Roch confirms no MRI for Gonzalez prior to signing.

[Mackus]

The latter is more likely but the former is possible, right?

Yes, certainly possible, which is what I said.

I've already said that if its an option of the team deciding whether or not they should bother with an MRI, always do the MRI.

I don't have facts to back this up, but my opinion is that I don't think we had the option to do an MRI. Gonzalez wouldn't agree to one, as most free agent pitchers wouldn't, is my contention. In some cases, I could see that being a deal-breaker, the simple refusal, like so many teams with Sheets the last couple years. However, even though Gonzalez has a bit of an injury history, I don't think it is so severe that not being able to do an MRI following a clean physical is reason enough to back out of a deal when you think he's going to be a good pitcher and the physical didn't show any red flags.

If all, or even just most or many, physicals for pitchers typically involved MRIs, then I'd agree that it was a mistake not to get one here, but I don't think that is the case. I think MRIs are pretty rare. This is mostly my interpretation of how things work, I may be wrong, but this all makes sense to me as how most free agent pitchers would go about things.

[wickedwitch]

That's what we know. There is a chance that the MRI would have revealed something that would have been severe enough to cause us to back out of the deal and there is also a chance that it wouldn't have and he would have gotten hurt anyway. I don't know precisely which situation is more likely, but my guess is that its the latter.

But if there's even a small chance that it would have helped, why not do it? Even a healthy Gonzales isn't special enough that it would be that big a deal if we couldn't sign him.

I'm a big MacPhail supporter, but he screwed up here.

[osfan83]

The way I look at it is, the O's paid Gonzalez $12 million, plus they lost a 2nd round pick, so call it a total investment of $15 million. If an MRI costs $1,000, then if there's better than a 1 in 15,000 chance that the MRI will spot an existing problem, you need to have one done.

I guess the question is: If there are 7 closers on the market, and you give MRI's to all 7, and all 7 come back with some damage, do you just not sign a closer?

What if you take the entire O's pitching staff and give them MRI's, and all of them come back with damage...what good does that info do for you?

[Sports Guy]

I think if there was a really large tear, that you would know that from the physical and from watching him pitch the previous season.

I don't think there is much chance of any major obvious injury showing up in an MRI that was completely unnoticed during the physical.

Do you even know what goes on in a physical for a pitcher or position player when they give one?

[Sports Guy]

Yes, certainly possible, which is what I said.

I've already said that if its an option of the team deciding whether or not they should bother with an MRI, always do the MRI.

I don't have facts to back this up, but my opinion is that I don't think we had the option to do an MRI. Gonzalez wouldn't agree to one, as most free agent pitchers wouldn't, is my contention. In some cases, I could see that being a deal-breaker, the simple refusal, like so many teams with Sheets the last couple years. However, even though Gonzalez has a bit of an injury history, I don't think it is so severe that not being able to do an MRI following a clean physical is reason enough to back out of a deal when you think he's going to be a good pitcher and the physical didn't show any red flags.

If all, or even just most or many, physicals for pitchers typically involved MRIs, then I'd agree that it was a mistake not to get one here, but I don't think that is the case. I think MRIs are pretty rare. This is mostly my interpretation of how things work, I may be wrong, but this all makes sense to me as how most free agent pitchers would go about things.

Which is my whole point. It was possible that something could have popped up...and when you are dealing with a 32 y/o injury prone pitcher, I like to know as much as I can before handing over a draft pick and 12 million dollars.

[Sports Guy]

Let's say this...Let's say the Orioles gave him the MRI, didn't like what they saw and decided not to sign him....Some other team signed him and he got hurt.

What would you be saying about the Orioles giving him the MRI?

[blid]

I don't know why this is even a discussion. People have already posted showing that the Mets and the Nats get MRIs done when they are acquiring a pitcher. I don't see why you wouldn't want the information, especially for a pitcher like Gonzalez. The proposition that you're more likely to get misled by the MRI than find something meaningful is ludicrous.

[Ohfan67]

Can you show me something that 100% guarantees that Gonzo's injury wouldn't have popped up in an MRI?

Of course not. That is impossible to demonstrate and that's probably why you asked.

But I can show you multiple examples of where MRI's did not detect injuries and definitely did not indicate that pitchers were about to be injured.

MRI's are not used to detect injuries. MRI's are used to help diagnose the problem when there is a known injury. It is rare that these injuries (unless severe tears and such) show as incredibly distinct. It is not like an x-ray and a broken bone.

I'm not trying to give you a lot of grief, but I think you don't understand what this thing can and can not tell you about a hidden injury or the potential of a future injury. Unless it is a catastrophic injury, then it is incredibly difficult to positively identify an injury and severity of an injury in soft tissue using this machine. And clearly Gonzalez's injury isn't catastrophic or he wouldn't be able to lift his arm, much less throw a 90 mph fastball. If it was as good/useful as you think it was, then every team would be using them in this way, Scott Boras would be talking about how his great free agent pitcher had a spectacularly clean MRI, etc. I'm not trying to jerk your chain, it's just that the machine/analysis doesn't provide the clean data that you are assuming it provides.

Note: It definitely would not have hurt for the O's to include an MRI as part of the exam, I'm just saying that there's a very low probability that it would have been useful for the severity of this injury and an asymptomatic "patient" (or a patient hiding an injury). Therefore it's unjustified in my opinion to bash the O's for not doing an MRI that almost certainly wouldn't have shown them anything useful. BUT...it wouldn't hurt to do one unless Angelos got nervous every time he saw a ton of messy wear and tear, which is a real possibility.

