|
Post by soxfan06 on May 24, 2016 19:33:17 GMT -5
Eh, it may be that they've already unnecessarily waited a month or two. Maybe his coming back from the DL was what tore his UCL, but maybe it was just as torn when he first went on the DL in Spring Training and they hoped he could pitch through it. I know it's all hypothetical/speculation but... That would annoy me if they let him pitch on a partially torn UCL in the first place. It's not like Carson Smith was a 1 year investment. He was a long term investment, they should have been thinking long term from the start. Also, does the rest of this year/next year count towards service time for him while he on the DL?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 24, 2016 19:42:41 GMT -5
Eh, it may be that they've already unnecessarily waited a month or two. Maybe his coming back from the DL was what tore his UCL, but maybe it was just as torn when he first went on the DL in Spring Training and they hoped he could pitch through it. I know it's all hypothetical/speculation but... That would annoy me if they let him pitch on a partially torn UCL in the first place. It's not like Carson Smith was a 1 year investment. He was a long term investment, they should have been thinking long term from the start.
Also, does the rest of this year/next year count towards service time for him while he on the DL? It's not a crazy thing to do. Guys pitch successfully on partially torn UCLs, and the surgery isn't always successful. Given that the surgery puts a pitcher out of commission for over a year, it's entirely reasonable to try pitching through it for a couple months.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 24, 2016 19:43:47 GMT -5
Eh, it may be that they've already unnecessarily waited a month or two. Maybe his coming back from the DL was what tore his UCL, but maybe it was just as torn when he first went on the DL in Spring Training and they hoped he could pitch through it. I know it's all hypothetical/speculation but... That would annoy me if they let him pitch on a partially torn UCL in the first place. It's not like Carson Smith was a 1 year investment. He was a long term investment, they should have been thinking long term from the start. Also, does the rest of this year/next year count towards service time for him while he on the DL? Partially torn UCLs don't grow back so it doesn't really matter. Either he can pitch through it or he can't. There's no in between.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 24, 2016 20:22:21 GMT -5
A few thoughts:
-I kind of regret speculating that maybe the UCL was torn all along, because there were reports in Spring Training that there was no structural damage to Smith's UCL. Absence strong evidence to the contrary, I like to think the Red Sox front office generally doesn't just lie through their teeth. That might be naive, though.
-It isn't as black and white as either the UCL is torn or it isn't. I suspect that most pitchers who have been in the majors a couple years (and a good number of prospects/younger MLBers) have some UCL damage. If they're not showing any symptoms of pain/weakness and the tear is minor, the right answer is to have them continue pitching through it (along with some typical elbow-strengthening exercises and such). There are a lot of very minor UCL tears that guys pitch through for years-- even decades. That said, that attitude may be dying out somewhat. A substantial part of the recent rise in TJ surgeries is that teams and players are more willing than ever before to have early TJ with only a partially torn UCL when guys in years past would be more willing to try and pitch through it.
-Smith will continue to pick up major league service time while on the DL. I think he's under control through 2020, though, so the Red Sox will still have 3+ years of healthy Carson Smith.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 24, 2016 21:23:23 GMT -5
A few thoughts: -I kind of regret speculating that maybe the UCL was torn all along, because there were reports in Spring Training that there was no structural damage to Smith's UCL. Absence strong evidence to the contrary, I like to think the Red Sox front office generally doesn't just lie through their teeth. That might be naive, though. -It isn't as black and white as either the UCL is torn or it isn't. I suspect that most pitchers who have been in the majors a couple years (and a good number of prospects/younger MLBers) have some UCL damage. If they're not showing any symptoms of pain/weakness and the tear is minor, the right answer is to have them continue pitching through it (along with some typical elbow-strengthening exercises and such). There are a lot of very minor UCL tears that guys pitch through for years-- even decades. That said, that attitude may be dying out somewhat. A substantial part of the recent rise in TJ surgeries is that teams and players are more willing than ever before to have early TJ with only a partially torn UCL when guys in years past would be more willing to try and pitch through it. -Smith will continue to pick up major league service time while on the DL. I think he's under control through 2020, though, so the Red Sox will still have 3+ years of healthy Carson Smith. This is a minor point, but I wonder if it's a change in attitude or just the reality of the pitch count era. As pitching becomes more and more of an all max effort all the time endeavor, it probably becomes harder to pitch with an arm that's compromised in any way.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 24, 2016 21:32:38 GMT -5
Barnes!!!
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 25, 2016 10:38:11 GMT -5
Smith will make the minimum again next year. Has anyone seen any research on what injuries (as an indicator of future risk of injury) does to arbitration salaries? In any case, having lesser numbers and a lesser track record should to SOME degree reduce his arbitration award between 2017/18.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 25, 2016 15:06:41 GMT -5
More confirmation that the UCL tear occurred as he was rehabbing his original injury ( link):
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 25, 2016 16:50:28 GMT -5
Sounds like they may have screwed up? Or is it inevitable?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 25, 2016 17:45:38 GMT -5
One of the things Guidas mentioned is that you can't see in there. Perhaps because soft tissue doesn't image very well? I'll bet there are posters who can answer that.
|
|