And if his condition made him "more" injury prone, they'd be saying that as well. The doctors that Drelich quoted state that there is no evidence one way or the other. No doctor would ever "guarantee" anything with a pitcher. He has a UCL (to refute your above source). It's not torn. It's been like this his whole life and his surrounding muscles and other ligaments have developed to accomodate this without hindering his ability to pitch. Sure, it "could" be an issue going forward... Just like any young pitcher who ends up with TJ surgery. Screening studies certainly didn't prevent an injury to Strasburgh The key issue here is whether or not it makes it "more likely" to become an issue, and to that I don't believe anybody really knows. They also don't know whether or not a surgery could be more or less successful... Just "different". Also, there's been enough case reports and data in UCL reconstruction to know what the ultimate risk factors are... Aiken's "small UCL" doesn't fit into that distinction.
Aiken's team would be admitting publicity that the doctors concluded that it would make him more injury prone? Why in the world would they admit that when they are trying to put public pressure on the Astros to negotiate? We know (and about all we know) is the Astros' doctors have essentially said it is a significant medical problem going forward by failing him. Conversely, Aiken's team has not claimed that any of the five doctors who examined him, including Dr. Andrews, concluded that the elbow abnormality is not more likely to cause serious medical issues going forward. Instead they've avoided the topic and parsed their word by asserting that he is currently "asymptomatic" and ready to pitch. That should be telling given your admission that the likelihood of future injury is the "key" issue here. If Dr. Andrew told Aiken's team that it wasn't an issue going forward, Aiken's team would have leak that Doctors? I only see one doctor quoted in Drellich's piece. What other doctor(s) are you referring to here? "Guarantee"? Where are you getting that quote from? Furthermore, the doctor's quote in the piece is specifically prefaced by indicating that the doctor did not examine Aiken and he does know "what [the abnormality] actually is..." That there is one hypothetical in the ethos that would not make it a problem("Maybe...he has a freakishly big flexor-pronator mass..."), does not establish that it is not a problem or does not increase the risk of injury going forward. He doesn't have any evidence one way or the other, because he doesn't know any specifics about the actual case. On the other hand, one or more, if not all, of the actual doctors that examined Aiken and know the specifics of his case concluded, in their medical judgment, that it was enough of a medical problem to fail his physical. Who said it was torn? You are not arguing that a torn UCL is the only elbow problem serious enough to legitimately fail a physical, are you? Dickey was able to to pitch into his early 20s without a UCL until the stress on the other part of his elbow deteriorated his stuff down to a junk-baller. Your logic is flawed here. Consider: Tanaka has a slight torn UCl right now. Pitcher X doesn't have a slight torn UCL right now. Regardless, they both have a risk of needing TJ in the future that's above 0% but less than 100%. That the pitcher X could need TJ going forward, but can pass a physical right now, does not mean that Tanaka should also pass a physical just because he also has an TJ risk in between 0-100% The issue is whether Aiken's elbow problem creates an injury (or performance deterioration) risk going forward. That pitchers with healthy and normal UCLs also are at some risk of TJ doesn't mean that Aiken's elbow problems are irrelevant because they don't "guarantee" TJ. Also, the injury risk with Aiken isn't limited to just a torn UCL and TJ. The issue likely also involves the stress the abnormality puts on other joints and ligaments. I'm sorry I have to call BS on this. Show your work. You are claiming (against the medical judgment and knowledge of the doctors who examined Aiken) that having a small UCL, as you term it, (which has been described as "he may have some of the UCL but not much") does not create additional injury risk going forward. Can you cite any medical study or source that concludes that a significantly smaller UCL does not put extra stress on surrounding ligaments or joint while pitching, or otherwise does not correlate with additional pitching injuries? If not, how in the world can you (without knowledge of the specifics of Aiken's elbow) claim that the doctor(s), who examined Aiken's elbow and concluded it was a significant enough problem to fail his physical, were wrong?
Was referring to the Astros in that first statement. How if it was a proven significant injury risk, not only would Aiken's camp not be chirping, the Astros would/should walk away from negotiations. No doctor knows that (regarding small UCL's) whether or not it makes him more prone to injury. It's a congenital anomaly. Yes, him. The actual doctors involved can't comment on the case without anybody's permission. Even the person who said "he may have some of the UCL, not much" wasn't a doctor. But he does know about small UCL's and how there is no evidence that it will tear sooner, faster, or be less successful to repair. Having a congenital anomaly could cause the physical to be "abnormal"...and it's semantics at that point if you want to call it a failed physical. You could have a congenitally small penis, which wouldn't prevent you from doing your job, but if you were applying to be a male stripper it might cause you to "fail your physical". Who said it was gone? You keep comparing him to Dickey who was born without one. And Aiken's small UCL resume significantly trumps Dickeys no UCL resume. If there's no evidence (scientifically or anecdotally) to say he has a higher injury risk, he has the same risk/probability of needing TJ surgery as Strasburgh did. You're basically now saying stuff that could apply to any young pitcher. Again, you have no evidence or knowledge that having a small UCL makes him more injury prone. Where did the doctos ever say that it did? It raised a concern on the physical, but I challenge you to find any data that it does make him more at risk. Aiken's camp has the benefit of his pitching performance thus far for which the Astros thought highly enough of him to not only pick him first but offer him $6.5 million. Now they want to lower that because of a finding that has very little to zero specific data saying it would be a problem. I think the Astros would need that data more to show that it WILL likely be a problem in the mythical future vs Aiken needing data saying it won't. The only data out there is Aiken's pitching performance that the Astros loved.