "slimmed down."
Because at some point you'd think he'd do whatever her had to to keep playing.

Of course, his grandkids won't have to work so who the hell knows?
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
Panda to the 60 DL is about as good as we`ll get for Panda this year. The roster spot at this point is the silver lining in all this. Deep depth.
 

joyofsox

empty, bleak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
7,552
Vancouver Island
Report: The Giants Banned Hotel Room Service For Pablo Sandoval So He Wouldn't Overeat

Sean McAdam: "I’ll tell you another anecdote. This is how concerned the Giants were when he played for them ... they would make special arrangements at the hotel the Giants were staying in to not allow him to order room service. They would tell the front desk management, “If he calls down for room service at night after games, do not send anything to this room.” They went to great measures to try to cut down on those eating binges, and it would only work for a time because he would find someplace to get food."
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,538
CT
Shouldn't we have had Allan Baird trail him for 7 months so he could have found this stuff out pre-contract?
 

nam

New Member
Apr 17, 2016
1
I don't buy that they'd cut him even if he wasn't injured. They'll get him Jenny Craig'd and let him play a little first to salvage some value, then trade him for pennies on the dollar.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
You'd think someone in the cherington FO would've just stood up and said "wait, do we really want to give $95m to a declining, overweight, sensitive and simple guy to play 3b in Boston?!?!?"

It seems like the common sense judge was missing for a few weeks there
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
You'd think someone in the cherington FO would've just stood up and said "wait, do we really want to give $95m to a declining, overweight, sensitive and simple guy to play 3b in Boston?!?!?"

It seems like the common sense judge was missing for a few weeks there
I think this is probably exactly the case that Henry was thinking of when he told reporters back in February that the Sox had over-relied on analytics and projections in player evaluation. The numbers probably said that the Panda deal was a solid investment, but if ever there was a case for stepping back from the numbers and looking at other things, this was it.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
This signing never made any sense. This is just the worst case scenario, but not at all unpredictable. Henry might as well have lit that money on fire. Then it wouldn't count against the soft cap.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,494
I have to imagine surgery means he is done for the season and I also expect they have the contract insured, which means more money to spend at the deadline. If surgery is not required, then at least I would expect a 60 day DL which frees up a roster spot. Will be on the hook for his salary though if he comes back this year off the DL. Next year, a slimmed down Pablo with a healthy shoulder might be in a position to improve his trade value . If not, they can consider a release
I haven't looked at this in a while but IIRC, insurance is only available for instances where a player can't play anymore, not jußt for single season incidents.

And even that is very expensive as PrN says.
 

derekson

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2010
6,224
Insurance usually just requires a certain %age of days on the DL during the season as far as I've ever read.

I'm not sure a contract like that would be insured nowadays though.
 

pantsparty

Member
SoSH Member
May 2, 2011
554
You'd think someone in the cherington FO would've just stood up and said "wait, do we really want to give $95m to a declining, overweight, sensitive and simple guy to play 3b in Boston?!?!?"

It seems like the common sense judge was missing for a few weeks there
Well he wasn't really declining when the Sox signed him. He was 28, his three prior seasons he had wRC+ of 118, 117, and 112, and his defense was a positive.

Then he came to Boston and had the worst season of his career and was (by fWAR) the worst player in baseball.

