Roch confirms no MRI for Gonzalez prior to signing.

[Sports Guy]

I agree that giving this guy a lot of money can be fairly scrutinized, but you guys are over reacting to the MRI issue. There's a very low probability that the O's would have seen something that would have prevented the signing.

Low probability or not, the possibility still exists and as long as that possibility exists, you give an MRI to a 32 y/o injury prone pitcher to cover all your bases as much as possible.

There is not one single reason not to do this but of course, the Orioles did the wrong thing, as they so often do.

[square634]

No one's calling it a magical tool, but it is a tool that can be used and gives us more information that can be used to decide if we should give out a contract.

This is kind of a tangent, but this mindset is part of the problem with our overburdened health care system. More information is not always better information, and more medicine/treatment is not always better either. In fact, there are many cases when more information can be harmful. The idea that having more information will at least allow you to weigh the options doesn't reflect the reality that patients and doctors have a bias toward aggressive treatment when faced with a positive test -- or more accurately in this case, an owner or GM may have an undue bias toward avoiding someone with a flagged MRI due to injury risk.

[Ohfan67]

Low probability or not, the possibility still exists and as long as that possibility exists, you give an MRI to a 32 y/o injury prone pitcher to cover all your bases as much as possible.

There is not one single reason not to do this but of course, the Orioles did the wrong thing, as they so often do.

Again, can you provide three examples of an MRI providing useful information in this context? I just did a quick google search and I can't even find one. There are tons of examples of an MRI confirming a diagnose that was based on definitive symptoms, but I can't find any examples of an MRI being used to find a hidden injury or accurately predicting a future injury to a pitcher or position player. I can find lots of examples of an MRI showing significant structural wear and tear, fraying, etc., in veteran pitchers who are pitching effectively.

Note: I'm not trying to challenge you just to challenge you, I honestly can not find examples of an MRI being useful in this way and I think the board is vastly, vastly overestimating the utility of an MRI in this case with little to no knowledge of what an MRI can and can not show you.

[square634]

Low probability or not, the possibility still exists and as long as that possibility exists, you give an MRI to a 32 y/o injury prone pitcher to cover all your bases as much as possible.

There is not one single reason not to do this but of course, the Orioles did the wrong thing, as they so often do.

And what's the probability that you do the MRI, decide NOT to sign the pitcher because of something you find, and then the pitcher is absolutely fine? Until you know those relative probabilities, and then weigh the relative risks and benefits, it's impossible to say whether forgoing the MRI was a good or bad decision.

Note: signing Gonzalez was definitely a bad decision at the time, regardless of the MRI.

[hatepaste]

Wait weren't people complaining when they backed out of Aaron Sele signing because of MRI/physical problems?

[Mackus]

No MRI or no physical? That's a big difference.

Doing a physical but not getting an MRI isn't a blunder. Not doing a physical would be a blunder.

[NewMarketSean]

Since Belle, the Orioles have gone out of their way to make sure the players they sign are 100% healthy. Sometimes to the point of absurdity.

Since MacPhail has gotten here, he has gone out of his way to avoid handcuffing this team with a bad contract and has been overly "patient" when signing players and making various moves. Sometimes to the point of absurdity.

They went against both things by failing to give Gonzalez an MRI before signing him. It's just a horrible decision and out of character for the Orioles.

The one time they did something out of their comfort zone, they got burned. Badly.

[Sports Guy]

Again, can you provide three examples of an MRI providing useful information in this context? I just did a quick google search and I can't even find one. There are tons of examples of an MRI confirming a diagnose that was based on definitive symptoms, but I can't find any examples of an MRI being used to find a hidden injury or accurately predicting a future injury to a pitcher or position player. I can find lots of examples of an MRI showing significant structural wear and tear, fraying, etc., in veteran pitchers who are pitching effectively.

Note: I'm not trying to challenge you just to challenge you, I honestly can not find examples of an MRI being useful in this way and I think the board is vastly, vastly overestimating the utility of an MRI in this case with little to no knowledge of what an MRI can and can not show you.

No..because I don't really care to.

Can you provide me something that says whatever Gonzo has, that there was 100% guarantee that it wouldn't show up on the MRI?

Again, if the possibility exists, you do the MRI to cover your bases...Its a simple thing to do, takes very little time and it just gives you another piece of info.

[Sports Guy]

No MRI or no physical? That's a big difference.

Doing a physical but not getting an MRI isn't a blunder. Not doing a physical would be a blunder.

Yea because telling him to drop his pants, turn his head and cough is really going to do a lot to tell how structural sound his elbow and shoulder is.

[Mackus]

Yea because telling him to drop his pants, turn his head and cough is really going to do a lot to tell how structural sound his elbow and shoulder is.

Yep, because that's all they do in a physical.

[Sports Guy]

And what's the probability that you do the MRI, decide NOT to sign the pitcher because of something you find, and then the pitcher is absolutely fine? Until you know those relative probabilities, and then weigh the relative risks and benefits, it's impossible to say whether forgoing the MRI was a good or bad decision.

Note: signing Gonzalez was definitely a bad decision at the time, regardless of the MRI.

Who knows...but who cares? If you find something on an MRI that you don't like, at least at that point you have more info and you can make a more educated decision on things.

The Orioles went into this blindly when they could have at least had some vision into the future.

[Mackus]

Who knows...but who cares? If you find something on an MRI that you don't like, at least at that point you have more info and you can make a more educated decision on things.

The Orioles went into this blindly when they could have at least had some vision into the future.

How many free agents agree to take MRIs? And you can't simply say "if he won't take it then don't sign him". That's not a good way to do business. His injury concerns weren't so severe that you have to get a super recent MRI to make sure he's not injured. A physical is sufficient enough to determine if there are any red flags, then if there are red flags, you go ahead and do a follow-up MRI. You don't just throw him into the machine as a point of routine.

[El Gordo]

Again, can you provide three examples of an MRI providing useful information in this context? I just did a quick google search and I can't even find one. There are tons of examples of an MRI confirming a diagnose that was based on definitive symptoms, but I can't find any examples of an MRI being used to find a hidden injury or accurately predicting a future injury to a pitcher or position player. I can find lots of examples of an MRI showing significant structural wear and tear, fraying, etc., in veteran pitchers who are pitching effectively.

Note: I'm not trying to challenge you just to challenge you, I honestly can not find examples of an MRI being useful in this way and I think the board is vastly, vastly overestimating the utility of an MRI in this case with little to no knowledge of what an MRI can and can not show you.

We would need to ask sports physician who regularly does exams like this one how often and under what circumstances MRI's are given, and whether that is normally done with other teams before we can judge whether this was a poor decision in this case. It may well be that the MRI wouldn't have shown anything out of the ordinary. To bad we aren't diligent Sports reporters with access to the O's medical people, like......:scratchchinhmm:

[square634]

Who knows...but who cares? If you find something on an MRI that you don't like, at least at that point you have more info and you can make a more educated decision on things.

The Orioles went into this blindly when they could have at least had some vision into the future.

I didn't ask how many times do you find something you don't like. I asked how many times do you find something you don't like to the point that you decide not to sign a pitcher? And in those cases, how many times was that caution warranted and how many times would the pitcher have been absolutely fine over the life of his contract? The way you are thinking about it is a very limited analysis rooted in the misconception that having more information is always useful, or at least never harmful.

[mcgraw238]

Yea because telling him to drop his pants, turn his head and cough is really going to do a lot to tell how structural sound his elbow and shoulder is.

What a foolish statement...I guess your not an expert on everything.