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Gut feel is that Aiken & Nix sign by Friday at 5 pm ET. <a href="https://twitter.com/PeterOttoson">@PeterOttoson</a>: your opinion? <a href="https://twitter.com/astros">@Astros</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MLBDraft">@MLBDraft</a></p>— Jim Callis (@jimcallisMLB) <a href="https://twitter.com/jimcallisMLB/statuses/489408659748028416">July 16, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> [rQUOTEr]... Since the Draft began in 1965, two No. 1 overall selections have not signed. In 1971, Peoria High (Ill.) catcher Danny Goodwin turned down the White Sox and went first overall again four years later, this time to the Twins, after attending Southern. Mount Vernon Nazarene (Ohio) right-hander Tim Belcher rebuffed the Twins in 1983 and signed with the Yankees as the top choice in the secondary phase of the 1984 January Draft. Two recent parallels to Aiken's situation happened in the previous four Drafts. In 2010, Texas A&M right-hander Barret Loux agreed to a below-market $2 million bonus as the sixth overall choice by the D-backs, but failed a post-Draft physical. Arizona decided to take the No. 7 pick in 2011 (which would become prized righty Archie Bradley) rather than sign Loux for a reduced amount. After negotiations between MLB and the MLBPA, Loux was declared a free agent and signed with the Rangers for $312,000. Last year, St. Ignatius High (San Francisco) lefty Matt Krook agreed to terms with the Marlins as a supplemental first-round selection (35th overall) but failed his physical. Under the current Draft rules -- which didn't apply to Loux in previous Collective Bargaining Agreement -- Miami offered him 40 percent of his assigned value and received the 36th pick in the 2014 Draft. Krook went on to attend Oregon, where he had Tommy John surgery this spring. Multiple baseball sources contacted by MLB.com had a difficult time imagining that MLB would consent to granting Aiken free agency. If he did, estimates on the contract he might receive on the open market started at $25 million to $30 million. When four first-rounders became free agents after teams improperly tendered them contracts in 1996, Matt White ($10.2 million) and Travis Lee ($10 million) received five times the bonus of No. 1 overall pick Kris Benson ($2 million). As of Tuesday evening, no further talks between Aiken and the Astros have been scheduled. Luhnow expressed hope that his club still would sign Aiken and Nix, though he admitted he didn't know if that would happen. "We took Brady Aiken with the No. 1 pick in the Draft," Luhnow said. "That's not a pick you play games with. It's absurd that anyone would think that." http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/hou...-brady-aiken?ymd=20140715&content_id=84829724[/rQUOTEr]
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Hopping on w/<a href="https://twitter.com/MikeMeltser">@MikeMeltser</a> & <a href="https://twitter.com/PayneNFL">@PayneNFL</a> on <a href="https://twitter.com/SportsRadio610">@SportsRadio610</a> in Houston to talk about Aiken, Nix, <a href="https://twitter.com/astros">@Astros</a> in 5 minutes.</p>— Jim Callis (@jimcallisMLB) <a href="https://twitter.com/jimcallisMLB/statuses/489438193750917121">July 16, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Callis feels that not only will they sign Aiken... but it may be closer to the original $6.5 million than not (based on the agent leaking all this info trying to back the Astros into a corner). Also said things could get really bad if MLB forces the Astros to adhere to the Nix agreement, but since it was contingent on the Aiken signing and ends up being way over slot, it could result in some severe penalties (have to forfeit the next two first round picks). Thus, Aiken/Nix actually possibly have "leverage" in that scenario... they have to sign Aiken to keep their agreement with Nix, and keep future first round picks. Ugh... almost as fun as the CSN mess! (FWIW, I doubt the Nix "agreement" can be enforced.... but it does depend on how much discussion and documentation they have regarding it).
The Stros need to get this done. Kid is a stud, and with Appel failing(I will finally admit that the Stros botched this one), they need to inject the farm system with new life.
The Astros will never get the benefit of the doubt in this situation, due to what they've done over the past few years. Intentionally tanking, cutting payroll to absurdly low levels, the Correa "gaming" of the draft (that allowed for Ruiz/McCullers to sign), and Crane's ridiculous actions have all served to raise questions about the Astros in people's minds.
You referring to Nix? :grin: I honestly think if it gets done, it will be more to avoid the potential backlash/litigation/possible penalty that could result if they can't pay Nix the already agreed upon deal than it will be just to keep Aiken "the gimp!"
Well, the s*** could really hit the fan if the same strategy they used to get Ruiz/McCullers comes back to bite them with Nix.
Well, it is obvious that the Astros are a bush league franchise now. The Jerome Williams love was the obvious hint, am I right?
This echoed my sentiments: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I liked it better when the Astros just won a lot of Base Ball games and were generally a well-liked organization</p>— Astros County (@AstrosCounty) <a href="https://twitter.com/AstrosCounty/statuses/489061047664263169">July 15, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Yeah... thought this was pretty funny too... <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>the astros win the 2017 WS after they sue baseball and win on a technicality</p>— BuzzFeed Lenny (@weed_mouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/weed_mouse/statuses/489057575745245185">July 15, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It's embarrassing to an extent. I used to LOVE the Astros, and even now, I find myself more interested in following the minor league affiliate than the team. Multiple reasons- Can't watch games. Astros don't even try to win-this honestly bothers me more than anything The Astros are becoming an unfriendly destination for players -I really enjoy following the Springers, Singletons, and Keuchels of the world, but then you ask yourself? What happens when Springer becomes a FA, or Dallas Keuchel for that matter? Will the Astros lowball them while you have bigger market teams stealing your minor league gems? Ugh.
FWIW this franchise has yet to display the develop them/trade them treadmill. Not to say it won't happen, but so far we haven't done it.
Springer, turned down that ridiculous offer from the Stros, and will wait for a massive contract he will get in a few years(Played ball up north). This guy is automatic 40HR-120RbI's and will be a future Yankee if I had to guess.