The Sox needed a third baseman. Middlebrooks was terrible and the closest 3B prospect was starting the season in Greenville. In retrospect should they have signed someone else? Yes, obviously. But I don't think the decision was as stupid as it gets made out to be.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
I think the fact that he had a body type that gave red flags for collapse and had already collapsed against LHP in 2014 would lead anyone to consider that he would be at a relatively high risk for a relatively quick overall collapse. I didn't expect it to be immediate but I think most of us thought there was a probability he'd be a zero value player before the end of his contract. I think there's about a 20% chance he plays five games in a row for the Red Sox ever again.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I think the fact that he had a body type that gave red flags for collapse and had already collapsed against LHP in 2014 would lead anyone to consider that he would be at a relatively high risk for a relatively quick overall collapse. I didn't expect it to be immediate but I think most of us thought there was a probability he'd be a zero value player before the end of his contract. I think there's about a 20% chance he plays five games in a row for the Red Sox ever again.
I doubt there were many people at all who didn't think he'd be a zero value player by the end of his contract (it is the nature of long term FA deals after all), but there's no way people were expecting him to be a zero value player from day one of his contract. If he's something closely resembling the player he was in 2014 over the first two years of the deal, he's at least bringing something to the table. Even with his body type, expecting him to maintain age 27 performance through his age 28 and 29 seasons wasn't exactly wishing for the impossible.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Totally agree and I think this was a GFIN signing by BC. One of the problems from the outset was that he didn't really have the bat to be the first baseman or the DH so he'd have to have been able to stick at third for five years while still hitting OK. The hitting was one thing but I never expected him to be a crappy fielder in year one.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Well he wasn't really declining when the Sox signed him. He was 28, his three prior seasons he had wRC+ of 118, 117, and 112, and his defense was a positive.

Then he came to Boston and had the worst season of his career and was (by fWAR) the worst player in baseball.

The Sox needed a third baseman. Middlebrooks was terrible and the closest 3B prospect was starting the season in Greenville. In retrospect should they have signed someone else? Yes, obviously. But I don't think the decision was as stupid as it gets made out to be.
Think harder.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,537
In retrospect should they have signed someone else?
Ideally someone who had also played third base in the National League West. Perhaps in Los Angeles, which is a big market and all. What would make the candidate even greater is if he came up through the Red Sox minor league system, was traded to get the final pieces of a World Series championship team, won a Rookie of the Year trophy with that other team, finished second in the NL MVP race a few years later and didn't have to shift to a completely alien position, thereby worsening two areas of the team at the same time.

But where would Ben Cherington have found a person that fit all of those qualifications?
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Ideally someone who had also played third base in the National League West. Perhaps in Los Angeles, which is a big market and all. What would make the candidate even greater is if he came up through the Red Sox minor league system, was traded to get the final pieces of a World Series championship team, won a Rookie of the Year trophy with that other team, finished second in the NL MVP race a few years later and didn't have to shift to a completely alien position, thereby worsening two areas of the team at the same time.

But where would Ben Cherington have found a person that fit all of those qualifications?
No one like that could have been available. Certainly not for less guaranteed money and years than Panda required.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
Ideally someone who had also played third base in the National League West. Perhaps in Los Angeles, which is a big market and all. What would make the candidate even greater is if he came up through the Red Sox minor league system, was traded to get the final pieces of a World Series championship team, won a Rookie of the Year trophy with that other team, finished second in the NL MVP race a few years later and didn't have to shift to a completely alien position, thereby worsening two areas of the team at the same time.

But where would Ben Cherington have found a person that fit all of those qualifications?
Hanley Ramirez played 8 games at third base in his entire Dodgers career. He's played less than 100 games at third base in his entire life and according to Fangraphs he put up a UZR/150 of -6.8. And that's without the consideration that I believe that Hanley has lost some throwing power due to a shoulder injury that made it questionable whether he could actually play third base anymore.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,537
Hanley Ramirez played 8 games at third base in his entire Dodgers career. He's played less than 100 games at third base in his entire life and according to Fangraphs he put up a UZR/150 of -6.8. And that's without the consideration that I believe that Hanley has lost some throwing power due to a shoulder injury that made it questionable whether he could actually play third base anymore.
Huh. Consider egg on my face. Mea culpa.

He did play 90 games at third for the Marlins in 2012.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
A lot changes in 4 years. Mike Napoli had plenty of catching experience throughout his tenure in LAA and Texas, and we still couldn't put him behind the plate because his body had changed since then. And look what happened when they put Youkilis (who was already having some minor injury problems as a first baseman and part time 3B) back at third base full time in his early 30's and the extra physical demands of playing the position full time literally destroyed him.

