Slings and Arrows of Outrageous Fortune: Injuries 2010

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

After missing just over a week with some knee funkiness, Justin Turner is back in Bisonry, and kicking into overdrive: .438/.486/.813(!) over his last ten games (35 PA, 3 HR, 6 XBH, 7 R, 7 BI). For the year, he's trip-slashing .315/.378/.482 in the minors while flittiing about the middle and corner infield.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Beltran to undergo MRI on sore right knee By Anthony DiComo / MLB.com | 09/28/10 11:06 PM ET NEW YORK -- Infusing some concern into this final homestand, Mets outfielder Carlos Beltran left Tuesday's game after five innings with right knee discomfort. Though he does not believe the injury is serious, Beltran, who underwent surgery on the same knee in January, will have an MRI Wednesday to determine its severity. "I don't feel like I have to worry," Beltran said. "The pain that I felt last year, it bothered me to walk. It bothered me to do everything. I've been walking here, and I don't feel that sensation." Reaching on an error in the fourth inning, Beltran felt pain for the first time as he led off first base. Though he played an additional inning in the field, Beltran alerted trainer Ray Ramirez to his condition shortly thereafter, prompting the Mets to remove him from the game. "I have to be smart about it," Beltran said. "I just can't go out there feeling like that. It's not right." There is reason for concern regarding Beltran, who underwent arthroscopic right knee surgery in January. Originally expected back by May, he did not wind up returning until the first game after the All-Star break. Since his return, Beltran has had no setbacks -- though he did sit out a game last month with tendinitis in his left knee -- a result of overcompensating during his recovery. Beltran, 33, also underwent surgery on both knees prior to the 2008 season. "This is the first time that we've really had an issue with that knee since he's been back," Mets manager Jerry Manuel said. "He's been pretty good for the most part." After struggling on both offense and defense upon his return, Beltran had finally begun hitting with consistency in September, entering Tuesday's play batting .364 with five home runs over his last 17 games. Now, his team may have to stall that momentum. With just six games remaining in the regular season, it seems unlikely that the Mets would allow Beltran to play again this year. But they will wait for the results of Wednesday's MRI before making any decisions. "Honestly, in my heart, I don't feel like I have to worry," Beltran said. "I felt something. I don't know what it is. But after being back and being able to play all these games, I didn't feel anything until today. So let's see what happens."

[Ceetar]

It's worrisome, but normal everyday healthy players do occasionally feel soreness and pain in their knees as well.

MRI should be helpful. Hey, at least it happened now instead of January. Should get a pretty fair picture of what his knee looks like.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

My knees hurt last night with all the humidity.

Anyway, with Pagan away, Beltran hurt, and Feliciano PH for, Nick Evans played all 3 OF positions last nite. He can also play 3B and 1B, not a bad RH bat to have hanging around.

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: My knees hurt last night with all the humidity. Anyway, with Pagan away, Beltran hurt, and Feliciano PH for, Nick Evans played all 3 OF positions last nite. He can also play 3B and 1B, not a bad RH bat to have hanging around.

Let's work him out at 2B too. Next year we can have a Murphy Evans super utility platoon of doom!

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, Ebbens is really only an emergency plan at third, so second is unlikely. But sure, think big.

[G-Fafif]

Beltran MRI reveals inflammation, deemed not serious (by Mets, so grain of salt). He's been shut down, fifth Met who's season has ended in September.

ATTRITION!
Attrition!

[Guest Edgy DC]

I don't know if this belongs in a 2011 thread or what, but:

Francisco Rodriguez (thumb) threw 20 pitches in a bullpen session with Tiburones de La Guaira on Wednesday. http://eluniversal.com/2010/10/20/tibur_ava_el-kid-rodriguez-s_20A4633413.shtml

[ashie62]

20 pitches or punches?

[TransMonk]

The K-Rod jokes are going to get old pretty quickly.

After reading fan comments regarding K-Rod all over the interweb, I believe that with all of the fan dispondency that comes with what will obviously be a rebuilding year in 2011, one thing that folks better start wrapping their minds around right now is the fact that Frankie will be wearing Mets laundry next season...and possibly the one after that.

Ugh.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Oh, I think they'll try to move him.

[TransMonk]

They can try...

[batmagadanleadoff]

There's no way I'd let K-Rod finish enough games for his 2012 $17.5M contract to vest. Wouldn't happen on my watch.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree. But you have to be very careful to do it in a way that won't raise the hackles of the Players Association.

