ptatc

Ok. But that was the question.

You are both wrong if you think a fair deal is Cease+ to get Pederson.

Ah, so you were purposefully not discussing the topic in the thread just trying to change the narrative.

Unfortunately, that's not the discussion. You are wrong that he is not more valuable than Pederson.

Yes. So don't ignore that for his trade value as well.

Usually do if its going to be a lengthy one. Take a week at each level to gradually work up. deGromm started at A ball this week too.

i think you are ignoring some information here. Teams will look at the sabermetrics (which technically only works for baseball as its the Society for American Baseball Research) but they also look at talent and results. They will see a pitcher who can throw 98 with a slider, curve and changeup. They are all inconsistent but all coaches think they can fix that. If you ignore the talent, you are only working with half the information.

Doesn't matter. He is out to create controversy and drive up ratings. Far too many people take him far too seriously. He and Boers would talk about it on the air.

I think that was the point as the poster said that the suggestion was to acquire Pederson the Sox would need to give up Cease+. this was what started the conversion/debate/arguement.

My point being that if both are mediocre and Pederson is only a rental, Cease is worth more than him based on team control alone. Pederson is definitely not worth Cease+ from the original comment.

And what a Pedersons peripherals?

You have to remember, Bernstein believes his job is to create controversy and "educate" the listeners who are not as smart as him. This comment falls into the former category.

Just get the Mighty Mighty Bosstones to do it for you.

Depends on how you qualify babying. Taking a guy whose pitched 42 innings in the last 2 years and expecting quality innings at 4 times that amount in this year alone isn't babying. That's just being smart.

How about an ultra then. Do you consistently run those?

Thus isn't load management. Load management implies healthy players whose time is limited because normal wear and tear of a normal season may be too much for them to perform at a high level for each game. Injury prevention is secondary. In this case you've got a pitcher who has not had a regular load for 2 straight years due to injuries. This isn't load management. This is knowing his individual situation the past 2 years and wanting to prevent injuries and have him available for the post season

I would think his agent would like it. If he continues to pitch regularly he has a good chance of injury from fatigue which won't help his contract situation. If they don't give him a break he will most likely either get injured or be so gassed by the post season that his performance will tank which won't help his contract situation either. I bet Boras has talked to the FO about it.

It shouldn't be an issue. Even if it's a little weak the injured muscle isn't significant for a right handed swing. The uninvolved muscle have had plenty of time to regain their strength.

It shouldn't much. It's his left arm. With a right handed swing it's the outside muscles that do the work. As long as the range is fine there shouldn't be an issue even if it's a little weak.

I edited the post to add the extra important step of the physician consult. Legally the physician has the ultimate say and if they did the surgery as in this case, the trainer probably didn't have much to say about it.

They will work with the team physicians and then communicate this to the coaching staff. Who in turn will tell the FO. They will then send out the press release. Sometimes things change along the way. The trainers work under the physicians who have the ultimate say.

It will be interesting to see. 5 weeks just isnt feasible for a full tendon repair. But as we all know press releases don't always tell the whole story and the procedure may have been different

Makes much more sense if it was truly a repair.

Yes you did you said that I was using the functional definition as opposed to the anatomic definition. The anatomic definition only applies in an cadaver lab where function doesn't matter. In the clinic where your therapist told you the plantaris effected your foot, and how Grandal injured his leg the functional definition would apply not the anatomical one you found on the pictures you posted.

The politeus does have a function at the foot. I explained how it does by controlling the motion if the entire lower leg. It definitely has more function at the foot than the plantaris, which serves no function at all. Basic biomechanics.