I think you need to have a better argument for the viability of a player at a position than "he used to play there." Panda used to be a catcher. I note we didn't even bother to try that solution.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,537
A lot changes in 4 years. Mike Napoli had plenty of catching experience throughout his tenure in LAA and Texas, and we still couldn't put him behind the plate because his body had changed since then. And look what happened when they put Youkilis (who was already having some minor injury problems as a first baseman and part time 3B) back at third base full time in his early 30's and the extra physical demands of playing the position full time literally destroyed him.

I think you need to have a better argument for the viability of a player at a position than "he used to play there." Panda used to be a catcher. I note we didn't even bother to try that solution.
Is this directed to me? Dude, I said you were right and I was wrong about Hanley playing third. I'm not arguing anything. You won the internet today, so relax.
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,187
If Pablo is on the DL the entire, without a food babysitter, he could show up to Fort Myers in 2017 at 400 pounds.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
This signing never made any sense. This is just the worst case scenario, but not at all unpredictable. Henry might as well have lit that money on fire. Then it wouldn't count against the soft cap.
Think harder.
Could you refer me to your optometrist so that I can get 20/20 hindsight like yours? Not all failed bets are the result of stupidity or character flaws in the risk-taker.

With an open position in the lineup, every decision against signing someone is itself a decision that limits our other options going forward. You need nobody's help in understanding opportunity cost, but perhaps a reminder of our decision framework back then is in order. There were no obviously great deals available in FA, by trade, or in our farm system at the time (as best I recall - maybe there were a few blocked top 3B prospects in other systems, but something tells me that for all his warts, Cherington almost certainly barked up that tree). Kris Bryant, Joey Gallo, Maikel Franco and Miguel Sano were not walking through that door - they were all prized possessions of low-to-medium-budget teams who lacked strong 3B incumbents.

Signing Yasmany Tomas fresh out of Cuba was a debate, but like 10% of people here favored him over Panda (and with the emergence of Jake Lamb at 3B - himself a ~95 OPS+ guy - Tomas has been played primarily at RF anyway). No plausible 3B trades were rumored, to the best of my knowledge, although some proposed moving X to 3B and making Holt the full-time SS or promoting Marrero. There were no lower risk options, short of selling the farm and getting totally taken in a deal.

Yeah, it sucks when a risk doesn't pan out, but acting like that outcome was obvious in advance is neither helpful nor, in this case, accurate.

edit: typed too fast, thanks IP
 
Last edited:

inoffensiv philosophy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
144
York, UK.
Signing Yasmany Tomas fresh out of Cuba was a debate, but like 10% of people here favored him over Panda (and with the emergence of Mike Lamb at 3B - himself a ~95 OPS+ guy - Tomas has been played primarily at RF anyway).
That's Jake Lamb. Mike Lamb is emerging as a league average used car salesman / restaurant owner somewhere in Texas, I believe.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Could you refer me to your optometrist so that I can get 20/20 hindsight like yours? Not all failed bets are the result of stupidity or character flaws in the risk-taker.

With an open position in the lineup, every decision against signing someone is itself a decision that limits our other options going forward. You need nobody's help in understanding opportunity cost, but perhaps a reminder of our decision framework back then is in order. There were no obviously great deals available in FA, by trade, or in our farm system at the time (as best I recall - maybe there were a few blocked top 3B prospects in other systems, but something tells me that for all his warts, Cherington almost certainly barked up that tree). Kris Bryant, Joey Gallo, Maikel Franco and Miguel Sano were not walking through that door - they were all prized possessions of low-to-medium-budget teams who lacked strong 3B incumbents.

Signing Yasmany Tomas fresh out of Cuba was a debate, but like 10% of people here favored him over Panda (and with the emergence of Mike Lamb at 3B - himself a ~95 OPS+ guy - Tomas has been played primarily at RF anyway). No plausible 3B trades were rumored, to the best of my knowledge, although some proposed moving X to 3B and making Holt the full-time SS or promoting Marrero. There were no lower risk options, short of selling the farm and getting totally taken in a deal.