I think I'd do it by giving the closer's job to somebody else as soon as it's feasible. Especially if 2011 turns out, as seems pretty likely, to be a non-contending season.

[ashie62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I agree. But you have to be very careful to do it in a way that won't raise the hackles of the Players Association. I think I'd do it by giving the closer's job to somebody else as soon as it's feasible. Especially if 2011 turns out, as seems pretty likely, to be a non-contending season.

But we have Jason Bay, Carlos Beltran & Jose Reyes for the full year.

[Guest Edgy DC]

We've got to get away from even the notion that contention is linked to Francisco Rodriguez getting save opportunities. The bullpen was fine and dandy after he left last year, and I'd bet on a closing tandem of Parnell and Takahashi over Rodriguez seven days a week.

Perez being in the bullpen didn't hurt the team. Rodriguez being gone didn't hurt the team. What the bullpen needs is more offense and less Jerry. They're halfway there.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Edgy DC wrote: We've got to get away from even the notion that contention is linked to Francisco Rodriguez getting save opportunities.

Oh, I'm with you on that. I'm just not expecting that Mets management will be.

[Benjamin Grimm]

To elaborate on my point (such as it was), if the Mets are doing well and Rodriguez is pitching well, pulling him from the closer role will raise all kinds of red flags, I'd think. But if the team isn't contending, they can legitimately decide to try to groom Parnell, or Mejia, or whoever to be Frankie's successor. And I don't think the union would really be able to gripe about that.

[Fman99]

Seriously, what's to stop manager X and GM Y from slotting him as an 8th inning guy, in an attempt to keep his option from voiding? Pissing him off and risking a punch to the mouth?

For all of his 62 saves and bluster, and routine, I don't think he brought anything as closer that Takasashi 2.0 doesn't bring you at 1/50th the attitude.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The problem is that whether you sign or develop relievers, that attitude is part of what teams tend to pay for/nurture. I support shedding Rodriguez, but it's going to take a long hard deliberate look at the team's approach to the pen before any one move is going to rid them of attitude.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I agree. But you have to be very careful to do it in a way that won't raise the hackles of the Players Association. I think I'd do it by giving the closer's job to somebody else as soon as it's feasible. Especially if 2011 turns out, as seems pretty likely, to be a non-contending season.

Yes. I wouldn't want to do anything that would compromise the Mets ability to contend for a playoff spot.

I suppose that the Union would complain or even file a grievance after next season if they felt that the Mets used K-Rod in bad faith in order to avoid the 2012 $17.5M hit. I think that that case would (or should, actually)be tough for the Union to win; player usage is a discretionary team function and it shouldn't be up to an arbitrator to determine how a team utilizes its players. So long as the team can demonstrate any colorable or remotely plausible (emphasis should be on "remotely") explanation to justify player usage, the complaining player shouldn't have a strong case. But there's a slippery slope.

The Mets would have to be total jackasses to lose a grievance for using K-rod in bad faith. (doubles as a straight man setup line here)

[Frayed Knot]

... player usage is a discretionary team function and it shouldn't be up to an arbitrator to determine how a team utilizes its players. So long as the team can demonstrate any colorable or remotely plausible (emphasis should be on "remotely") explanation to justify player usage, the complaining player shouldn't have a strong case. But there's a slippery slope.

If a team showed a pattern over 2+ seasons of using a reliever almost exclusively in 9th or extra inning, game-leading situations and then all of a sudden stopped doing so for reasons that couldn't be explained by injury or effectiveness but could be explained by not wanting an option clause to kick in I think the union would have a pretty good case on its hands.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Here's the thing, though... legally, shouldn't teams have the right to deliberately and baldfacedly avoid triggering the option?

I realize he had less juice, but isn't that exactly what releasing Alex Cora was about?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, Cora was performing poorly enough that releasing him wouldn't alter the elevation of anyone's eyebrows.

But let's say David Wright had a clause in his contract that he gets a $2 million bonus for 500 plate appearances. He's having a solid year, hitting .300 with about 25 homers, and then suddenly he's getting a lot of "rest".

I think these performance clauses are given with the understanding that the team will act in good faith; that they'll play a guy who's producing and not alter his playing time solely due to the contract clauses.

[Frayed Knot]

Here's the thing, though... legally, shouldn't teams have the right to deliberately and baldfacedly avoid triggering the option? I realize he had less juice, but isn't that exactly what releasing Alex Cora was about?