[nadecir]

I don't know why this is even a discussion. People have already posted showing that the Mets and the Nats get MRIs done when they are acquiring a pitcher. I don't see why you wouldn't want the information, especially for a pitcher like Gonzalez. The proposition that you're more likely to get misled by the MRI than find something meaningful is ludicrous.

Add the Atlanta Braves to this list of teams requiring an MRI before a contract is signed. Here's an article on the Tim Hudson extension and the his required MRI.

"It's all done," he said of contract details. "I'm assuming all the physical stuff went fine. Only thing I have to do is the MRI, which I'll probably do when I get back Sunday from [Adam] LaRoche's thing."

Hudson planned to fly to Fort Scott, Kansas, to attend LaRoche's hometown charity event. Hudson also took an opportunity to publicly lobby for the Braves to re-sign LaRoche, who is a free agent, pointing out the need for his strong defense at first base in addition to his slugging.

The Braves will not make an announcement or comment on the Hudson contract until the deal is official.

Hudson referred to the MRI as more of a formality. He has had other MRI exams this year and no setbacks since returning from a year-long rehabilitation following ligament-transplant surgery in August 2008.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-braves/hudson-excited-about-new-187139.html

[square634]

I don't know why this is even a discussion. People have already posted showing that the Mets and the Nats get MRIs done when they are acquiring a pitcher. I don't see why you wouldn't want the information, especially for a pitcher like Gonzalez. The proposition that you're more likely to get misled by the MRI than find something meaningful is ludicrous.

It may be ludicrous to you, but many doctors thought the same thing about the PSA test until studies were actually done to show that its actual value to life expectancy is inconclusive at best. There are many other examples of the same phenomenon in medicine; what is ludicrous is to think of an MRI as a diagnostic panacea. If, in fact, the Mets and Nats get MRIs done for every single pitcher they sign, that still doesn't really prove anything other than that there isn't consensus on the issue. Have the Mets and Nats suffered fewer injuries from free agent pitchers than other teams?

As for the Atlanta/Hudson thing, it says nothing about an organizational philosophy. Of course an MRI is a better idea when a pitcher is coming back from a major injury.

[MatthewW]

Anybody know if Mike Gonzalez's contract is insured???

Most contracts that are insured cover 50-80% of the contract.

If insurance covers 80%, the Orioles are only on the hook for $2.5M plus the premium (up to 10%)... which would make this whole Gonzalez mess look not soooo bad.

And for those who cry about Albert Belle, the Orioles reportedly received $27.3 of the $39M owed to Albert Belle after he got hurt.

[George]

Gonzalez did his best to conceal his injury during Spring Training and the start of the season. A possible motive for his lack of candor is that his injury occured during the winter after the 2009 season. A physical and any other test would be obviously irrelevant if the injiury occured after he signed.

So why would Gonzalez conceal an off-season injury? If the injury occured as a result of a violation of the terms of his contract, then Gonzalez would have a very good reason for a lack of candor. Did he have a motorcycle accident? Dd he play a sport without permission, like baseball or basketball, and get an injury? Did his wife twist his arm more than usual after he came home at 7:00 am one cold winter day? Who knows?

[ledzepp8]

Let's say this...Let's say the Orioles gave him the MRI, didn't like what they saw and decided not to sign him....Some other team signed him and he got hurt.

What would you be saying about the Orioles giving him the MRI?

It seems you're creating a strawman. I don't think anyone has said they would have a problem if the Orioles had given him an MRI. They just aren't getting up in arms over something that most likely would not have amounted to anything and would have essentially been a waste of time.

What happens if the O's make it a priority to give an MRI to every pitcher who is otherwise healthy and passes their physical? What if seeing the normal wear and tear on a pitchers arm causes PA to be gun shy about signing any pitchers, even though what they are seeing probably isn't predictive of anything?

[Sports Guy]

Of course not. That is impossible to demonstrate and that's probably why you asked.

But I can show you multiple examples of where MRI's did not detect injuries and definitely did not indicate that pitchers were about to be injured.

MRI's are not used to detect injuries. MRI's are used to help diagnose the problem when there is a known injury. It is rare that these injuries (unless severe tears and such) show as incredibly distinct. It is not like an x-ray and a broken bone.

I'm not trying to give you a lot of grief, but I think you don't understand what this thing can and can not tell you about a hidden injury or the potential of a future injury. Unless it is a catastrophic injury, then it is incredibly difficult to positively identify an injury and severity of an injury in soft tissue using this machine. And clearly Gonzalez's injury isn't catastrophic or he wouldn't be able to lift his arm, much less throw a 90 mph fastball. If it was as good/useful as you think it was, then every team would be using them in this way, Scott Boras would be talking about how his great free agent pitcher had a spectacularly clean MRI, etc. I'm not trying to jerk your chain, it's just that the machine/analysis doesn't provide the clean data that you are assuming it provides.

Note: It definitely would not have hurt for the O's to include an MRI as part of the exam, I'm just saying that there's a very low probability that it would have been useful for the severity of this injury and an asymptomatic "patient" (or a patient hiding an injury). Therefore it's unjustified in my opinion to bash the O's for not doing an MRI that almost certainly wouldn't have shown them anything useful. BUT...it wouldn't hurt to do one unless Angelos got nervous every time he saw a ton of messy wear and tear, which is a real possibility.

The fact that you continue to say that it is possible just validates my opinion. Thank you for doing that.

No one is saying its 100% foolproof....But it COULD help.

[ledzepp8]

Add the Atlanta Braves to this list of teams requiring an MRI before a contract is signed. Here's an article on the Tim Hudson extension and the his required MRI.http://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-braves/hudson-excited-about-new-187139.html

Just out of curiosity, where does it say in that quote that the Braves make it a practice of giving MRIs to all potential FA pitchers? All it says is that Hudson was set to get one.