Yeah, it sucks when a risk doesn't pan out, but acting like that outcome was obvious in advance is neither helpful nor, in this case, accurate.
Lots of people on this board expressed skepticism about this signing right off the bat. There were also a number of people who said they supported it because they trusted the FO's judgment (which John Henry stopped trusting in a few months, and I would guess this deal was issue #1) and there were a few that really liked it. You can read the thread. I don't think this this is the deal that screams "20-20 hindsight."
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Every Giants fan who posts semi-regularly on this board did not like the signing.

I didn't think Pablo would crash and burn this quickly, although the snippy comments about the Giants and the rumors that a lack of a weight clause was a big factor set off alarm bells.
 

williams_482

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 1, 2011
391
Could you refer me to your optometrist so that I can get 20/20 hindsight like yours? Not all failed bets are the result of stupidity or character flaws in the risk-taker.

With an open position in the lineup, every decision against signing someone is itself a decision that limits our other options going forward. You need nobody's help in understanding opportunity cost, but perhaps a reminder of our decision framework back then is in order. There were no obviously great deals available in FA, by trade, or in our farm system at the time (as best I recall - maybe there were a few blocked top 3B prospects in other systems, but something tells me that for all his warts, Cherington almost certainly barked up that tree). Kris Bryant, Joey Gallo, Maikel Franco and Miguel Sano were not walking through that door - they were all prized possessions of low-to-medium-budget teams who lacked strong 3B incumbents.

Signing Yasmany Tomas fresh out of Cuba was a debate, but like 10% of people here favored him over Panda (and with the emergence of Mike Lamb at 3B - himself a ~95 OPS+ guy - Tomas has been played primarily at RF anyway). No plausible 3B trades were rumored, to the best of my knowledge, although some proposed moving X to 3B and making Holt the full-time SS or promoting Marrero. There were no lower risk options, short of selling the farm and getting totally taken in a deal.

Yeah, it sucks when a risk doesn't pan out, but acting like that outcome was obvious in advance is neither helpful nor, in this case, accurate.
The only guy who seemed like a potential value signing was Chase Headley, and there were a lot of people around here who didn't believe in his defense or thought the projections were overvaluing his 2012 season. He also took a discount to play for the Yankees and was serviceable but not good last season.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
people who say there were no longer ther options never actually supplement that assertion with the list of free agents or the list of 3rd basemen who were traded that offseason. Those lists are much longer than Josh Donaldson and Pablo Sandoval. [and Chase Headley]
 
Last edited:

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
Could you refer me to your optometrist so that I can get 20/20 hindsight like yours? Not all failed bets are the result of stupidity or character flaws in the risk-taker.

With an open position in the lineup, every decision against signing someone is itself a decision that limits our other options going forward. You need nobody's help in understanding opportunity cost, but perhaps a reminder of our decision framework back then is in order. There were no obviously great deals available in FA, by trade, or in our farm system at the time (as best I recall - maybe there were a few blocked top 3B prospects in other systems, but something tells me that for all his warts, Cherington almost certainly barked up that tree). Kris Bryant, Joey Gallo, Maikel Franco and Miguel Sano were not walking through that door - they were all prized possessions of low-to-medium-budget teams who lacked strong 3B incumbents.

Signing Yasmany Tomas fresh out of Cuba was a debate, but like 10% of people here favored him over Panda (and with the emergence of Mike Lamb at 3B - himself a ~95 OPS+ guy - Tomas has been played primarily at RF anyway). No plausible 3B trades were rumored, to the best of my knowledge, although some proposed moving X to 3B and making Holt the full-time SS or promoting Marrero. There were no lower risk options, short of selling the farm and getting totally taken in a deal.

Yeah, it sucks when a risk doesn't pan out, but acting like that outcome was obvious in advance is neither helpful nor, in this case, accurate.
I just read through the first two pages of the Sandoval signing thread. In those first 100 posts, 31 posters gave an opinion on the signing. 3 were supportive. 20 were clearly negative. 8 were mixed, and those 8 are mixed leaning negative. Four different posters, including me, used the word insane.

