Roch confirms no MRI for Gonzalez prior to signing.

[DuffMan]

http://www.masnsports.com/school_of_roch/2010/07/well-it-took-almost-an.html

I won't pull any quotes so you can draw your own conclusions, but this should lead to some good discussion.

[SilentJames]

He quotes another executive who said that the MRI is not a standard practice and is only used if something else comes up in the physical.

I guess you can take that for what it is worth.

[ShaneDawg85]

The MRI part of the story doesn't really bother me, that much. What does bother me is how they could let him go through spring training and start the season on the major league roster when there was evidence, in spring training in front of the player's and coaching staff's very eyes, that he wasn't right. If he was that off in spring training, and the signs were there, why would you not start him on the DL? Contract or not, importance or not, he wasn't suited to go out there, and it showed to everyone.

[NewMarketSean]

Yup.

It sounds like Gonzalez will come back, pitch for a short period of time, get re-injured and be out the remainder of the contract.

Even if he does finish the 2010 season, it also sounds like Gonzalez could opt to have surgery this offseason and miss the 2011 season.

Either way it was a colossal pooch-screw by MacPhail.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I think MacPhail disregarded or underplayed the possible effects of the previous season's workload. That's the big error.

[DuffMan]

Either way it was a colossal pooch-screw by MacPhail.

Worse than Atkins?

[sangar]

Wow, not standard practice? If I were investing millions into a pitcher I'd want MRI's, CAT-scan's, DOG-scans and every other test I could think of. Not completely testing a pitcher's shoulder and elbow is incredibily reckless as well as irresponsible and is simply asking for trouble.

[NewMarketSean]

Worse than Atkins?

It's apples and oranges. But they were both really bad decisions.

[Frobby]

I think the relevant part is worth quoting:

I've been asked whether Gonzalez underwent an MRI on his left shoulder as part of his physical before signing with the Orioles.

The short answer is "no."

That test isn't always part of the physical. One team official said it's bypassed "most of the time" unless the examination leads to other questions.

The Orioles reviewed Gonzalez's outings with the Braves, checked his velocity and noted how he pitched into October and Atlanta later offered him arbitration - obviously convinced that he was healthy. They also understand that an MRI on a pitcher's shoulder is going to reveal a certain amount of wear and tear, which Gonzalez is quick to point out.

I'd like to know if an MRI "is bypassed 'most of the time'" by other teams. Seems odd to me, but I'm not a doctor. I'm with Roch -- you invest $12 mm, you spend $1000 or whatever it costs to do an MRI, even if the results may not definitively prove an injury.

[SilentJames]

Wow, not standard practice? If I were investing millions into a pitcher I'd want MRI's, CAT-scan's, DOG-scans and every other test I could think of. Not completely testing a pitcher's shoulder and elbow is incredibily reckless as well as irresponsible and is simply asking for trouble.

Not necessarily. All pitchers will have something show up on an MRI so doing it for everyone would be rather needless.

[Can_of_corn]

Worse than Atkins?

Two years >>>>>one year.

Closer>>>>>Placeholder first baseman

[DrungoHazewood]

He quotes another executive who said that the MRI is not a standard practice and is only used if something else comes up in the physical.

I guess you can take that for what it is worth.

Who cares if it's not standard practice? He has an injury history, and this is the same organization that has backed out of several contracts (Sele, Burnitz) because of hints of problems that didn't stop other teams. Not only that, but Gonzalez wasn't heads-and-shoulders above all the other closer candidates. He was/is a good pitcher, but if he won't sign because he's asked to have an MRI, you just move on to the next guy.

I still consider this a pretty glaring mistake.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not necessarily. All pitchers will have something show up on an MRI so doing it for everyone would be rather needless.

I don't quite understand. You're saying that it's better to just not know? That you trust ignorance over the judgment of the O's medical staff? The cost of an MRI would have repaid itself 1000 times over in lost productivity. Hell, for less than the cost of one win in free agency you could buy a bunch of medical imaging equipment and do the tests in the Warehouse.

[murrayfan420]

Two years >>>>>one year.

Closer>>>>>Placeholder first baseman

Giving up a 2nd round pick>>>>>3 months of horrible play and cutting him

[DrungoHazewood]

I think the relevant part is worth quoting:

I'd like to know if an MRI "is bypassed 'most of the time'" by other teams. Seems odd to me, but I'm not a doctor. I'm with Roch -- you invest $12 mm, you spend $1000 or whatever it costs to do an MRI, even if the results may not definitively prove an injury.

If I'm the O's I do an MRI on every pitcher in the organization who has any chance at the majors, and then you have a baseline to compare against.