Lawyers get lots of money arguing about terms like "good faith" and the like.

Cora, it could be argued, was among the last guys on the roster and well past his sell-by date when the Mets decided to go with Tejada in his spot.
Tougher to make that claim if/when a 29 y/o reliever who has finished more than 80% of the games he's ever appeared in over an eight year career suddenly is denied finishing opportunities at a time which coincides with him being on the verge of reaching a high-paying threshold in a freely bargained contract.

[Guest Edgy DC]

understanding that the team will act in good faith

Team playing hardball: That may be your understanding. But if it's not written in paper, it wasn't my understanding.

Cora was certainly having a bad year, but it's not like the Mets had a talented guy they had to add and a stretch run to power up for. He was released and they brought up Ruben Tejada, who didn't improve them a bit and wasn't expected to.

He was released to dodge an option. No doubt.

[batmagadanleadoff]

In every contract, it's implied that the parties will act in good faith, even if it's not specifically written into the contract. Still, teams ought to be accorded a great amount of deference in deciding how its players are used -- practically to the point where the team's practices are beyond question. The David Wright example is tougher, but in K-Rod's case, it should be easier for the Mets to purposely and by design, prevent him from reaching his vesting numbers. I say this because K-Rod is a relief pitcher. Where is it written that a reliever, even an effective reliever, must finish the game? In my opinion, the team would have to walk into the hearing and admit that they acted in bad faith in order to lose this hypothetical grievance that we're discussing. Either that, or the Union would need to get a hold of some internal memo documenting the Mets bad intent vis-a-vis K-Rod. And in that event, the Mets would be total jackasses for putting such a thing in writing.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Which, of course, we just did. WE'RE BLOWING IT FOR THE METS!

But is there any doubt among any of us at all that Cora was released to dodge the vesting? Could there be any doubt at all?

I wouldn't be surprised if someone didn't actually say, "Alex, we appreciate every effort you've given us, but seeing as how you haven't really been getting it done, it wouldn't be prudent of us to trigger that option year. I'm sure you can understand. We'd love to have you join our organization again, just not, you know, on those terms."

[Frayed Knot]

Where is it written that a reliever, even an effective reliever, must finish the game? In my opinion, the team would have to walk into the hearing and admit that they acted in bad faith in order to lose this hypothetical grievance that we're discussing. Either that, or the Union would need to get a hold of some internal memo documenting the Mets bad intent vis-a-vis K-Rod.

Nowhere.
But I also think that a sudden departure from an established 8-year pattern (3 with this particular team) that has no other apparent cause except for coinciding with the nearing of the threshold would give the union a helluvalotta ammo to the point where they'd likely be pretty confident of their case even absent incriminating memos or outright admissions.

If I'm the union I'm arguing that the signing of the player, from his track record leading up to the contract, to the reason & timing they did so (Wagner injury), to the money they paid (clearly not set-up cash) was with the idea that he'd be the closer and that the inclusion of that option and the clauses that triggered them (health & frequency) were to insure the team against him no longer being effective or sound enough four years out. I'd then say that the non-inclusion of such an option would have been a deal-breaker at the time and to simply yank it away from him via whim or buyer's regret would show that bad faith on the club's half for including in the first place.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: Where is it written that a reliever, even an effective reliever, must finish the game? In my opinion, the team would have to walk into the hearing and admit that they acted in bad faith in order to lose this hypothetical grievance that we're discussing. Either that, or the Union would need to get a hold of some internal memo documenting the Mets bad intent vis-a-vis K-Rod. Nowhere. But I also think that a sudden departure from an established 8-year pattern (3 with this particular team) that has no other apparent cause except for coinciding with the nearing of the threshold would give the union a helluvalotta ammo to the point where they'd likely be pretty confident of their case even absent incriminating memos or outright admissions. If I'm the union I'm arguing that the signing of the player, from his track record leading up to the contract, to the reason & timing they did so (Wagner injury), to the money they paid (clearly not set-up cash) was with the idea that he'd be the closer and that the inclusion of that option and the clauses that triggered them (health & frequency) were to insure the team against him no longer being effective or sound enough four years out. I'd then say that the non-inclusion of such an option would have been a deal-breaker at the time and to simply yank it away from him via whim or buyer's regret would show that bad faith on the club's half for including in the first place.

If I was the arbitrator hearing your arguments, I'd throw your case out the window and out of my courtroom. Besides, you don't even know what Wayne Hagin looks like.