Usually fans support having their teams sign big named free agents. I bet you'd have a hard time finding a single clearly negative comment in the first two pages of the Price thread.
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,398
Sandoval is 29 years of age. It didn't work out here, but he's only a year removed from being a pretty darned good player. I don't know why a team wouldn't be willing to take a chance on him if: (1) They need 3b help, and (2) they can get the Sox to eat 70% of his salary. The Sox might be willing to do that because, after all, it saves them 30% of the salary. It would mean a team would take a chance on Panda for not a lot of money. I'd think that in another market, with no big-contract pressure, and with perhaps a chip on his shoulder, Sandoval could become a pretty good major leaguer again.
I don't think a chip on his shoulder would last very long.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
I just read through the first two pages of the Sandoval signing thread. In those first 100 posts, 31 posters gave an opinion on the signing. 3 were supportive. 20 were clearly negative. 8 were mixed, and those 8 are mixed leaning negative. Four different posters, including me, used the word insane.

Usually fans support having their teams sign big named free agents. I bet you'd have a hard time finding a single clearly negative comment in the first two pages of the Price thread.
Well, not that it's relevant, but in the first 2 pages of the Price thread I see 7 posts calling the money stupid or insane, 13 unambiguously positive including you at #93, a few calling it an overpay (2) or being critical about various things (4), and then a devolution into discussing the merits of his 3-year opt-out. Certainly a more positive set of knee-jerks from SoSH, overall.

But the problem with using that as a proxy is that you can't run a team by mob rule - people might "hate" the Sandoval signing but I guarantee they would have hated starting the season with Middlebrooks or Cecchini holding down 3B for the big club, likely even more. We need to evaluate the signing in the context of the other options, and I've yet to see an argument that there was an objectively better option for the club at that point in time. That's why all the whining now sounds like monday morning quarterbacking to me.

At that point, the 3 ML-ready 3B prospects in the league were among the top 15 prospects in all of baseball (Bryant, Gallo, Franco) and clearly Theo, the Twins and Phillies were not going to make them available. Tomas was not a known quantity in MLB, so the D-backs (quite wisely, as it turns out) were not parting with Lamb - at least, I'm unable to find rumors to that effect from searching Rotoworld. Headley signed for 4 years / $13M per, aka 68% of Panda's AAV; do you really think that if SoSH were offered a choice of Panda at $19 or Headley at $13, they'd have chosen the latter? And likewise, Donaldson was traded 3 days after Sandoval signed; I'm sure we were in the bidding, but were unwilling or unable to part with what it would have taken to top the Jays' offer.

Of the top 15 3Bs by 2014 bWAR, one (Donaldson) was traded in the offseason. The rest went nowhere. We're glad we didn't trade for Rendon, or Josh Harrison. 8 were clearly unavailable (Seager, Justin Turner, Arenado, Plouffe, Longoria, Wright, Carpenter, Machado). David Wright is owed a fortune and was coming off a down year. Frazier, now of CWS, was going into his 1st year of arb with CIN and was traded a year later, but was probably not yet available. The Yankees were clearly not trading us Prado. Juan Uribe was clearly available - and could have held down a passable 3B for $6.5M last year. But he's the only real option I can surface who, in retrospect, might have worked for us as a 1-2 year bridge. The only other guys available were Headley and Sandoval.

If there was a rising cry of "WHY NOT URIBE?!" from SoSH, then I will withdraw my argument. But from what I remember reading about our 3B predicament, the discussion was dominated by criticisms of all available options - but nobody could propose any choice that a lot of people liked. It was a limited and poor set of options, and second guessing Cherington's choice to go with the best available FA seems like sour grapes more than an honest evaluation of what we could have known - and done - at the time.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Why do you think he was fired?

Edit: I'm sorry, demoted, for all practical purposes
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,421
Not here
Why do you think he was fired?

Edit: I'm sorry, demoted, for all practical purposes
Because ownership had a unique opportunity to bring in someone with a univesrally positive reputation that they had worked with before.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
A lot changes in 4 years. Mike Napoli had plenty of catching experience throughout his tenure in LAA and Texas, and we still couldn't put him behind the plate because his body had changed since then. And look what happened when they put Youkilis (who was already having some minor injury problems as a first baseman and part time 3B) back at third base full time in his early 30's and the extra physical demands of playing the position full time literally destroyed him.

