Orioles have agreed to terms with OF Tyler Colvin

[mdbdotcom]

Sorry' date=' I thought the last comment I read said it was at 41 with Patton.[/quote']

It is 41 with Patton, but Patton doesn't count because of his suspension. So, it's 40.

[Bahama O's Fan]

It is 41 with Patton, but Patton doesn't count because of his suspension. So, it's 40.

Right, so it is 40 right now, with Patton making 41. If we want to add Colvin, we must drop someone because adding him without dropping someone would take it to 41 with Patton being 42.

[mdbdotcom]

Right' date=' so it is 40 right now, with Patton making 41. If we want to add Colvin, we must drop someone because adding him without dropping someone would take it to 41 with Patton being 42.[/quote']

No, sorry, I said that wrong. According to the O's website we are at 40 including Patton, who is marked "Restricted." Which means we are at 39 and there is room for Colvin.

[Bahama O's Fan]

No, sorry, I said that wrong. According to the O's website we are at 40 including Patton, who is marked "Restricted." Which means we are at 39 and there is room for Colvin.

Ok, thanks

[Rene88]

You make some good points, however, there is no evidence that the Orioles leaked word of Balfour's wrist and knee injuries. While I believe that this information probably came from the Orioles side, good luck to Balfour's camp proving it in a grievance situation. While you make some good points about your general distrust of Angelos and the Orioles, you lose me with the bolded. Where is there any evidence that the Orioles medical staff is dishonest? They may be over cautious from your point of view, but you do not have any proof that they acted in a dishonest manner.

I don't believe they are dishonest. It just wouldn't surprise me if they are used as a negotiation ploy at times. At the end of the day-they are paid by Angelos and the Orioles.

[weams]

I don't think any body is buying the knee/wrist injury leak, except maybe you.

I had no idea it was even in dispute.

[Can_of_corn]

I had no idea it was even in dispute.

Roch debunked it.

[mdbdotcom]

I had no idea it was even in dispute.

IIRC, Roch mentioned it to say that it was a complete fabrication, and that the examining doctors found problems only with the shoulder.

[BillySmith]

I had no idea it was even in dispute.

I thought it came from Buck during a media appearance somewhere. One of our posters said something like "Buck basically said Olney was full of it".

[mdbdotcom]

Of course, even if Olney's info was accurate, the O's would could not confirm it, as it would be a HIPAA violation.

[weams]

Roch debunked it.

IIRC, Roch mentioned it to say that it was a complete fabrication, and that the examining doctors found problems only with the shoulder.

Well, that shows how much a week in NoCal throws my Orioles knowledge off.

Thanks guys.

[russ snyder]

I don't believe they are dishonest. It just wouldn't surprise me if they are used as a negotiation ploy at times. At the end of the day-they are paid by Angelos and the Orioles.

They are paid by the Orioles, however, it would surprise me if the medical team was privy to or part of a negotiating ploy that the Orioles have set up. If they are knowingly involves in such a process it would be unethical. I do believe that the Orioles subject their potential free agents to one of the most thorough exams in the business. I also think most players and agents know what they are getting into.

[Larry18]

Of course, even if Olney's info was accurate, the O's would could not confirm it, as it would be a HIPAA violation.

I don't believe this is true. See page 56 of the CBA :

(4) For public relations purposes, a Club may disclose the following

general information about employment-related injuries: (a)the nature of a Player’s injury, (b) the prognosis and the anticipated

length of recovery from the injury, and © the treatment and surgical

procedures undertaken or anticipated in regard to the injury. For

any other medical condition that prevents a Player from rendering

services to his Club, a Club may disclose only the fact that a medical

condition is preventing the Player from rendering services to the

Club and the anticipated length of the Player’s absence from the

Club. A Club physician or certified athletic trainer treating a Player

pursuant to Regulation 2 of his UPC and any other physician or

medical professional treating or consulting with a Player pursuant to

Regulation 2 or Article XIII(D) shall be prohibited from making any

public disclosure of a Player’s medical information absent a separate,

specific written authorization from the Player authorizing such

public disclosure.

[TonySoprano]

I don't believe this is true. See page 56 of the CBA :

That sounds like what you can disclose about a player already under contract on your team.

[mdbdotcom]

I don't believe this is true. See page 56 of the CBA :

This seems to relate to players under treatment from their team. Does the CBA also give ballclubs the right to discuss injuries to other team's players or unsigned players? Hard to imagine the players would allow that.