I think you need to have a better argument for the viability of a player at a position than "he used to play there." Panda used to be a catcher. I note we didn't even bother to try that solution.
Is this directed to me? Dude, I said you were right and I was wrong about Hanley playing third. I'm not arguing anything. You won the internet today, so relax.
JMOH, don't concede the internet just yet. Though you may have been wrong about Hanley's time at 3B, whatittakes sort of makes the argument that some of us are making here when her uses the Youkilis analogy. Though a couple years older when making the move back to 3B was he really that much further into his decline than Sandoval while "the extra physical demands of playing the position full time literally destroyed him."? In his first season back at third (Hell even the following season) I remember Youk giving the team on both ends than Pablo did last season. Perhaps playing the position did in fact hastened his departure from baseball, but at some 3 years younger, at his primary position, not being able to play 3B may be what hastens Sandoval's. The fact that a player currently plays the position isn't always the prime argument against someone who used to play there.
 
Last edited:

vintage'67

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
327
Seems a bit odd. I'm familiar with affected areas being too swollen to get a good image from x-rays, but I've never heard similar for inflammation. Paging DaveRobertsShoes.
The article does not specify the type of exam that Andrews could not do but almost surely it means physical exam--range of motion and strength testing etc.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
The article does not specify the type of exam that Andrews could not do but almost surely it means physical exam--range of motion and strength testing etc.
IANAD, but I would think that's exactly what it means. He's already had an MRI so it's not like they can't get pictures of the affected area. Dr Andrews probably has a battery of tests he likes to run and the swelling and inflammation makes them difficult to perform.
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,880
Twin Bridges, Mt.
If Pablo is on the DL the entire, without a food babysitter, he could show up to Fort Myers in 2017 at 400 pounds.
Funny you say that. I was wondering if there's a number that he could go over that would actually get the Sox off the hook. I mean, showing up in shape must be some kind of employment condition.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
Funny you say that. I was wondering if there's a number that he could go over that would actually get the Sox off the hook. I mean, showing up in shape must be some kind of employment condition.
We went over that with David Wells in 2005, I think. There's a clause that says ballplayers must keep themselves in "first-rate physical condition", or similar words to that effect, but it's so vague I'm not sure it's ever been enforced. As opposed to, say, the Yankees getting out of the (trigger warning!) Aaron Boone contract based on the black-and-white prohibition of MLB players doing other sports in the offseason.

If ever there were a suitable test case for whether that language has any operative value, though...
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,256
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
Funny you say that. I was wondering if there's a number that he could go over that would actually get the Sox off the hook. I mean, showing up in shape must be some kind of employment condition.
If so, when will someone start a thread seeking donations for various donut of the month subscriptions to be sent to his house?
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,479
Rogers Park
I figured when Sandoval was signed that there was basically a zero chance he ended this contract with Boston, but I didn't think things would go so far south so fast. I think Cherington thought the deal was a win-now bridge until Devers/Moncada are ready, and I don't think that was so horrible an idea. Get two hopefully good years out of Sandoval, and trade him when a cheaper replacement is ready.

Thank God for Shaw.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
IANAD, but I would think that's exactly what it means. He's already had an MRI so it's not like they can't get pictures of the affected area. Dr Andrews probably has a battery of tests he likes to run and the swelling and inflammation makes them difficult to perform.
Yes, thats correct. Andrews has gone on record saying he does not rely on MRI's

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/health/mris-often-overused-often-mislead-doctors-warn.html?_r=0

Dr. James Andrews, a widely known sports medicine orthopedist in Gulf Breeze, Fla., wanted to test his suspicion that M.R.I.’s, the scans given to almost every injured athlete or casual exerciser, might be a bit misleading. So he scanned the shoulders of 31 perfectly healthy professional baseball pitchers.

The pitchers were not injured and had no pain. But the M.R.I.’s found abnormal shoulder cartilage in 90 percent of them and abnormal rotator cuff tendons in 87 percent. “If you want an excuse to operate on a pitcher’s throwing shoulder, just get an M.R.I.,” Dr. Andrews says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.